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.

So, I've seen a lot of people saying that Ghaz's waaagh no longer allows you to move 6" in 5th ed because of the change in how fleet works. (there's no longer any such thing as a "fleet movement")

But from looking at the codex, it explains that waaagh! gives all ork units fleet and then says "If a unit rolls a 1 when making this Waaagh! movement..."
Which seems to me to define a waaagh movement as any running movement made on a turn in which a Waaagh! has been declared.

While if it said "Any ork making a fleet movement this turn counts as rolling a 6" Then it wouldn't work, as there's no such thing. But Ghaz's rule affects "Waaagh! movements" Which are defined (loosely, mind you) within the codex, so if his rule ever had any effect, I fail to see how it no longer does in 5th ed.

You are correct. If you fail to see how Ghazghkull's Waaagh! no longer allows you to run 6" and then assault as if Fleet, that is because such claims are not only false, but stupid to boot.

Still, given that you've chummed the waters, be prepared for a whole lot of people telling you otherwise for no good reason.

You best remember this is troll feeding grounds

... So far there's been more warning of the flamewar to come than there has been flames... I don't know whether to be worried or comforted.

Here is a link to the previous learned debate on the subject.

Warning: reading may cause your stomach to leap up your esophagus and attempt to strangle your brain.

Yeah, we have had NUMEROUS arguments about Waaaaagh and Ghazghkull in our games and I've seen several on Dakkadakka much like the link Nurglitch has mentioned.

I dont even want to post what we've decided as to not start another thread about Waaagh and Ghazghkull

I don't see how "Waaagh movement" has become obsolete now, but has worked in the past.

It's never been defined, either as the movement you get from fleet or the movement of your running on the turn you gain fleet.

It's called inductive reasoning, people. (Also, yeah, inb4 flamewarz.)

It's been discussed to death. There's really no reason to dredge it up again.

Your right Insaniak, there is no need to discuss it here on the boards again... But there is a need for GW to FAQ it... I know how we (my group) play it, and that is good enough for me....

Especially given that the movement itself is defined in the ork codex as the movement taken in the shooting phase.

Don't worry about people arguing that it doesn't work in real life; the forums are theoretical, and attract debaters to start arguments. Play as you normally do, and if an issue comes up on a table, handle it as you normally do; addressing the rulebook, or asking a tournament organizer, or rolling a 4+.

*this* issue probably won't ever come up for you though.

I read most of that topic - its just ridiculous. DashofPepper was completely right, and his arguement was completely ignored and twisted into something it was not. I find that people who cant put 2 and 2 together really shouldnt be debating rules. I dont play orks, only my friend does, so it would only benefit me to agree that Ghaz (which he always runs) wouldnt get that 6 inches, but no one in their right mind would actually try to argue that (especially when it outlines exactly what it does).

I get the feeling that trying to prove one another right on here is a game for some people. I bet you the people on here arguing this gak wouldnt have the balls to actually enforce this in real life because they know how ridiculous it is. Argue RAW or whatever you want, but when RAW can be interpreted (yes, words can be interpreted in different ways), the way everyone else plays it is going to be the way it goes, and chances are, when youre forced into reading loopholes and things no one would ever think of, its not going to be that way. That is if you want opponents to actually play against.

EDIT: Speaking of the devil, he posted while i was reading and posting

Nightlords, I can't help thinking that you have somewhat missed the point of what forums like YMDC are all about.

Sometimes the rules arguments can seem a little extreme, and a little silly... but that in no way reflects how people actually play the game.

In this particular case, there are two possible ways to interpret the rules, and both were presented in that thread. Not just for the sake of argument, but for the sake of presenting the actual rules, so people can make their own judgements.

Because in this case, there are people who play that Ghaz doesn't provide the free movement. Having read that thread, and taken it for what it intended, when (if) you do happen to come across such a person, you're already familar with the argument, and can discuss it with them as to how to play it. Rather than being surprised by some seeming off the wall rule that makes no sense because you've never heard of it before.

I should have looked before posting, sorry. I'll ask a mod to lock this thread.

EDIT: Wow, I even posted in the last thread about this... with the same argument... I need to lay off the drugs.

I think you missed the point. I know what this board is all about, thats where the majority of my 100 posts come from.

The fact is, in this very situation, the rules are clear and people are arguing because it doesnt say the word "run". This is not RAW, this is nitpicking and not using common sense. DoP already explained the wording, and the common sense train is heading to yes.

No one would argue this in real life because this would get you laughed at.

I completely agree with the arguing if this were a real life situation - but this is so extreme and so obvious there would be no trouble getting the 6 inches.

My group has an easy solution. Any ork player that wants Ghaz 6'' waagh also agrees to declare any normal Waagh at the start of the Shooting phase so he might suffer the results of any 1s rolled. He will obviously also check Weirdboys first in case they produce a waagh.

Night Lords wrote:The fact is, in this very situation, the rules are clear

If that were the case, we wouldn't have a 7 page thread debating them.

The rules seem clear to you. They seem just as clear to people arguing the opposing view.

Hence the discussion.

and people are arguing because it doesnt say the word "run". This is not RAW, this is nitpicking and not using common sense. DoP already explained the wording, and the common sense train is heading to yes.

Or, in other words, you've made up your mind that one interpretation of the rule is the correct one. That's fine. But at least have the courtesy to allow others to disagree.

No one would argue this in real life because this would get you laughed at.

I disagree. If I ever use Ghaz in my Ork army, which I admit is unlikely, I'll most definitely be pointing out to my opponent that the RAW is hazy on whether or not he still grants the free movement, and making sure they're ok with playing it.

The rules aren't as clear as you choose to believe, because they were written for a different edition of the game, in which the rules in question worked very differently. It's not that hard to believe that people will draw different conclusions on just what that means, particularly when we have an FAQ telling us what to do with codex rules that don't seem to fit the current edition...

Duplicate thread. Being closed at OP's request.