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.

kirsanth wrote:TFG is always the one arguing RAI

Fix'd.

TFG argues rules to make sure they benefit him. I argue rules to be played as written.

Gwar! wrote:

kirsanth wrote:TFG is always the one arguing RAI

Fix'd.

TFG argues rules to make sure they benefit him. I argue rules to be played as written.

In all fairness I almost wrote that.

I can think of a couple of people that fall outside that though. One is simply mistaken rather often.

number9dream wrote:They wrote the bloody rules just months before 5th was released, why would they include something that's not going to bloody do ANYTHING in just a few months?

Poor planning?

(Although if you ask anyone who bought the 2nd Edition Sisters of Battle codex, which was released a couple of months before 3rd edition came along and invalidated every single codex, they'd probably tell you that GW do it deliberately just to drive people up the wall...)

Possibly by the strictest RAW I could be inclined to agree that "it does nothing", but I think that's taking RAW to the point of looking for loopholes.

The fact that you can see the opposing side at least argues for it to be something to discuss with your opponent pre-game, rather than just assuming that everyone will agree it works the way you think it does.

Isn't WAAGH a run move?

In the 5th ed. Rulebook, Fleet states that it is a run move that allows someone to assault. It also says that the rule may be called Fleet of Foot, Hoof, Claw etc.

A WAAGH is essentially a run that allows someone to assault. This being because Fleet of Foot is a Run move (at least this is what it says in my book) that allows someone to assault, whereas the regular Run does not.

Run, in essence, somewhat replaced fleet. But in the Rulebook, Fleet is a Run move, so therefore I would like to think that a WAAGH is a run move that I can assault with.

Once again, feel free to disagree, or point out why I am wrong. I am simply confused and trying to get an answer.

Edit: Ok, I think I get it. Some people say that WAAGH does not exist as Fleet of Foot was a 4th ed. Rule.

Though, I don't see how Fleet of Foot disappeared. Reading the Rulebook, Fleet is a RUN move that allows me to assault. someone kindly explain the difference, please.


I'd also like to thank people for keeping this relatively polite.

Cryonicleech
Edit:
1) Run allows a D6 movement instead of shooting
2) Fleet is a rule that says you can assault if you ran. No mention of how running works in this rule.
3) Waaagh does not say anything about running, only gaining fleet.

Cryonicleech wrote:Though, I don't see how Fleet of Foot disappeared. Reading the Rulebook, Fleet is a RUN move that allows me to assault. someone kindly explain the difference, please.

Fleet is not a Move in any shape or form. All Fleet does is allow you to Assault after running.

I have it wrong?

frgsinwntr wrote:I have it wrong?

No you have it correct, Cryonicleech has it wrong. Sorry, my bad

phew! I was confused and rechecking my logic!

Gwar! wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:Cryonicleech
Edit:
1) Run allows a D6 movement instead of shooting
2) Fleet is a rule that says you can assault if you ran. No mention of how running works in this rule.
3) Waaagh does not say anything about running, only gaining fleet.

Seems to me someone is stuck playing 4th edition.

But yes, please quote the three rules asked or acknowledge that you have it horribly wrong.

Cryonicleech wrote:Though, I don't see how Fleet of Foot disappeared. Reading the Rulebook, Fleet is a RUN move that allows me to assault. someone kindly explain the difference, please.

Man this made me laugh. YMTC sure has some funny people today. Fleet is not a Move in any shape or form. All Fleet does is allow you to Assault after running. If you had read the rulebook you would know that.

I really don't see the need to insult me on this. I'm asking a question. If I have it wrong, I'm sorry. No need to degrade me over it.

Cryonicleech wrote:Isn't WAAGH a run move?

No.

Waaagh! is an ability that grants Ork infantry Fleet.

In the 5th ed. Rulebook, Fleet states that it is a run move that allows someone to assault. It also says that the rule may be called Fleet of Foot, Hoof, Claw etc.

It does not say that Fleet is a run move. Fleet is not a move at all. It's an abilty that allows a unit to charge in the assault phase even if it ran in the shooting phase.

A WAAGH is essentially a run that allows someone to assault.

A Waaagh! move, as defined by the codex, is the movement granted by the Fleet rule, which in 4th edition was D6" and in 5th edition is nil.

Run, in essence, somewhat replaced fleet.

That's true.

But in the Rulebook, Fleet is a Run move,

That's not. Again, Fleet is not a move at all. It's an ability that allows you to assault.

Edit: Ok, I think I get it. Some people say that WAAGH does not exist as Fleet of Foot was a 4th ed. Rule. Though, I don't see how Fleet of Foot disappeared. Reading the Rulebook, Fleet is a RUN move that allows me to assault. someone kindly explain the difference, please.

Fleet of Foot was a 4th edition rule that granted D6" movement in the shooting phase.
Fleet is a completely different 5th edition rule that grants the ability to charge in the assault phase, even if the model ran.

Two completely different rules that just share a similar name.

Alrighty then. I think I get it.

Thanks, Insaniak

Edit: just to make absolutely sure.

Fleet is not a move: This I understand now

Ghaz does not give an auto 6 to anything: This too I understand.

Cryonicleech wrote:Alrighty then. I think I get it.

Thanks, Insaniak

Edit: just to make absolutely sure.

Fleet is not a move: This I understand now

Ghaz does not give an auto 6 to anything: This too I understand.

And more importantly:

If Ghaz doesn't give an auto 6 to anything, then Ork units don't suffer a wound on a '1' for their run movement, since it isn't 'Waagh! movement', either.

solkan wrote:

Cryonicleech wrote:Alrighty then. I think I get it.

Thanks, Insaniak

Edit: just to make absolutely sure.

Fleet is not a move: This I understand now

Ghaz does not give an auto 6 to anything: This too I understand.

And more importantly:

If Ghaz doesn't give an auto 6 to anything, then Ork units don't suffer a wound on a '1' for their run movement, since it isn't 'Waagh! movement', either.

Yup! agreed

solkan wrote:And more importantly:

If Ghaz doesn't give an auto 6 to anything, then Ork units don't suffer a wound on a '1' for their run movement, since it isn't 'Waagh! movement', either.

Yup, totally correct there. Once of the changes 5th edition brought around.

You RAW fundies are so clueless. Oh look, there's a GW tactica article on Ghazghkull

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=cat210004&categoryId=600005&aId=3400051

Perhaps the most dangerous thing about Ghazghkull, though, is his Prophet of the Waaagh! rule. On the turn this ability is used, all Ork infantry units become Fearless (provided they aren't running away like scaredy-squigs) and can move an extra 6" as they Fleet of Foot. This extra movement ignores difficult terrain, and your opponent will soon find his battle lines overwhelmed by mobz of angry Boyz charging in (with Furious Charge to boot). Ghazghkull also becomes all but invulnerable on this turn; just the trick if you are about to barrel into a squad of Terminators.

buh buh buh you RAW fundies will say, that tactica is from 4th edition they've just left it posted on there website all this time...buh buh buh...


buh buh buh....it's not an official FAQ or Errata...buh buh buh...

olympia wrote:You RAW fundies are so clueless. Oh look, there's a GW tactica article on Ghazghkull

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=cat210004&categoryId=600005&aId=3400051

Perhaps the most dangerous thing about Ghazghkull, though, is his Prophet of the Waaagh! rule. On the turn this ability is used, all Ork infantry units become Fearless (provided they aren't running away like scaredy-squigs) and can move an extra 6" as they Fleet of Foot. This extra movement ignores difficult terrain, and your opponent will soon find his battle lines overwhelmed by mobz of angry Boyz charging in (with Furious Charge to boot). Ghazghkull also becomes all but invulnerable on this turn; just the trick if you are about to barrel into a squad of Terminators.

buh buh buh you RAW fundies will say, that tactica is from 4th edition they've just left it posted on there website all this time...buh buh buh...


buh buh buh....it's not an official FAQ or Errata...buh buh buh...

"That tactica is from 4th edition they've just left it posted on their website. It is neither official, nor Errata, nor FAQ."
Spelling is fun.

Also, if you want to accept Random Web sites as rules then I shall make a website that makes me King of The Moon. Doesn't make it true though.

olympia wrote:buh buh buh you RAW fundies will say, that tactica is from 4th edition they've just left it posted on there website all this time...buh buh buh...

Actually, going by the article ID numbers, it is a 4th edition article. Or at least, it appears to have been posted quite some time before the 5th edition update articles.


But seriously, I'm puzzled as to what you expect from this discussion.

We're talking about the rules. You can post as many links as you like to articles suggesting that GW intended for it to work a certain way, and it won't make a lick of difference to what the rules actually say.

Nor will it change how people actually play it. I personally don't have the slightest problem with Waaagh! movement not actually existing under 5th edition, because it has no effect on my own games. As I mentioned earlier, I play my Orks with the Waaagh! having to be declared at the start of the phase, and with the Run counting as the Waaagh! movement. I do this because it is, to me, the better way to play it and the way I suspect GW intended it to go when they wrote the book so close to the 5th edition release.

But I don't pretend that it's what the book actually says to do, and I'm not going to get upset with anyone who points out that the way I play it isn't how the rules actually say to do it.

insaniak wrote:But I don't pretend that it's what the book actually says to do, and I'm not going to get upset with anyone who points out that the way I play it isn't how the rules actually say to do it.

QFT x 9001

If you were playing me and brought this up, I would more than likely have no issue with letting you do it this way, provided you were not an donkey-cave about it or tried to force me into playing your way and as long as you realised that you are using a house rule.

Come up to me and go "OMFG J00! GHAZGUL IZ RUUNE NAO!" I'd tell you to kindly RTFM and GTFO.

Gwar! wrote:
RTFM

What does that acronym mean?


I'd be fine with letting my opponent's use Ghaz's WAAAAGH!, assuming they're willing to let Lictor's ignore Dangerous Terrain when they DS, etc.

RustyKnight wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
RTFM

What does that acronym mean?


I'd be fine with letting my opponent's use Ghaz's WAAAAGH!, assuming they're willing to let Lictor's ignore Dangerous Terrain when they DS, etc.

Read The Manual

*sigh*

You can say RTFM and GTFO, except that I'd be inclined to do the same. If you and I are playing a game, and you tell me that I don't get a Waaaugh! movement and Ghazghkull's ability, I'm going to call the TO over.

I'm going to show them my codex, which describes how Orks get the fleet ability, then goes on to describe how to move during the shooting phase.

You're going to tell the TO that the Waaaugh! description was written during 4th edition and doesn't apply anymore.

I'm going to show them the run USR and compare it to the Waaaugh! rule, which both describe the same action happening, albeit with an extra caveat of receiving a wound for rolling a 1.

You're going to whine to the TO that it doesn't actually have the word run in the description, so its nothing.

I'm going to remind the TO that the BRB defers to a codex when a codex has a more specific rule.

The TO is going to agree with me, and I'm going to continue using Waaaugh! as normal. I don't *need* to be in a game with you and make a concession that I'm using a house rule, because I'm not. I need only look at the rules, and they're absolutely clear on what actions to take during my turn. The Ork codex jives just fine with 5th edition. You can try making inferences back to other editions to try explaining that a rule is only supposed to be for another scenario, but I'm willing to believe that GW wrote the Waaaugh! unit the way that it did specifically so that it would stand through 5th edition.

As a previous poster noted, and as you users keep ignoring....since the Ork codex was written before 5th edition, they couldn't refer to the run USR in it - instead, they just described the run movement, and how to move during the run phase without attaching a rule name to it.

So keep plugging your ears and going "lalalala" because your argument isn't valid; plopping the rules down in front of a TO organizer will be sufficient to show that.

Dashofpepper wrote:So keep plugging your ears and going "lalalala" because your argument isn't valid; plopping the rules down in front of a TO organizer will be sufficient to show that.

This line just shows you have no clue about the rules.

I have proven to you time and time again. Show me where it says the Waagh! Movement is Run. Show me, please, point to the Sentence "Waaagh! movement = Run" in the ork Codex. It is that simple, if the Ork Codex does not say Waaaagh! Move = Run, then it does not.

I just hope you DO go to a tournament one day (I doubt it considering your rules knowledge) and get smacked in the face by the TO.

olympia wrote:You RAW fundies are so clueless. Oh look, there's a GW tactica article on Ghazghkull

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=cat210004&categoryId=600005&aId=3400051

Perhaps the most dangerous thing about Ghazghkull, though, is his Prophet of the Waaagh! rule. On the turn this ability is used, all Ork infantry units become Fearless (provided they aren't running away like scaredy-squigs) and can move an extra 6" as they Fleet of Foot. This extra movement ignores difficult terrain, and your opponent will soon find his battle lines overwhelmed by mobz of angry Boyz charging in (with Furious Charge to boot). Ghazghkull also becomes all but invulnerable on this turn; just the trick if you are about to barrel into a squad of Terminators.

buh buh buh you RAW fundies will say, that tactica is from 4th edition they've just left it posted on there website all this time...buh buh buh...


buh buh buh....it's not an official FAQ or Errata...buh buh buh...

LOL GW making a mistake in a tactica or battle report?? man! what is the world coming too! there are typically 4-5 mistakes per WD battle report! Yay call us fundies!

Gwar, you have selective attention, and conveniently ignore a lot of things.

Dashofpepper wrote:Gwar, you have selective attention, and conveniently ignore a lot of things.

As do you, namely the fact that we now play 5th edition, and as such the functionality of the Waaagh! rule has changed, meaning that a roll of 1 no longer results in a wound, you may run first and then Call the Waaagh! and the fact that Ghazguls "six" special rule no longer functions.

Dashofpepper wrote:*sigh*


You're going to whine to the TO that it doesn't actually have the word run in the description, so its nothing.

there really isn't any whining going on. Just intellectual debate on how a certain rule is working or if it actually doesn't work and everyone plays it like it does.

Dashofpepper wrote:You can say RTFM and GTFO, except that I'd be inclined to do the same. If you and I are playing a game, and you tell me that I don't get a Waaaugh! movement and Ghazghkull's ability, I'm going to call the TO over.

It would seem from this statement that you're still not following the actual argument.

You still get exactly the same amount of movement when the Waaagh! is called as you did last edition.

The problem is simply that this movement is now coming from the Run rule instead of from the Fleet rule.

So rather than 'whining' to the TO, your opponent would need only to point out that Fleet no longer confers movement, which means that the reference to Fleet-induced movement is an artefact of last edition... a rule that causes 'x' effect when Fleet-induced movement occurs can have no effect on the current ruleset, because there is no Fleet movement.

And the Rulebook FAQ tells us what to do with such artefacts.


Of course, the TO would be well within their rights to rule in your favour. They'd be equally within their rights to rule the other way, or to make up another rule on the spot to cover the situation.

And none of those rulings would have the slightest impact on what the rules actually say... which is what is under discussion.

Dash, what your scenario relies on to come down in your favor is for the TO to make the same RAI interpretation that you have been arguing for this whole thread.

TO come down on the side of RAW far more then RAI. Good luck with that.

I'm pretty sure that I follow the argument...

Gwar believes that Ghazghkull's special rule that grants an automatic six to movement you make during the shooting phase doesn't apply to running.

I believe that Ghazghkull's special rule that grants an automatic six to movement made during the running phase does apply to running.

Gwar believes that since the Waaaugh! rule doesn't specifically reference running during the shooting phase, it doesn't apply to running.

I believe that since the Waaaugh! rule doesn't specifically reference running during the shooting phase (since running didn't exist when the rule was written), and instead is worded to cover any movement made, that is inclusive of running.
---------------------------

In short, I believe that referencing movement made during the shooting phase is an inclusive statement that covers running.

Gwar believes that since that rule doesn't have the word "run" in it, it is exclusive, and doesn't cover running.
---------------------------

In other words, this argument boils down to this: if I say "Bring me all the fruit in your refrigerator" and you don't bring me the oranges and say, "You didn't say bring me oranges..." I'm going to smack you for not following directions. This is the exact, EXACT same thing. Running is part of moving during the shooting phase. I don't care if it says running or not, its inclusive of any movement in the shooting phase.

THAT'S why I say that Gwar and company have selective hearing/reading skills and are conscientiously ignoring anything relevant to the rules.