Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

If that were the case this thread would not be 5 pages long.

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It is good for telling people that when an out of date rule is referenced, ignore said rule, it has no effect.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Orkeosaurus wrote: ... so it can be easily switched out...

And there is your problem, spelled out for you in a convenient quote.

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!

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+.

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

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. . .

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Nice personal attack. Stick to attacking arguments chief

frgsinwntr wrote:Nice personal attack. Stick to attacking arguments chief

I addressed and refuted Gwar and the other RAW fundamentalists two pages ago.

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.

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.

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.

hehe I'm just waiting for someone to come in and say "John spencer says this! it must be true!"

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!"

"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).