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.

Dashofpepper wrote:I'm pretty sure that I follow the argument...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Translated:

Dashofpepper wrote:I'm pretty sure that I follow the argument...

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

I believe that Ghazghkull's special rule has some sort of magical power to ignore the rules.

I fixed it for you! Seriously, that is all you are saying.

Just so you know, nothing in the Waaagh! rule mentions movement in the Shooting phase, it just mentions a "Waaagh! movement" which does not exist any more, as I must have pointed out a thousand times. yes you declare a Waaagh! in the shooting phase, but nowhere does it say that this waaagh! movement happsn in the shooting phase at all. In fact, the rule the Waaagh! grants does not give any sort of movement at all, so the mention of a Waaagh! movement is just a rule that has no meaning.

Also, running phase? Since when did 40k have a Running Phase?

Gwar! wrote:

Just so you know, nothing in the Waaagh! rule mentions movement in the Shooting phase, it just mentions a "Waaagh! movement" which does not exist any more, as I must have pointed out a thousand times. yes you declare a Waaagh! in the shooting phase, but nowhere does it say that this waaagh! movement happsn in the shooting phase at all. In fact, the rule the Waaagh! grants does not give any sort of movement at all, so the mention of a Waaagh! movement is just a rule that has no meaning.

Also, running phase? Since when did 40k have a Running Phase?

Just curious, could the assault move be the new Waaaagh! move? With the new Fleet rule, the assault move that you make after running could be consdered to by movement caused by Fleet. Practically worthless, but it could give Ghazkul a use ("what? I payed 225 points to six inch assault through cover?".

Gwar, continuously nitpicking.

The Waaaugh! is declared at the start of the shooting phase, and your Waaaugh! movement happens sometime between that moment and before the assault phase. That *is* in the Waaaugh! rule.

Please, continue to selectively decide what to talk about and ignore the rest. I think on your next post, I'm going to pick the word "the" in whatever you post and just focus on that.

At the end of the day, I *am* right. The rules say that I'm right. Your link to 4th edition and what the codex meant then is irrelevant. We're not playing 4th edition.

Dashofpepper wrote:Gwar, continuously nitpicking.

I do my best.

Dashofpepper wrote:The Waaaugh! is declared at the start of the shooting phase, and your Waaaugh! movement happens sometime between that moment and before the assault phase. That *is* in the Waaaugh! rule.

Nowhere does it mention Movement At all. Waaaaagh! just says all friendly units have Fleet of Foot. Nothing about movement at all. It mentions movement afterwards, but that is a reference to how Fleet of Foot Worked in 4th edition, not Run of 5th edition, nor Fleet of 5th Edition.

Dashofpepper wrote:Please, continue to selectively decide what to talk about and ignore the rest. I think on your next post, I'm going to pick the word "the" in whatever you post and just focus on that.

At the end of the day, I *am* right. The rules say that I'm right. Your link to 4th edition and what the codex meant then is irrelevant. We're not playing 4th edition.

No, you are not right, I have shown many times you are not right. I am not selectively deciding anything. You are using 4th edition rules to justify your position. I am not.

Now, you were about to nitpick?

RustyKnight wrote:Just curious, could the assault move be the new Waaaagh! move? With the new Fleet rule, the assault move that you make after running could be considered to by movement caused by Fleet. Practically worthless, but it could give Ghazkul a use ("what? I payed 225 points to six inch assault through cover?".

I could see some support to this argument, as the Orks only get to assault after running due to the Waaaagh rule, so it could be argued that the assault is the Waaaagh move. However, it would also mean that the orks could take wounds by making the assault move. But it's a causal link at best, not a direct language/terminology link.

Gwar! wrote:
Now, you were about to nitpick?

Well, you didn't write "the", so I guess you foiled his plot.

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

Again (speaking of selective reading ) it's not just that the rule doesn't refer to running... there's also the problem that the rule refers specifically to the movement granted by fleet of foot.


Here's the relevant part of the entry:

"... For the duration of that turn, all friendly Ork units have the 'fleet of foot' rule ..."

"If a unit rolls a 1 when making this Waaagh! movement, the Orks start fighting before they get to the enemy..."


Now, nowhere in the Waaagh! rules do they define 'Waaagh! movement'. So we're left to devine what it is by context. The fact that the entry refers to 'this Waaagh! movement' directly after mentioning that the Orks gain fleet of foot (which at the time the codex was printed granted extra movement) tells us that 'Waaagh! movement is 'movement granted by having the fleet of foot rule'

That's what that passage is telling us. It doesn't mentioning running, as you say, because it couldn't. But that doesn't mean that we can simply substitute 'run' for 'fleet of foot' in the rules. That's fine to do as a house rule, but to make it the actual rule would take an errata.

So, in 5th edition, the passage still reads that 'Waaagh! movement' is the movement granted by having fleet of foot. But fleet of foot doesn't grant movement... which means that 'Waaagh! movement doesn't exist.

The unit can still run, because everybody can do so. But that running isn't Waaagh! movement.

Waaagh! movement doesn't exist under 5th edition. It's a rule that, due to the 5th edition changes, has no effect. And so should be ignored.

In other words, this argument boils down to this: if I say "Bring me all the fruit in your refrigerator" and you don't bring me the oranges and say, "You didn't say bring me oranges..." I'm going to smack you for not following directions. This is the exact, EXACT same thing.

It's really not.

The exact same thing would be if you said 'Bring me the fruitbowl in the refrigerator, and then take the oranges out of it' when the oranges had just been put into a different bowl entirely.

There's no oranges there, because they don't get put in the fruitbowl any more...

Running is part of moving during the shooting phase.

But it's not movement granted by the unit having the fleet of foot ability.

Balzac wrote:

RustyKnight wrote:Just curious, could the assault move be the new Waaaagh! move? With the new Fleet rule, the assault move that you make after running could be considered to by movement caused by Fleet. Practically worthless, but it could give Ghazkul a use ("what? I payed 225 points to six inch assault through cover?".

I could see some support to this argument, as the Orks only get to assault after running due to the Waaaagh rule, so it could be argued that the assault is the Waaaagh move. However, it would also mean that the orks could take wounds by making the assault move. But it's a causal link at best, not a direct language/terminology link.

It's also Monkey Grade bananas. The Waaagh! movement is an obsolete reference to a rule that no longer exsists (Fleet of Foot). Instead, the Waaagh! grants Fleet, which lets you assault after running.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

I see what you did there.

'ave a cook'e 'umie

Gwar, here's your problem:

The codex doesn't call out 4th, 5th, or any other edition. You choose to interpret the rule to only work with 4th edition. You're adding your own flair to the codex instead of just accepting what's written.

Dashofpepper wrote:Gwar, here's your problem:

The codex doesn't call out 4th, 5th, or any other edition. You choose to interpret the rule to only work with 4th edition. You're adding your own flair to the codex instead of just accepting what's written.

That made less sense than the Bible.
And I would know, I've read the damn thing. (Being born into a Jewish Family and going to a Catholic school does wonders for the Knowledge of religion )

Show me where it defines what the Waaagh! movement is? Nowehere. Back in 4th it referred to the movement caused by the fleet of foot rule. Now it refers to something hat does not exist, ergo the rule doesn't refer to anything any more. If GW wanted it to refer to run, they would have made it refer to run, either by a second printing or an errata. As GW have done neither, it is clear that the part about the Waaagh! movement causing a wound on a roll of 1 and Ghazgulz auto 6 do not work any more, much like the Thornback Biomorph for Tyranids and a number of items in the Space Wolf Codex and Tau Codex.

the problem was the codex came out just before 5th, so they tried to write "waaagh! movement" rather than directly state Fleet or Run.

The solution on warseer was that, as strict RAW is impossible (positivist nonsense) given *all* rules require interpretation, you have to interpret the rule the same way you did in 4th.

Waaaagh! movement therefore is == to movement made in shooting phase. This was fleet and is now run, however it was both times the same movement at the same time.

nosferatu1001 wrote:the problem was the codex came out just before 5th, so they tried to write "waaagh! movement" rather than directly state Fleet or Run.

I was unaware you wrote the codex. Oh wait...

nosferatu1001 wrote:The solution on warseer was that, as strict RAW is impossible (positivist nonsense) given *all* rules require interpretation, you have to interpret the rule the same way you did in 4th.

Warseer is hardly reliable. Also, what they are suggesting is a House rule, not RaW

nosferatu1001 wrote:Waaaagh! movement therefore is == to movement made in shooting phase. This was fleet and is now run, however it was both times the same movement at the same time.

According to a house rule, not RaW

Why can certain people not admit that the way they want to play is not what is written in the rules? Especially when it's due to ruleset changes? If this topic was about "is it reasonable to create a houserule that waagh movement = run?" then there'd be no controversy at all.

By strict RAW, Waaggh does not grant movement and Ghazgul's ability is gone. However, the risk associated with a roll of 1 is gone also.

If you want to treat the run as the waaggh movement then it's an easy and obvious houserule. But it is still a houserule (something I have no problem with as long as it's not passed off as RAW)

Scott-S6 wrote:Why can certain people not admit that the way they want to play is not what is written in the rules? Especially when it's due to ruleset changes? If this topic was about "is it reasonable to create a houserule that waagh movement = run?" then there'd be no controversy at all.

By strict RAW, Waaggh does not grant movement and Ghazgul's ability is gone. However, the risk associated with a roll of 1 is gone also.

If you want to treat the run as the waaggh movement then it's an easy and obvious houserule. But it is still a houserule (something I have no problem with as long as it's not passed off as RAW)

QFT. Even I don't insist on someone playing it that way (If I am in a good mood anyway), I ask them to do it as it used to work, Roll of 1 = Wound etc and all that jazz. I just point out that it is not how it actually works.

insaniak wrote:

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

Poor planning?

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

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

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

Before this thread, I wouldn't have even considered it an issue, but after this thread, yes I can see bringing it up with your opponent being a good idea.

From the 5th Edition Ork FAQ

Q. Are saves allowed against wounds caused by
rolling a ‘1’ for the ‘Waaagh!’ fleet roll? Or by a
Bosspole’s re-roll?
A. Armour and invulnerable saves are allowed.
These are just the same as wounds suffered in
close combat from a normal weapon (actually, a
big green fist…).


What do we learn from this? We learn that all of you who said a roll of "1" no longer wounds were wrong. You were wrong, regardless of how many testimonials your sig boasts--you were wrong.

Queue RAW fundamnetalist response.
buh buh buh....FAQs are not official...buh buh buh

olympia wrote:From the 5th Edition Ork FAQ

Q. Are saves allowed against wounds caused by
rolling a ‘1’ for the ‘Waaagh!’ fleet roll? Or by a
Bosspole’s re-roll?
A. Armour and invulnerable saves are allowed.
These are just the same as wounds suffered in
close combat from a normal weapon (actually, a
big green fist…).


What do we learn from this? We learn that all of you who said a roll of "1" no longer wounds were wrong. You were wrong, regardless of how many testimonials your sig boasts--you were wrong.

Queue RAW fundamnetalist response.
buh buh buh....FAQs are not official...buh buh buh

FAQ's are not official, they are GW in house House Rules. Also that is just a Copypaste from the 4th edition FAQ without checking to see if it is relevant.

olympia wrote:From the 5th Edition Ork FAQ

Q. Are saves allowed against wounds caused by
rolling a ‘1’ for the ‘Waaagh!’ fleet roll? Or by a
Bosspole’s re-roll?
A. Armour and invulnerable saves are allowed.
These are just the same as wounds suffered in
close combat from a normal weapon (actually, a
big green fist…).


What do we learn from this? We learn that all of you who said a roll of "1" no longer wounds were wrong. You were wrong, regardless of how many testimonials your sig boasts--you were wrong.

Queue RAW fundamnetalist response.
buh buh buh....FAQs are not official...buh buh buh

Whats a fleet roll? sorry... fleet rolls still don't exist.

Modquisition on:
This thread has been reported several times and is closed pending review.