In Codex: Orks the Waaagh! rule mentions that a Waaagh! can be declared on any turn but the first turn. If a Waaagh! is declared in the Shooting phase, then all Ork units (excepting Grots) gain the Fleet rule, allowing them to charge after running. This benefit comes at a cost: if a 1 is rolled when engaging in this "Waaagh! movement" then the Ork unit suffers a wound.

Some people have decided that Orks need not necessarily suffer this wound, arguing that if the Ork player has all his units run and then declares a Waaagh!, the running won't count as Waaagh! movement but will not prevent the Ork units from charging in the Assault Phase. After all, there's no mention of when in the Shooting phase that the Waaagh! is declared, and the rule declares that all Ork units are affected, and not simply the units that attempt to run after the Waaagh! is declared. So apparently there is such a thing as a free lunch...

I'd like to read people's reasons for holding or rejecting this position, and criticisms of those arguments.

My own reason for rejecting this position is as follows:

If the Waaagh! confers the benefit of Fleet to all Ork units regardless of when in the Shooting phase it is declared, then it likewise confers the cost of a wound to any , since all running movement in that phase has been converted to Waaagh! movement. Just as the benefit is retroactively applied to all units that ran, so is the cost. Call this an application of the principle of symmetry.

Conversely if the Waaagh! does not confer the benefit of Fleet to all Ork units regardless of when in the Shooting phase it is declared, then only units running after the Waaagh! is declared gain the benefit of Fleet at the risk of losing a wound. But the Waaagh! rule does not fix any such temporal conditions on which units are affected by the rule, so any unit to gain the benefit gains it at the cost specified.

Discuss.

Some people have decided that Orks need not necessarily suffer this wound, arguing that if the Ork player has all his units run and then declares a Waaagh!, the running won't count as Waaagh! movement but will not prevent the Ork units from charging in the Assault Phase. After all, there's no mention of when in the Shooting phase that the Waaagh! is declared, and the rule declares that all Ork units are affected, and not simply the units that attempt to run after the Waaagh! is declared. So apparently there is such a thing as a free lunch...

This is how the rule actually works now. This is clear as clear things that are clear.

Sadly, people cry and whine about it. -shrug-

As for "my reasons", well, it's simple. It's what the rule does. Asking for the rule to work differently is as unfair as me asking for my Bolters to be AP1 or for my Venerable Dreadnoughts to have more attacks again.

I will disagree, because in the ork codex it says that once the waagh is called THEN they gain fleet. IMO you need to declare the waagh first.

rednekgunner:

Care to elaborate? What precisely are you disagreeing with?

If we go with your more restrictive interpretation then Ork players cannot actually WAAAAUGH! at all as there is no movement associated with Fleet [of Foot].

Yeah, they got a free lunch. It fails to compensate for auto-losing to Land Raiders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rednekgunner wrote:I will disagree, because in the ork codex it says that once the waagh is called THEN they gain fleet. IMO you need to declare the waagh first.

I understand what you're saying, but you have to remember that units could not run in 4th edition if they didn't have Fleet. You had to call the WAUGH because otherwise your movement was finished when the movement phase ended.

In 4th, all Fleet does is allow you to assault after running. Whereas Waaaugh! used to be the special rule that let you run, now it's a special rule that lets you assault after running, and one due to poor wording and edition changes that can be declared at any time in the Shooting Phase.

Nurglitch wrote:rednekgunner:

Care to elaborate? What precisely are you disagreeing with?

I was disagreeing with Gwar's interpretation.

sourclams:

That is false: Fleet allows a unit to charge in the Assault phase after running in the Shooting phase. Therefore any running during a Shooting phase in which the Waaagh! rule is invoked is by definition Waaagh! movement.

Also, it might be something to point out that the only Ork players that 'auto-lose' to Land Raiders are those who don't take Tankbustas. But that's off-topic. If you want to start a thread in Tactics, please do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
rednekgunner:

Okay, could you explain how you were disagreeing with Gwar's interpretation?

sourclams wrote:If we go with your more restrictive interpretation then Ork players cannot actually WAAAAUGH! at all as there is no movement associated with Fleet [of Foot].

Yeah, they got a free lunch. It fails to compensate for auto-losing to Land Raiders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rednekgunner wrote:I will disagree, because in the ork codex it says that once the waagh is called THEN they gain fleet. IMO you need to declare the waagh first.

I understand what you're saying, but you have to remember that units could not run in 4th edition if they didn't have Fleet. You had to call the WAUGH because otherwise your movement was finished when the movement phase ended.

In 4th, all Fleet does is allow you to assault after running. Whereas Waaaugh! used to be the special rule that let you run, now it's a special rule that lets you assault after running, and one due to poor wording and edition changes that can be declared at any time in the Shooting Phase.

While I do agree with being able to call it anytime during the shooting phase, but you can't run then decide to fleet. If unit a was to run, and then you call waaagh unit a wold not benefit from the waaagh, but units b & c would because they did not run. It would be like failing an armor save and saying I get to roll my invuln now.

Yes, please explain why you disagree with how the rules actually work?

Nurglitch wrote:sourclams:

That is false: Fleet allows a unit to charge in the Assault phase after running in the Shooting phase. Therefore any running during a Shooting phase in which the Waaagh! rule is invoked is by definition Waaagh! movement.

Also, it might be something to point out that the only Ork players that 'auto-lose' to Land Raiders are those who don't take Tankbustas. But that's off-topic. If you want to start a thread in Tactics, please do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
rednekgunner:

Okay, could you explain how you were disagreeing with Gwar's interpretation?

I was disagreeing with the fact that they get to run, and if it is good enough, call a waaagh & assault. The idea behind a waaagh is to let the ork player take a gamble, and hope they can get into assault. The only way you can call a waaagh anytime is Ghazghkull.

rednekgunner wrote:
I was disagreeing with the fact that they get to run, and if it is good enough, call a waaagh & assault. The idea behind a waaagh is to let the ork player take a gamble, and hope they can get into assault. The only way you can call a waaagh anytime is Ghazghkull.

What? You do Know the rules for how Running and Fleet work in 5th edition yes? Running takes Place in the Shooting Phase. The Waaagh can be declared at any point in the Shooting Phase. Once you have run, you can call the waaagh. This gives them fleet, which allows them to assault even if they have run.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and how exactly do you know the "idea" behind the Waaagh! Rule? Did you write the codex?

Nurglitch wrote:sourclams:

That is false: Fleet allows a unit to charge in the Assault phase after running in the Shooting phase. Therefore any running during a Shooting phase in which the Waaagh! rule is invoked is by definition Waaagh! movement.

Yeah except that's really not what the rules say. Running is running. Waaaugh is the Fleet USR, which no longer has any movement component, at all. Waaugh! literally refers to movement that no longer exists.

Whatever, I thought this was called you make the call, not bash anyone who has a different opinion, but ok. I will bow out and let y'all figure this out on your own.
Peace

rednekgunner wrote:Whatever, I thought this was called you make the call, not bash anyone who has a different opinion, but ok. I will bow out and let y'all figure this out on your own.
Peace

Good lord. YMTC does not litteraly mean "You say whatever you want".

It's a forum for debate and discussion of rules issues. I pointed out that your reasoning is flawed and incorrect. Either back up your argument or admit you were mistaken. Don't go crying like a child!

Obvious RAI compromise based on 5e intricacies:

All the Ork squads Run. Ork player declares Waaaugh!. Only Ork squads that want to assault and rolled a '1' for movement in the Shooting Phase suffer the WAAAUGH! wound.

sourclams:

Yes, that's what the rules say. The rules say that there's Waaagh! movement during the Shooting phase and running is the only movement during the Shooting phase. Therefore running is Waaagh! movement.

The rules make this inference just as they make the inference that Ork Boyz move 6" in the Movement phase, despite the fact that no such distance is stated explicitly in the rules: but they do state that they are Infantry and they do state that Infantry move 6", leaving players to complete the syllogism.

rednekgunner:

I think Gwar, in his own way, is requesting that you explain why we should share your opinion. After all, we already have our own opinions and agree to disagree simply by holding them. In YMDC, at least as far as I'm concerned, we meet to compare our opinions to have them checked for congruence with the facts of the matter, so we can be assured that we hold good opinions, divulge ourself of bad opinions, and generally understand how the game works for everyone rather than just whichever two people happen to be playing at any given moment.

Nurglitch wrote:sourclams:
rednekgunner:

I think Gwar, in his own way, is requesting that you explain why we should share your opinion. After all, we already have our own opinions and agree to disagree simply by holding them. In YMDC, at least as far as I'm concerned, we meet to compare our opinions to have them checked for congruence with the facts of the matter, so we can be assured that we hold good opinions, divulge ourself of bad opinions, and generally understand how the game works for everyone rather than just whichever two people happen to be playing at any given moment.

Well if that is what he is trying to say, then he needs to say it and leave the one liners out of his responses. I am not above being wrong, but I also don't enjoy people insulting others.

Now Gwar, how about next time asking something like, "Where did you come up with that conclusion?", or other similar responses you might get better reactions.

rednekgunner:

So where did you come up with that conclusion?

Nurglitch wrote:sourclams:

Yes, that's what the rules say. The rules say that there's Waaagh! movement during the Shooting phase and running is the only movement during the Shooting phase. Therefore running is Waaagh! movement.

No, it's not what the rules say.

WAAAUGH! = Fleet of Foot

Then the rules cite WAAAAUGH! movement. Turning to the Fleet USR, there's no movement component. WAAAUGH! references movement that no longer exists. Just like wargear that affects target priority tests, the relevant rule has disappeared.

The rules say that there's Waaagh! movement during the Shooting phase and running is the only movement during the Shooting phase.

Then clearly by your own argument, WAAAAUGH! no longer exists. As you say, running is the only movement during the Shooting phase and nothing in the WAAAAUGH! rule allows you to make any sort of special movement, all it does is grant you access to the Fleet of Foot special rule, which also no longer exists.

You're trying to make backward-compatible both the most permissive rules interpretation (that WAAAUGH! still exists even though the rules are now gone) and the most restrictive.

RAW: Waaaaugh! doesn't exist.

RAW: Waaaugh! has no movement component and an intelligent Ork player can use an order of operations loophole to ignore the only drawback.

RAI is all that you've got for the foundation of your argument.

Why thank you for asking. At the shop I play at we have adopted the INAT FAQ, because GW has all but endorsed it, and in it it says, "ORK.31A.01 – Q: Can a player wait until the end of the shooting phase to call the Waaagh?
A: Yes, but any units that make a „run‟ move before the Waaagh! is called do not gain the fleet ability in the subsequent Assault phase [clarification]. Also, it was written by many people who are considered to be experts in the field of 40k.

Nurglitch with all due respects the Waaagh! movement would now be in the assault phase as that is where fleet now works.

(@rednekgunner)
Its like the reinforced ram. In 4th you could tank charge vehicles which had lower AV, but in 5th you can't. What you can do to vehicles is ram them, but reinforced ram only gives the vehicle the ability to tank charge. So it basically no longer works as it is meant to.

Now by all means feel free to make up a house rule so that the rules work in 5th but that is not what the rules say. (INAT does just that and make the rule work as it did in 4th which is a blatant rule change)

Thanks for stating your opinion.

rednekgunner wrote:Also, it was written by many people who are considered to be experts in the field of 40k.

At least 50% of the people in this thread disagree with you on this one.

If you make a "run" move, you cannot charge.

If you make a "fleet" move, you can charge.

So if, at the time of movement, you "ran" or "fleeted" you can quite quickly figure out if your entitled to an assault.

You can I guess by RAW, enacting the rule after you make a standard run movement, avoid the wound chance and still benefit from the "fleet" rule but the above is how I see it/disown anyone trying to suggest otherwise. I.e purposefully avoiding a clearly stated penalty purely by abusing the semantics of an old codex played within a more recent codex.

Razerous wrote:If you make a "run" move, you cannot charge.

If you make a "fleet" move, you can charge.

There is no such thing as a 'fleet move' in 5th edition. Fleet is an ability that allows you to assault even if you ran in the shooting phase. It does not confer any movement.

sourclams:

Yes, the Waaagh! rule does confer Fleet, and Fleet is not movement. The Fleet rule enables a unit to charge in the Assault phase if it has run in the Shooting phase. This does not leave Waaagh! movement as an orphaned rule like the wargear affecting target priority. The 4th edition Ork Codex was clearly written to be compatible with both 4th and 5th edition and as such contains no orphans.

However, I can see why my argument about the identity of Waaagh! is difficult to follow, because you appear to think that it distinguishes between Waaagh! movement and running. But that's not the case. Since running is the only movement in the Shooting phase, and involves rolling 1D6, it must be running. You know, the old "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and that's all there is to being a duck, then that walking quacking thing over there must be a duck."

By the rules as written Waaagh! movement clearly exists: it's written down in the Codex for anyone to see.

By the rules as written Waaagh! necessarily has running as its movement component and as I pointed out in my first post any fiddling with the order of operations to exploit a loophole is cheating.

Given that my argument is based entirely on the rules as they are written down, I'd say that your critique of my argument as not based in the rules is plainly incorrect.

Tri:

The Fleet rule affects whether a unit can charge in the Assault phase if it has run. Since the Waaagh! rule specifies that Waaagh! movement is declared and resolved the Shooting phase, it happens in the shooting phase as running and charging in the Assault phase is resolved as if the Ork units had Fleet.

Nurglitch wrote:
Yes, the Waaagh! rule does confer Fleet, and Fleet is not movement. The Fleet rule enables a unit to charge in the Assault phase if it has run in the Shooting phase. This does not leave Waaagh! movement as an orphaned rule like the wargear affecting target priority. The 4th edition Ork Codex was clearly written to be compatible with both 4th and 5th edition and as such contains no orphans.

RAI

Also, the Reinforced Ram and Deathrolla are, if not necessarily orphans, two very unhappy step children.

However, I can see why my argument about the identity of Waaagh! is difficult to follow, because you appear to think that it distinguishes between Waaagh! movement and running. But that's not the case. Since running is the only movement in the Shooting phase, and involves rolling 1D6, it must be running. You know, the old "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and that's all there is to being a duck, then that walking quacking thing over there must be a duck."

RAI

By the rules as written Waaagh! movement clearly exists: it's written down in the Codex for anyone to see.

By RAI

By the rules as written Waaagh! necessarily has running as its movement component and as I pointed out in my first post any fiddling with the order of operations to exploit a loophole is cheating.

Let's say you have a computer macro. One of the operators is 'WAAAUGH!'. The second is 'Fleet of Foot'. The third is Wound/No Wound. The fourth is assault. When you're running your Macro in the parent program, Desktop 40K 4.0 it works fine.

Then Desktop 40k 5.0 comes out. The 'Fleet of Foot' operator no longer exists. It's been deleted from the game library and replaced with two similar operators, Run and Fleet.

Does the macro still run? Of course not. It breaks down because step 2 does not compute.

Thus your entire argument, though coherent and parsimonious, is RAI. Not RAW. It works, it makes sense in context, but just like Thunderwulf Mounts not increasing base stats to mirror Thunderwulf Cavalry, it's not RAW.

Given that my argument is based entirely on the rules as they are written down, I'd say that your critique of my argument as not based in the rules is plainly incorrect.

If you still believe this, there's nothing more to be said.

The Fleet rule affects whether a unit can charge in the Assault phase if it has run. Since the Waaagh! rule specifies that Waaagh! movement is declared and resolved the Shooting phase, it happens in the shooting phase as running and charging in the Assault phase is resolved as if the Ork units had Fleet.

By RAI

Nurglitch wrote: Since running is the only movement in the Shooting phase, and involves rolling 1D6, it must be running.

The problem with that is that the Waaagh! rule doesn't refer to movement in the shooting phase. It refers specifically to Fleet, and then goes on to list an effect that applies to 'this' movement.

In that context 'this movement' is referring to 'the movement conferred by the Fleet rule' not just any movement in the shooting phase.


That's why people say the penalty is an artefact. We're left with two options by the rules as they currently stand:

1: Assume that the reference to Waaagh Movement is an artefact like Target Priority, and as per the rulebook FAQ ignore it.
or
2: Assume that the Waaagh! rule was written in an attempt to make it forwards compatible, but this was just done rather badly, and the reference to Fleet movement should now be taken to apply to running.

I personally think that 2 is the 'correct' answer, and the way that GW will rule if they ever get around to FAQ'ing it. But 1 is a valid interpretation given the way the rule is written and the FAQ telling us to ignore obsolete rules. 1 also removes the problems caused by the Waaagh rule not specifying that it has to be called at the start of the phase...

Nurglitch wrote: You know, the old "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and that's all there is to being a duck, then that walking quacking thing over there must be a duck."

but some time it is not a duck ... its a coot. It's all very well making logical jumps but this is 40k ... logic fails.

Waaagh! is triggered in the Shooting phase but Waaagh no longer has any effect at this point. There is no movement given since all unit may run. Any movement now given by this rule are when you have to assault and so would only trigger the rule when assaulting through difficult or dangerous terrain.

It's all very well complaining about the rules being bad but thats what happens when a codex is written to run under the old rulebook and you try using it with the new rule book. Things break.

You argue this till the squigs come home. But the end all be all rules clarification we use in our town is INAT FAQ which states that you need to call your WAAAGH! then you can run, any unit that ran before the WAAAGH! don't get fleet of foot so...

sourclams:

Here's the rules as they are written:

Waaagh!, Ork Special Rules, Codex: Orks, p.31 wrote:Once per game, the Ork player can declare a Waaagh! during his Shooting phase. This many not normally be declared on the first turn as a proper Waaagh! needs some momentum behind it. For the duration of that turn, all friendly Ork infantry units have the 'fleet of foot' rule (not Gretchin units, they're far too weedy for a proper Waaagh!).

If a unit rolls a 1 when making this Waaagh! movement, the Orks start fighting before they get to the enemy. One model from that unit takes a single wound. Note that the unit may still move an inch, and assault as normal.

Clearly Waaagh! movement exists: it's written right there in the rules. Clearly Waaagh! movement happens in the Shooting phase and involves rolling 1D6. Again, it's written right there in the rules.

Fleet*, Universal Special Rules, Rulebook, p.75 wrote: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 in which it has run.

Clearly Fleet is not movement. Permission to assault after running is not movement. The "Fleet of Foot" extension clearly exists in the 5th edition rules, referring to "Fleet". Fleet of Foot is Fleet.

Run!, The Shooting Phase, Rulebook, p.16 wrote:In their Shooting phase, units may choose to run instead of firing, immediately moving D6" (we find that this is a popular choice for units that have no ranged weaponry or no target!). Running movement is not affected by difficult terrain - it is always simply D6" - but models running through dangerous terrain must test as normal. Unit that run in the Shooting phase cannot assault in the following Assault phase.

Clearly running happens in the Shooting phase, and involves rolling 1D6.

As you can see, this is the rules as they are written and how they interact. All my claims are the claims of the rules themselves: no RAI necessary.

I just kill the model if I roll a one. Its just one model.

I can see the argument tho. The Dex came out before 5th ed so there was no running back then. However they would get a waagh! move back in those days. Since back then if I remember correctly fleeting allowed you to skip your shooting and move an extra D6. Now fleeting lets you assault after you "RUN".

Tri:

Actually no, without logic 40k as a set of rules simply doesn't exist. Like an iceberg 9/10s of the game is not explicitly represented and requires people to make the necessary inferences needed to make them known. My favourite example is the movement speed of Tactical Space Marines (Tactical Space Marines are Infantry, Infantry move 6", Tactical Space Marines move 6", QED).

In this particular case I was invoking what's known as the relation of Identity, though rather poorly since as you pointed out merely quacking or walking like a duck limits the logical conclusion we can draw (if we want deductive certainty in our inference) to saying that it may be a duck and it may be something else that walks and quacks like a duck.

Waaagh! is triggered in the Shooting phase. Its effect is to make all running cause a wound on a roll of 1, and to confer the Fleet rule to all non-Gretchin Ork units. That's because it explicitly describes Waaagh! movement happening in the running phase. There is no Waaagh! movement in the Assault phase, and therefore has no connection to charging through difficult terrain.

Speaking of complaining about the rules, I don't. I actually think they're quite sufficiently clear and well written for their purpose, which is to be applied by intelligent people, rather than unintelligent automata like a computer program.

[rant]
Back when I was in school we were taught to apply logic to just such logic systems as these rules, learning how to extract information about those systems from the language in which it was embedded, prove that it was the correct information free of artifacts of translation, and then either debug or discuss the features of those rules. As part of Introduction to Symbolic Logic this was a requirement of my major (philosophy). I'm no expert, but I'm pretty familiar with cross-compatibility issues (they actually crop up a lot in philosophy, thanks to its pre-occuption with scholarship) and there's no compatibility issue here. Waaagh! works just like it did in the 4th edition and the writers of the Ork Codex did a rather decent job of producing a book that managed to be compatible with the new set of rules.

So far I can only find three actual genuine problems with the 5th edition rules and one of those is a problem with the Codex Chaos Space Marines - another 4th/5th hybrid. The rest of the problems seem to come in two flavours:

1. People not actually reading the rules closely and thoroughly. From not actually knowing what the rules say, to basic mistakes of grammar, people tend to blame their own poor reading skills (or memories...*) on the rules.

2. People treating the written material like it's a formal language, a code like C++ to be implemented mechanically by the players.

This is made worse by the attitude that people's opinions on the rules are equally valid; they aren't! People are too quick to blame the rules for their own shortcomings, and too quick to try and exploit the rules for their own advantage in the game.
[/rant]

Nurglitch wrote:Clearly Waaagh! movement exists: it's written right there in the rules. Clearly Waaagh! movement happens in the Shooting phase and involves rolling 1D6. Again, it's written right there in the rules.

That doesn't prove that Waaagh movement exists. All it does is prove that Waaagh movement existed and involved rolling a D6 in 4th edition, when the codex was written.

After all, Target Priority is written right there in the Tau Empire rules as well. Still doesn't actually do anything under the current ruleset.

Nurglitch you and i have both played 40k for years we know its history and we can proof read for the author. While i agree that you roll a D6 for the run and on a 1 one of the boys takes a wound. That has nothing to do with how the rules work now, it is purely because i know that's how the author wanted it to work, since that is how it work when it was released.

Waaagh! does nothing in the Shooting phase ... being fair it was badly worded from the start, since it never straight says on the fleet roll, just Waaagh movement (which every one guessed to be fleet). What it should have said is "Any 1 rolled when moving in the shooting phase cause a wound to that unit" ... basically a catch all phrase

insaniak:

My point is textual: since the extension is written in the rules, it exists, it is the rules as written. To assume otherwise, that Waaagh! movement exists in the game would be fallacious on my part because that would assume exactly what I'm trying to prove! However, my point is that since the term "Waaagh! movement" exists and its description matches that of running, they are the same, and running is Waaagh! movement.

The Codex was written to be compatible with the 5th edition: you need look no further than Ghazghkull's Adamantium Skull that confers a +2A on the assault when in the 4th edition Slow and Purposeful precluded him from ever gaining such bonuses.

The Tau Empire Codex was not written to be compatible with the 5th edition rules and the references to target priority are veridical examples of orphans in the rules, although one should rightly judge that Tau wargear requiring its user to pass a target priority check should be treated as automatically passing it.

So yes, just like all the other rules in the Codex, the Waaagh! rule continues to refer to something happening on the board. In particular it refers to the benefit of Fleet at the cost of a wound on a roll of 1 on the run roll of 1D6.

Game-play wise it's best to declare any planned Waaagh! at the beginning of the shooting phase so people don't have to go back and make armour saves for any mob that rolls a 1.

Nurglitch wrote:insaniak:

My point is textual: since the extension is written in the rules, it exists, it is the rules as written. To assume otherwise, that Waaagh! movement exists in the game would be fallacious on my part because that would assume exactly what I'm trying to prove! However, my point is that since the term "Waaagh! movement" exists and its description matches that of running, they are the same, and running is Waaagh! movement.

So yes, just like all the other rules in the Codex, the Waaagh! rule continues to refer to something happening on the board. In particular it refers to the benefit of Fleet at the cost of a wound on a roll of 1 on the run roll of 1D6.

But that's not what the rules say.
RAI, sure, they probably meant it to be the run movement. RAW 'waaagh' movement is not running, and never actually happens.

Just because things are extremely similar, even to the point of being entirely identical in everything but name, does not mean they are exactly the same thing.

Tri:

Actually, I've written rather a lot on this thread explaining that it is in fact how the rules work and how anyone without any prior historical knowledge of the rules should read them as indicating.

Waaagh! does do something in the shooting phase: it inflicts a wound on units that roll a 1 for their run roll. It then allows them to charge in the Assault phase. That's what the rules say; that's why I quoted them.

The fact is that it's not badly worded as the original connection between Fleet movement and Waaagh! movement was beyond reasonable doubt: the identity matched. Currently, as I argue citing the text, the extension Waaagh! movement indicates running.

So, regarding the criticism that the text doesn't support the position that Waaagh! movement is running, I've shown that to be false by citing the text and pointing out that in fact the relevant text fits together just fine.

Nurglitch wrote:
So, regarding the criticism that the text doesn't support the position that Waaagh! movement is running, I've shown that to be false by citing the text and pointing out that in fact the relevant text fits together just fine.

Except that it still fits together the other way just fine, and probably better since GW itself says to ignore rules/wargear that no longer apply to edition continuity.

I don't deny that your method works, but it relies on intuitive leaps that do change the rules (however subtly or otherwise) as compared to what is explicitly written on the page of the Ork Codex.

sourclams wrote:Thanks for stating your opinion.

rednekgunner wrote:Also, it was written by many people who are considered to be experts in the field of 40k.

At least 50% of the people in this thread disagree with you on this one.

I agree with Sourclams.

As the Great and Powerful Gwar! did not have a part in writing the INAT FAQ (apart from an Uncredited role in writing the source for Entire Space Wolf Section), I question the Validity of this Document.

Also, @rednekgunner: Using the INAT FAQ to win a Rules argument is like using a Wikipedia article in your University Thesis.

I have yet to see you (rednekgunner) present any sort of argument as to why we should ignore how the rules work.

Gorkamorka:

Actually yes, being entirely identical in everything but name makes two things the same thing. That's exactly what identity is. The Morning Star and the Evening Star is one famous example. Or there's Sir Walter Scott and the author of Waverly. Unmarried men being bachelors is yet another.

Mind you, I think your critique highlights an interesting point about the rules, because you're treating them as if they were a programming language in which all objects rigorously have a single name to distinguish them from all other objects. The rules are not a programming language and are written colloquially. Perhaps we should add another acronym to the bestiary: "Rules as Programmed Exactly" or RAPE, which neatly describes what happens when the text is treated like a block of code.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams:

Please cite exactly where I have made any sort of unwarranted intuitive leap in my exegesis of the rules as they are written.

Nurglitch wrote:Waaagh! does do something in the shooting phase: it inflicts a wound on units that roll a 1 for their run roll.

That's the intuitive leap to which sourclams is referring.

Waaagh doesn't do anything to units that run. It never references the Run rule at all.
If confers Fleet on certain units, and inflicts a wound for units that roll a 1 for that movement.

So by RAW, Waaagh does not damage units in 5th edition, because Fleet no longer confers movement.

Inflicting a wound on the unit requires the intuitive leap that what was Fleet movement is now Running. It's a logical way to play the game, but it's not what the rules say to do.

insaniak:

Yes, my point is that the Waaagh! rule does reference the Run! rule because it refers to "Waaagh! movement", is declared and resolved in the Shooting phase, mentions moving 1", confers the Fleet rule, and causes a wound on a Waaagh! movement roll of 1. That's four points of identity, if anyone is counting.

Since Fleet can no longer confer movement, then it no longer has anything to do with movement, right?

Wrong, Fleet allows a unit to charge or assault after it has run.

If Waaagh! confers Fleet, then Waaagh! confers the ability to charge after running. That's the first point of identity - Waaagh! has something to do with running.

Running requires the player to roll 1D6 and to take that as the distance a unit can run, its running movement. The Waaagh! rule specifies that a unit that rolls a 1 can still move 1". That's the second point of identity - Waaagh! has something to do with moving.

The fact that a roll of 1 is referred to is another point of identity: a 1 is one of six results that can be achieved by running. That is the third point of identity - Waaagh! has something to do with moving such that a 1 can be rolled.

Finally, the Waaagh! is declared in the Shooting phase, when running happens. That's the fourth point of identity.

Same phase (shooting), same mechanic (rolling 1D6), same action (moving), same extension (Fleet). This is the logical way to play the game because it's what the rules say to do!

Waaagh! movement is running.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's the quotes rearranged so that it's easier to follow the thread that connects them and should clarify what they say:

Waaagh!, Ork Special Rules, Codex: Orks, p.31 wrote:Once per game, the Ork player can declare a Waaagh! during his Shooting phase. This many not normally be declared on the first turn as a proper Waaagh! needs some momentum behind it. For the duration of that turn, all friendly Ork infantry units have the 'fleet of foot' rule (not Gretchin units, they're far too weedy for a proper Waaagh!).

Fleet*, Universal Special Rules, Rulebook, p.75 wrote: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 in which it has run.

Run!, The Shooting Phase, Rulebook, p.16 wrote:In their Shooting phase, units may choose to run instead of firing, immediately moving D6" (we find that this is a popular choice for units that have no ranged weaponry or no target!). Running movement is not affected by difficult terrain - it is always simply D6" - but models running through dangerous terrain must test as normal. Units that run in the Shooting phase cannot assault in the following Assault phase.

If a unit rolls a 1 when making this Waaagh! movement, the Orks start fighting before they get to the enemy. One model from that unit takes a single wound. Note that the unit may still move an inch, and assault as normal.

Edit: Oops, misattributed the second paragraph of the Waaagh! rule to the Fleet rule...

Nurglitch wrote:Yes, my point is that the Waaagh! rule does reference the Run! rule because it refers to "Waaagh! movement",

Nowhere in the codex does it say "Waaagh! moment = Run".

Therefore, it isn't. Plain and Simple.

Also, please explain how you think it is referencing something that didn't exist when the book was printed?

Gwar!:

It says that Waaagh! movement is running in the text of the Waaagh! rule itself.

I've diagrammed it for your convenience in my previous post.

Nurglitch wrote:Gwar!:

It says that Waaagh! movement is running in the text of the Waaagh! rule itself.

I've diagrammed it for your convenience in my previous post.

What? No it doesn't. It says Waaagh Grants Fleet. Waaagh! does NOT mention Running in any way shape or form.

Nurglitch wrote:Gwar!:
I've diagrammed it for your convenience in my previous post.

...incorrectly. It doesn't say it is running or reference running, and all of your points are based on similarities and inferences instead of actual textual proof.
RAW it isn't running, no matter how alike they are.

Waaagh!, Ork Special Rules, Codex: Orks, p.31 wrote:Once per game, the Ork player can declare a Waaagh! during his Shooting phase. This many not normally be declared on the first turn as a proper Waaagh! needs some momentum behind it. For the duration of that turn, all friendly Ork infantry units have the 'FLEET OF FOOT' rule (not Gretchin units, they're far too weedy for a proper Waaagh!).

Fleet*, Universal Special Rules, Rulebook, p.75 wrote: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 in which it has RUN.

Run!, The Shooting Phase, Rulebook, p.16 wrote:In their Shooting phase, units may choose to run instead of firing, IMMEDIATELY MOVING D6" (we find that this is a popular choice for units that have no ranged weaponry or no target!). RUNNING MOVEMENT is not affected by difficult terrain - it is always simply D6" - but models running through dangerous terrain must test as normal. Units that run in the Shooting phase cannot assault in the following Assault phase.

If a unit rolls a 1 when making this WAAAGH! MOVEMENT, the Orks start fighting before they get to the enemy. One model from that unit takes a single wound. Note that the unit may still move an inch, and assault as normal.

This is really simple: Waaagh! references Fleet. Fleet reference Run. Therefore, Waaagh! references Run. Specially, when it says "this Waaagh! movement" it is referring directly to the Run rule referenced in the Fleet rule referenced in the first paragraph of the Waaagh! rule.

THIS[Waaagh! movement = Running movement]

rednekgunner wrote:Why thank you for asking. At the shop I play at we have adopted the INAT FAQ, because GW has all but endorsed it, and in it it says, "ORK.31A.01 – Q: Can a player wait until the end of the shooting phase to call the Waaagh?
A: Yes, but any units that make a „run‟ move before the Waaagh! is called do not gain the fleet ability in the subsequent Assault phase [clarification]. Also, it was written by many people who are considered to be experts in the field of 40k.

I think the key phrase/words in here is:

"all but endorsed it"

Meaning, it hasn't been endorsed. If your reasoning for following your waaaagh rule is because your flgs uses the inat faq, then please state that from the beginning.

It doesn't follow raw, but at least that would be good to know from the get go.

As far as 'experts' go, they modify the rules, not clarify them. It's like they play 40k their own way. That's not illegal, but it's certainly not raw.

Throwing this in: Ghazghkull's Waaagh causes all rolls for Waaagh Movement to be 6.

By RAW, we don't get damaged. Likewise, Ghazkhgull doesn't give sixes.

Nurglitch wrote:

Waaagh!, Ork Special Rules, Codex: Orks, p.31 wrote:Once per game, the Ork player can declare a Waaagh! during his Shooting phase. This many not normally be declared on the first turn as a proper Waaagh! needs some momentum behind it. For the duration of that turn, all friendly Ork infantry units have the 'FLEET OF FOOT' rule (not Gretchin units, they're far too weedy for a proper Waaagh!).

Fleet*, Universal Special Rules, Rulebook, p.75 wrote: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 in which it has RUN.

Run!, The Shooting Phase, Rulebook, p.16 wrote:In their Shooting phase, units may choose to run instead of firing, IMMEDIATELY MOVING D6" (we find that this is a popular choice for units that have no ranged weaponry or no target!). RUNNING MOVEMENT is not affected by difficult terrain - it is always simply D6" - but models running through dangerous terrain must test as normal. Units that run in the Shooting phase cannot assault in the following Assault phase.

If a unit rolls a 1 when making this WAAAGH! MOVEMENT, the Orks start fighting before they get to the enemy. One model from that unit takes a single wound. Note that the unit may still move an inch, and assault as normal.

This is really simple: Waaagh! references Fleet. Fleet reference Run. Therefore, Waaagh! references Run. Specially, when it says "this Waaagh! movement" it is referring directly to the Run rule referenced in the Fleet rule referenced in the first paragraph of the Waaagh! rule.

THIS[Waaagh! movement = Running movement]

No, it doesn't work like that. Waaagh says "You get Fleet of Foot".
Fleet Says "You may assault after running"

The two are not connected. There is no Logical way you can infer that Running = Waaagh! Movement, mainly because nowhere does it say Running is Waaagh movement.

Nurglitch has it exactly right.

Nurglitch wrote:Clearly Waaagh! movement exists: it's written right there in the rules. Clearly Waaagh! movement happens in the Shooting phase and involves rolling 1D6. Again, it's written right there in the rules.

There are also biomorphs that exist that have no effect. It's there in the 'nid current codex. How do you play that?

It's clear that some biomorphs don't have an effect on the game anymore or their effect on the game has changed.

I think it's safe to say that the same thing happens with waagh.

Gwar! wrote:
No, it doesn't work like that. Waaagh says "You get Fleet of Foot".
Fleet Says "You may assault after running"

The two are not connected. There is no Logical way you can infer that Running = Waaagh! Movement, mainly because nowhere does it say Running is Waaagh movement.

Yes, actually, it DOES work like that. Try constructing a truth table for the argument that Running = Waagh! Movement, given the references written into the rules. The statement is a tautology; therefore, Running = Waagh! movement. QED.

What other movement is made during a Waagh! -- every time?
Basically I understand the issue with run = Waaagh! But I still question it.
Does this mean all rolls during a Waaaagh!'s movement should be involved? This is at least as . . . logical.

Waaaaagh! movement is no more defined than placing models.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
No, it doesn't work like that. Waaagh says "You get Fleet of Foot".
Fleet Says "You may assault after running"

The two are not connected. There is no Logical way you can infer that Running = Waaagh! Movement, mainly because nowhere does it say Running is Waaagh movement.

Yes, actually, it DOES work like that. Try constructing a truth table for the argument that Running = Waagh! Movement, given the references written into the rules. The statement is a tautology; therefore, Running = Waagh! movement. QED.

Lets see...
Actions defined by the 5th ed rules: Waaagh movement (F), Running (T)
Actions entitled "Waaagh movement": Waaagh movement(T), Running(F)
Actions defined as or specifically referencing running: Waaagh movement(F), Running (T)
I could go on.

The waaagh rule says:
Units gain fleet (the ability to assault after running).
Waaagh movements (undefined) have these caveats.

It doesn't say what a waaagh movement is. It doesn't ever reference running.

Okay Gwar, quick logic lesson time. In basic propositional logic we have this inference called a "Hypothetical Syllogism". It has the following form:

If A then B
If B then C
Therefore, if A then C.

This means that there is a logical way to both infer and to prove that Running movement is Waaagh! movement, by diagramming the chain of references made by the rules.

The Waaagh! rule references the Fleet rule, which in turn references the Run rule, and thus are embedded in each other just as I have diagrammed. The Waaagh! rule also corresponds to the phase in which the Run rule takes affect, refers to the movement referred to in the Fleet rule, which is running, and finally agrees with the run rule on one of its possible results.

The rules say that Running movement is Waaagh! movement because the rules say that Waaagh! confers Fleet of Foot on a unit when it is invoked in the Shooting phase. Fleet of Foot is Fleet. The only effect of Fleet is to allow a unit to move in the assault phase if it has run. Running movement is moving 1D6 in the Shooting phase. This Waaagh! movement results in a wound if a 1 is rolled, but the unit can still move an inch.

As the diagram shows, the Fleet and the Run rule are embedded in the Waaagh! rule.

It says it right there in the damned rules!

What part of this don't you get?

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
No, it doesn't work like that. Waaagh says "You get Fleet of Foot".
Fleet Says "You may assault after running"

The two are not connected. There is no Logical way you can infer that Running = Waaagh! Movement, mainly because nowhere does it say Running is Waaagh movement.

Yes, actually, it DOES work like that. Try constructing a truth table for the argument that Running = Waagh! Movement, given the references written into the rules. The statement is a tautology; therefore, Running = Waagh! movement. QED.

Are you actually saying that you can't run unless you waagh?

Because if you ran that boolean expression in a computer program, that would be the result.

Nurglitch wrote:If Waaagh! confers Fleet, then Waaagh! confers the ability to charge after running.

Unfortunately, that punches a great gaping hole in the argument.

Waaagh! = the ability to do something after running. (According to your logic)
'Waaagh! movement', without any other definition, can only be 'movement triggered by the Waaagh! rule'

So, Running can not be the movement referred to by the Waaagh! rule. If 'Waaagh movement' is triggered by the Waaagh rule, and the Waaagh is an ability to do something after running, then only movement that happens after running can be 'Waaagh movement'.

Nurglitch wrote:Okay Gwar, quick logic lesson time. In basic propositional logic we have this inference called a "Hypothetical Syllogism". It has the following form:

If A then B
If B then C
Therefore, if A then C.

This means that there is a logical way to both infer and to prove that Running movement is Waaagh! movement, by diagramming the chain of references made by the rules.

The Waaagh! rule references the Fleet rule, which in turn references the Run rule, and thus are embedded in each other just as I have diagrammed. The Waaagh! rule also corresponds to the phase in which the Run rule takes affect, refers to the movement referred to in the Fleet rule, which is running, and finally agrees with the run rule on one of its possible results.

The rules say that Running movement is Waaagh! movement because the rules say that Waaagh! confers Fleet of Foot on a unit when it is invoked in the Shooting phase. Fleet of Foot is Fleet. The only effect of Fleet is to allow a unit to move in the assault phase if it has run. Running movement is moving 1D6 in the Shooting phase. This Waaagh! movement results in a wound if a 1 is rolled, but the unit can still move an inch.

As the diagram shows, the Fleet and the Run rule are embedded in the Waaagh! rule.

It says it right there in the damned rules!

What part of this don't you get?

What part of it aren't you getting?
Read Waaagh. Read Fleet.
Fleet does not reference or invoke the running rules. Fleet simply grants you the ability to perform an assault action that running would normally prevent you from doing.
It in no way provides this logical chain between waagh movement and running that you seem so intent on claiming is clear.

insaniak:

No, not according to my logic. According to the Waaagh! rule the player declares the Waaagh! in the shooting phase.

Waaagh has two effects, a cost and a benefit.

The benefit is that the unit can charge in the Assault phase after running in the Shooting phase.

The cost is that while running during the Shooting phase, if the unit rolls a 1, the unit suffers a wound.

As I've pointed out, your contention that Running cannot be Waaagh! movement is false because Waaagh! movement is declared and resolved during the Shooting phase. That's the four points of identity I was talking about earlier:

The Waaagh! movement is declared and resolved in the Shooting phase, mentions moving 1", and causes a wound on a Waaagh! movement roll of 1, and confers the Fleet rule.

And what's so special about the Fleet rule? It references the Run rule! Fleet itself conveys no movement, but it does tell you what to do if the unit has run. HAS RUN. Past-tense reference to the Run rule.

Part of the problem people are having seeing this, I suspect, is the order in which the features of the Waaagh! rule are cited. First they cite the rule that allows units that ran in the Shooting phase to charge in the Assault phase, and then they tell you what happens when they run in the Shooting phase when the Waaagh! is in play.

The Waaagh! rule tells you what happens as the unit runs and what happens after the unit has ran. Its running.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gorkamorka:

Okay, is the following a real quote from the rulebook?

Fleet*, Universal Special Rules, Rulebook, p.75 wrote: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 in which it has run.

Do you see the word "run" anywhere in there?

Nurglitch wrote:
As I've pointed out, your contention that Running cannot be Waaagh! movement is false because Waaagh! movement is declared and resolved during the Shooting phase. That's the four points of identity I was talking about earlier:

The Waaagh! movement is declared and resolved in the Shooting phase, mentions moving 1", and causes a wound on a Waaagh! movement roll of 1, and confers the Fleet rule.

And what's so special about the Fleet rule? It references the Run rule! Fleet itself conveys no movement, but it does tell you what to do if the unit has run. HAS RUN. Past-tense reference to the Run rule.

Part of the problem people are having seeing this, I suspect, is the order in which the features of the Waaagh! rule are cited. First they cite the rule that allows units that ran in the Shooting phase to charge in the Assault phase, and then they tell you what happens when they run in the Shooting phase when the Waaagh! is in play.

The Waaagh! rule tells you what happens as the unit runs and what happens after the unit has ran. Its running.

Congratulations, you've proved... nothing?
As I and others have told you:Yes, Waaagh movement fits quite nicely into the definition for running. That doesn't mean Waaagh movement is actually defined as running anywhere in the rules, which would be required for your reading to be RAW.

You aren't 'proving' anything logically, you're just inferring that they must be exactly the same ruleswise because they are similar.

Gorkamorka:

But Waaagh! movement is defined in the rules. That's why I've quoted the rules and even bolded the parts involving the definition. I'm utterly baffled as to why it isn't obvious to you. So how about you help me out as I go through the quoted material and see what I'm missing?

Is the following a real quote from the rulebook?

Fleet*, Universal Special Rules, Rulebook, p.75 wrote: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 in which it has run.

Do you see the word "run" anywhere in there?

Nurglitch wrote:The benefit is that the unit can charge in the Assault phase after running in the Shooting phase.

Right. It has an effect that kicks in after running. Running is not the effect. Running is something that happens beforehand.

As I've pointed out, your contention that Running cannot be Waaagh! movement is false because Waaagh! movement is declared and resolved during the Shooting phase.

Shooting is resolved during the shooting phase as well. It's also not Waaagh movement.


Running is Running. Nothing else is Running unless the rules actually say that it is running.
Waaagh! movement is never defined as Running. It is linked to Fleet, but not Running. Fleet grants you an ability after Running. It doesn't grant you movement.

You're essentially trying to say that being able to open a door is the same as being able to walk through an open door. They both reference a door... but they're not the same thing.

We can infer that the tactical squad can move 6" even though it is not explicitly stated, then making the inference that Nurglitch has proposed is inherent to utilizing this rule system.

However, I disagree that you have satisfied the requirement of it having the exact same characteristics in order to match the identities.

You have assumed that just because the rule referencing rolling a "1" that it means you are rolling 1d6 for the movement. This is where it falls apart, because a 1 can be rolled on d3 or 2d6. Assuming that it is meaning 1d6 worth of movement is required in order to match the identities exactly, but it is never stated in the text.

We have no information on how far the Waaagh movement is, other than that 1 can be rolled for it. Because it is undefined, it does not share the same characteristic of 1d6 worth of movement - it has no distance characteristic. As such, the two identities can't be matched.

Therefore, the penalty does not apply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oops, I guess the distance characteristic for Waaagh movement is simply >0, not non-existant.

Nurglitch wrote:

If the Waaagh! confers the benefit of Fleet to all Ork units regardless of when in the Shooting phase it is declared, then it likewise confers the cost of a wound to any , since all running movement in that phase has been converted to Waaagh! movement. Just as the benefit is retroactively applied to all units that ran, so is the cost. Call this an application of the principle of symmetry.

So your argument boils down to; "I don't think it seems fair".

Yeah, well, a lot of things don't seem fair in 40K.
I won't present a list of things that I think seems unfair.
First, because fairness has nothing to do with the rule-mechanics, and second, what seems unfair to me might seem perfectly reasonable to others.

All in all, my list of greviances is completely and utterly irrelevant.

You seem to feel that the benefit is applied retroactively. I disagree.
Come the Assault Phase the question is asked; "Did this unit run?"
Why, yes it did.
"Is the unit Fleet?"
Hang on. *mutters while trying to remember what I did a few seconds ago* "Did I call the WAAAGH! or not? Hey, I did. All my infantry units gets Fleet for the duration of the turn". Yes, the unit is Fleet.
"OK. You can assault."

The WAAAGH! has three conditions attached to it;
It cannot be called in turn 1.
It must be called during the Shooting phase.
Its effect only applies to ork infantry.

If you comply with these three conditions then the relevant unit in question gains Fleet. End of story.
Should you feel the desire to invent additional restrictions, then feel free. There is even a separate forum for such ideas. Go there.

Do I think this is the way the designers intended? No.
Is it perfectly legal the way the rule is written? Yes.

I would also like a rules quote on "the principle of symmetry". Sounds like a neat concept.
If such a quote cannot be presented then it has zero relevance in this discussion.

Actually Steelmage99, he has a very well delineated argument. I would invite you read the rest of the thread so that you get a better understanding...

No, I believe he hasn't.

After having read his "arguments" for the third time now (due largely to your very polite request, I might add), I have come to the conclusion that Nurglitch is trying really hard to avoid the issue.

Having found himself unable to argue about the wording relevant to the timing of the use of WAAAGH! and its consequenses, he has now started to deflect the issue and is worrying mostly about wether WAAAGH!ing is the same as running.

Should he at some point return to the issue that spawned this thread, I'll happily participate.

I'll add a question onto this thread. Do the supporters of the wounds-free Waaagh! consider Ghazghkull's Waaagh! to be a relic of the past as well? Because that's how his rule goes if we agree that Waaagh! Movement doesn't exist in the rules.

Oh, and we all agree that RAI, the wounds are taken, and that's how we all plan to play it in-game, right?

Pika_power wrote:I'll add a question onto this thread. Do the supporters of the wounds-free Waaagh! consider Ghazghkull's Waaagh! to be a relic of the past as well?

Absolutely. That was the general opinion last time this came up as well, if I recall. If it applies to the normal Waaagh, it applies to Ghaz's as well.

Oh, and we all agree that RAI, the wounds are taken, and that's how we all plan to play it in-game, right?

I don't agree that it's RAI, because I have no idea what was originally intended. Or, rather, we can assume (since it worked just fine) that the rules as written were as intended for 4th edition. We know that the codex was supposed to be forwards compatible (because the studio said so when it was released). But we can only guess as to whether the intention in 5th edition was for Running to replace Fleet for the purposes of the Waaagh or for the wound on a 1 to simply be phased out as an obsolete rule. Or whether the intention was for Waaagh to be called at the start of the phase, or later in the phase and be retroactive, or later in the phase and only apply to units that run from that point. Or something else entirely.

Having said that, I would still be playing it as I mentioned earlier in the thread: that it should be called at the start of the phase, and the penalty apply to the Run roll, because I believe that to be the best way to play it.

insaniak wrote:

Pika_power wrote:I'll add a question onto this thread. Do the supporters of the wounds-free Waaagh! consider Ghazghkull's Waaagh! to be a relic of the past as well?

Absolutely. That was the general opinion last time this came up as well, if I recall. If it applies to the normal Waaagh, it applies to Ghaz's as well.

Oh, and we all agree that RAI, the wounds are taken, and that's how we all plan to play it in-game, right?

I don't agree that it's RAI, because I have no idea what was originally intended. Or, rather, we can assume (since it worked just fine) that the rules as written were as intended for 4th edition. We know that the codex was supposed to be forwards compatible (because the studio said so when it was released). But we can only guess as to whether the intention in 5th edition was for Running to replace Fleet for the purposes of the Waaagh or for the wound on a 1 to simply be phased out as an obsolete rule. Or whether the intention was for Waaagh to be called at the start of the phase, or later in the phase and be retroactive, or later in the phase and only apply to units that run from that point. Or something else entirely.

Having said that, I would still be playing it as I mentioned earlier in the thread: that it should be called at the start of the phase, and the penalty apply to the Run roll, because I believe that to be the best way to play it.

I'd place my guess at RAI being Waaagh Movement = running, because while it's possible that they wanted to phase the Waaagh rules, I find it doubtful that they'd completely neuter Ghazghkull's Waaagh.

RAW, the wounds aren't taken and Ghazghkull's Waaagh doesn't give auto-6.

Pika_power wrote:
I'd place my guess at RAI being Waaagh Movement = running, because while it's possible that they wanted to phase the Waaagh rules, I find it doubtful that they'd completely neuter Ghazghkull's Waaagh.

RAW, the wounds aren't taken and Ghazghkull's Waaagh doesn't give auto-6.

That pretty much sums it up.

Yes, by RAW Ghazhkulls WAAAGH! doesn't confer Fleet and no WAAGH!-movement exists.

While it not clear what GW meant it really obvious their intent. They wanted you to call your WAAAGH! then roll your run move any 1's cause a wound. It's freaking very very obvious, now if you got some jackass that wants to be a English major and say that it's not written clear enuff to be sure then whatever. Roll a dice...

While YMDC often gets heated, you General_Chaos seem to be taking this thread personally. Maybe go take a tourrette's walk to calm down a bit?

sourclams wrote:While YMDC often gets heated, you General_Chaos seem to be taking this thread personally. Maybe go take a tourrette's walk to calm down a bit?

It's true that most arguments and personal insults spark from YMDC.

Onto the subject, i think you need to declare it first, before you run.

So, essentially, the main point of supposed contention here is the lack of clarity on what the Waaaugh movement refers to, not the actual ability to use the benefits of Waauggh! Am I correct?

If I were say playing RAW, I could still Declare a Waaugh at some point and gain Fleet of Foot, which would enable me to assault after running. The only unclear part is what exactly this "Waaugh Movement" is refering to in regards to suffering wounds when rolling a 1 on a D6.

Despite all the rules debating, I'm curious how most people actually play this rule and what the generally excepted terms of "fair play" are. I would guess that, to avoid a major rules argument during a game, you would decide the best way to play is to accept that "Running=Waaaugh Movement" since it occurs during the same phase during which you declare your Waaugh movement and take 1 wound for any rolls of a 1 for their Running phase afterwards. Has anyone here played in tournaments with or against Orks? Was it played this way or differentely?

Also, assuming you play this way...do you feel the Waaugh needs to be declared before any other units run or shoot? Or just before units you actually intend to assault with take a running action?
(ie. Could I...
1. Shoot with Lootas and Shoota boyz
2. Run with Gretchin
3. Declare my Waaugh and Run with Boyz.

Oh, oh, I know! Lets do this the Jervis Way!

It works on a 4+!

sourclams wrote:While YMDC often gets heated, you General_Chaos seem to be taking this thread personally. Maybe go take a tourrette's walk to calm down a bit?

Oh not at all, but if you sit at my table and try to reason out why your don't need to take a wound for rolling a 1 on your run move, then you mights well just pack your stuff back up cause your apparently taking this game a bit to serious for me

General_Chaos wrote:

sourclams wrote:While YMDC often gets heated, you General_Chaos seem to be taking this thread personally. Maybe go take a tourrette's walk to calm down a bit?

Oh not at all, but if you sit at my table and try to reason out why your don't need to take a wound for rolling a 1 on your run move, then you mights well just pack your stuff back up cause your apparently taking this game a bit to serious for me

So, wait... You would actually refuse to play someone because they want to play by the rules and not some bastardised House Rule version?

Yea the way the rules are wrote, I can again see it going either way.

But IMO, if your going to WAAGH! you should declare it before you run. You can go ahead and shoot everything first if you want as that has no real affect on a WAAGH!. You shouldnt be able to run, and then call a waaagh! as how the rules are wrote in the dex.
"on a roll of a 1, the unit suffers 1 wound for infighting. But the unit may still move the 1 inch"

So in reading that, you would be cheating running first, AND THEN calling a waaagh! Because say you roll 5 for your run, then call a waagh! Youd still have to roll a d6, as it says in the dex, and what happens if you roll a 1? Youve already moved 5 inches, and the rule says if you roll a 1, you may still move the 1 inch. So running first and THEN calling a waagh! ends up making a cluster F*** of rules being broken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

General_Chaos wrote:

sourclams wrote:While YMDC often gets heated, you General_Chaos seem to be taking this thread personally. Maybe go take a tourrette's walk to calm down a bit?

Oh not at all, but if you sit at my table and try to reason out why your don't need to take a wound for rolling a 1 on your run move, then you mights well just pack your stuff back up cause your apparently taking this game a bit to serious for me

So, wait... You would actually refuse to play someone because they want to play by the rules and not some bastardised House Rule version?

Basterdized house rule? As mentioned before, sure if your an english major, you can punch holes in the rules the GW wrights all day long. But lets be realistic here. Saying that you can use these holes to NOT take wounds and NOT allow someone to do something simply because there is a . in a spot it normally shouldnt be or whatever the case may be, is just being stupid.
The WAAGH! rule is in the codex, now however you tear it apart, its still in there, meaning an Ork player can assault after running, thanks to the WAAAGH! rule. These kind of arguments are just so stupid to me. I agree with General Chaos, you play at my table,a nd try this gak, you can pack it up and go play by yourself

Kingcracker: YMDC is used to decide what RAW is. Occasionally we look at what RAI is. We only start looking at its application on the tabletop when there is a poll by Yakface, otherwise we leave people to play it how they play it. We're not necessarily trying to English Major our way into winning games, but we enjoy ourselves by picking the rules apart.

What i find funny is that people are often willing to ignore other similar slips. For example ...

Tau target Lock. Take a target priority test and you can shoot at another unit. There is no longer a test and most people play it as simply auto passing. We all know that the test was a LD test but how many people still feel they need to do that?

Banshee Mask ... On the first round of assault, gives initiative 10 and negates any initiative bonus conferred by cover and grenades. Cover no longer gives a bonus it in fact drops the I1.

... there's lots more but you get the picture. Any codex not written solely for the 5th edition is going to have problems. Most of these we solve by looking at what they used to do.

This is probably the right approach since that makes them work as they used to. The trouble is these rule are at best house rules, "Waaagh Movement" was never defined. To a new player it might be a rule like target priority that no longer exists. In many ways they are right.

.
.
.
.
End of the day we'll all play that if you want to waaagh then you take a wound if you roll a 1 when you run. Its just a shame that GW can't simply make a block correction for their older codices.

Pika_power wrote: We're not necessarily trying to English Major our way into winning games, but we enjoy ourselves by picking the rules apart.

I do both, if only because I want to twist the younglings at my local group unto my image

@Tri: I don't ignore those slips... I know the Target Lock does nothing, I explain that the Banshee Masks suck etc...

Gwar! wrote:I do both, if only because I want to twist the younglings at my local group unto my image

He does this by employing a fiendish device known as The Analiser...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I do both, if only because I want to twist the younglings at my local group unto my image

He does this by employing a fiendish device known as The Analiser...

Is that the same thing they used to write codex: csm?

After reading this I am not sure what the origonal question was, but I have an opinion on this tough.

1st. Is it legal, within the rules to, move and ork mob in the movement phase, run the mob in the shooting phase, then declare a waaagh, and then assualt. (NO). I think the rules are clear. You cant assualt after running. Now if the ork player declared the waaagh prior to running, then (YES) he would have the ability to Assualt in the Assualt phase of the game. I also think that the origonal post stated that a player also rolled the dice to Waaagh after running. (That would not work where I Play)

2nd. I agree that the fleet of foot is not a movement. It gives the unit with the ability to run during the shooting phase and still assualt, without haveing to declare it everytime you run the unit. Unlike you have to with the Orks when you Waaagh them.

net_junky wrote:
1st. Is it legal, within the rules to, move and ork mob in the movement phase, run the mob in the shooting phase, then declare a waaagh, and then assualt. (NO). I think the rules are clear. You cant assualt after running. Now if the ork player declared the waaagh prior to running, then (YES) he would have the ability to Assualt in the Assualt phase of the game. I also think that the origonal post stated that a player also rolled the dice to Waaagh after running. (That would not work where I Play)

I'm curious why you think this.
Gaining the ability to assault after running gives you the ability to assault after running regardless of when you gained the ability in relation to the run.

I play orks, I always declare my Waaagh at the start of the shooting phase and if I roll that dreaded one, hey guess what.....I take the wound.
I agree that RAW the waaagh can be declared at any point in the phase and technically you can ignore the 'wound' but I like having opponents to play against

belial wrote:I play orks, I always declare my Waaagh at the start of the shooting phase and if I roll that dreaded one, hey guess what.....I take the wound.
I agree that RAW the waaagh can be declared at any point in the phase and technically you can ignore the 'wound' but I like having opponents to play against

If your opponents are the kind of people who refuse to play you because you want to play by the rules, you need new opponents.

Gwar! wrote:

belial wrote:I play orks, I always declare my Waaagh at the start of the shooting phase and if I roll that dreaded one, hey guess what.....I take the wound.
I agree that RAW the waaagh can be declared at any point in the phase and technically you can ignore the 'wound' but I like having opponents to play against

If your opponents are the kind of people who refuse to play you because you want to play by the rules, you need new opponents.

Except that this situation, like other rules that aren't brilliantly written, takes away the enjoyment of a game. RAW Crusader assault launchers dont work, would you seriously
demand that in a game.
The rules state if you roll a 1 take a wound. It doesnt say you can ignore that bit if you declare the waaagh after your run move.

Yes its a great loophole, doesn't mean you have to use it.

belial wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

belial wrote:I play orks, I always declare my Waaagh at the start of the shooting phase and if I roll that dreaded one, hey guess what.....I take the wound.
I agree that RAW the waaagh can be declared at any point in the phase and technically you can ignore the 'wound' but I like having opponents to play against

If your opponents are the kind of people who refuse to play you because you want to play by the rules, you need new opponents.

Except that this situation, like other rules that aren't brilliantly written, takes away the enjoyment of a game. RAW Crusader assault launchers dont work, would you seriously
demand that in a game.
The rules state if you roll a 1 take a wound. It doesnt say you can ignore that bit if you declare the waaagh after your run move.

Yes its a great loophole, doesn't mean you have to use it.

If you roll a one for Waaagh Movement, whatever the heck that is.

belial wrote:The rules state if you roll a 1 take a wound. It doesnt say you can ignore that bit if you declare the waaagh after your run move.

The rules also say that firing Get's Hot! weapons causes a wound on a roll of 1. It also doesn't say you can ignore that bit if you declare the Waaagh! Oh wait, Get's Hot is not relevant in this situation. Neither is your precious Waaagh! movement.

The rules do not have to specifically say you can ignore a rule if the rule is not relevant in the first place. Calling a Waaagh! in no way forces you to roll for units that have already run.

The Waaagh movement is something that doesn't technically exist. But as we are all discussing it, it must exist.
Im happy with how i play my waaagh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thebetter1 wrote:

belial wrote:The rules state if you roll a 1 take a wound. It doesnt say you can ignore that bit if you declare the waaagh after your run move.

The rules also say that firing Get's Hot! weapons causes a wound on a roll of 1. It also doesn't say you can ignore that bit if you declare the Waaagh! Oh wait, Get's Hot is not relevant in this situation. Neither is your precious Waaagh! movement.

The rules do not have to specifically say you can ignore a rule if the rule is not relevant in the first place. Calling a Waaagh! in no way forces you to roll for units that have already run.

Except we are discussing Waaagh! Benefits without Costs? one would presume the 'waaagh' is relevant. Gets hot is irrelevant however.

The original post has a problem in that it is willing to apply the cost (wound on a 1) retroactively ... which is not something supported by the rules. The idea that the benefit is applied retroactively simply is not correct. The units gain the benefit of being fleet, which simply states that if the unit has run they may assault. Two quite different states here, which is being missed in the discussion.

1) When waagh is in effect a roll of 1 on the movement die means that one model takes a single wound. This is an effect that starts once the waugh is declared, nothing about going back in time here, it runs from that time forward.

2) When waagh is in effect an ork infantry unit is given the fleet rule (technically fleet of foot but the two terms appear to have been used inerchangeably by GW-- if not then fleet of foot rules questions have to refer back to old sources). The fleet rule simply says that a unit may assault in the same turn in which it has run. It doesnt matter at what point the unit acquires the fleet rule so long as it is before the assault phase. In the assault phase we look at the unit; does it have fleet? has it run? Those are the criteria. there is nothing requireing that the unit have had fleet BEFORE it ran.


The rules simply do not apply retroactively. The STATES of the units at times can be retroactive (ie this unit has run) but a rule thats not in effect yet cant be applied.

This is simply one of those rules that has been changed by a difference in the core rules, there have been others and in the future will likely be more given GW's publishing schedule.




That said, my orcs waagh before they move, unless Im playing our local TFG

Sliggoth

@Sliggoth: You bring up a Good Point with Fleet of Foot vs Fleet. However, GW have amazingly pre-empted that by stating "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."

Yes, I was stunned and appalled too.

Pika_power wrote:Kingcracker: YMDC is used to decide what RAW is. Occasionally we look at what RAI is. We only start looking at its application on the tabletop when there is a poll by Yakface, otherwise we leave people to play it how they play it. We're not necessarily trying to English Major our way into winning games, but we enjoy ourselves by picking the rules apart.

Except that's not true at all. I much prefer the viewpoints of actual players as opposed to the useless internet lawyers.

The arguing in this thread is pretty ridiculous. Thankfully you guys are always too busy arguing on here instead of out playing in real life so we rationale folk can play the game in peace. I have never, and will never, have an argument about this because it is painfully obvious what was intended.

Night Lords wrote:Except that's not true at all. I much prefer the viewpoints of actual players as opposed to the useless internet lawyers.

What if your "useless" internet lawyers are also players?

Then I have never seen them, or, more likely (and importantly), they dont have the balls to try to pull this off in real life because they know their irrational arguments will get them no where.

Night Lords wrote:Then I have never seen them, or, more likely (and importantly), they dont have the balls to try to pull this off in real life because they know their irrational arguments will get them no where.

Hello, I play Warhammer 40,000.

Night Lords wrote:

Pika_power wrote:Kingcracker: YMDC is used to decide what RAW is. Occasionally we look at what RAI is. We only start looking at its application on the tabletop when there is a poll by Yakface, otherwise we leave people to play it how they play it. We're not necessarily trying to English Major our way into winning games, but we enjoy ourselves by picking the rules apart.

Except that's not true at all. I much prefer the viewpoints of actual players as opposed to the useless internet lawyers.

It's a bit of a generalisation. Not everyone who gets into these discussions does so purely from a delight in picking the rules apart. Some of us just like to discuss the rules in order to better understand how they work.

Understanding what the rules actually say makes you better equipped to decide how to play it, and how to deal with it when you do wind up in a situation where your opponent is playing it differently.

I have never, and will never, have an argument about this because it is painfully obvious what was intended.

Obvious to you. You might be surprised by how often players have different views on what is 'painfully obvious.'

Then again, after spending any time on YMDC, it shouldn't really be that much of a surprise.


But, seriously, even if you and your opponent both agree that it's obvious that running triggers the wound, it's still not obvious how the Waaagh actually fits into the shooting phase.

Do you have to call it at the start of the phase, despite the rules not actually requiring such?
Do you call it at any time and apply it retroactively, despite that causing headaches and forcing you to remember which unit rolled what?
Do you call it at any time and only apply Fleet to units that run after it is called, despite the rules for Fleet not supporting that?
Do you do something else entirely?

Hence the discussion. You may personally find the argument over Waaagh movement to be worthless. Others hold the view that better understanding the rules mechanics behind a given rule may help iron out remaining issues related to that rule. We've already seen in this thread that some players misunderstood exactly how Fleet works in the current rules, leading to a misunderstanding of how the Waaagh works. It's not all just about useless internet rules lawyering.

Night Lords wrote:Then I have never seen them, or, more likely (and importantly), they dont have the balls to try to pull this off in real life because they know their irrational arguments will get them no where.

Their completely logical arguments based entirely upon the rules you agree to play by when you use the 40k rulebooks and don't state otherwise? Blasphemy.

I'm surprised at how many people in this thread don't understand what RAW is or how it works, or what YDMC is or how it works.

Good for you...?

Gorkamorka wrote:

Night Lords wrote:Then I have never seen them, or, more likely (and importantly), they dont have the balls to try to pull this off in real life because they know their irrational arguments will get them no where.

Their completely logical arguments based entirely upon the rules you agree to play by when you use the 40k rulebooks and don't state otherwise? Blasphemy.

I'm surprised at how many people in this thread don't understand what RAW is or how it works, or what YDMC is or how it works.

Gorkamorka speaks with Wisdom!

Gorkamorka wrote:

I'm surprised at how many people in this thread don't understand what RAW is or how it works, or what YDMC is or how it works.

Maybe we dont give a flying poop about RAW because the rulebook is clearly no law book, and was not written in such a way (hence the rule on page 1). YMDC is not called RAW, the tenets mention both RAW and RAI.

I think we're about done here.