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.

The other day me and a friend where having a practice 1850 game, as he plans to atend Adepticon. Bottom of turn one we run into an interesting problem. His Bloodthirster got charged by my 20 boyz squad with Thraka and a Nob. The Bloodthirster kills Thraka before he can swing and the Boyz and the Nob kill off the Thirster. Turn 2 rolls around and I want to call Waaagh. Here is the problem, though. Thraka is dead so do I still get his Waaagh or the regular one? Do I need Thraka to call it, if its his? Do I just get no Waaagh? I've skimmed through INAT and didn't see an answer.

Youd just get a normal WAAGH!

Thraka has to be on the field for you to use HIS WAAAGH!

My opponent aargued since Thraka Waaagh replaces the normal Waaagh I lose it.

KingCracker wrote:Youd just get a normal WAAGH!

Thraka has to be on the field for you to use HIS WAAAGH!

Wrong. Nothing indicates that Thraka has to be alive or even in play for you to call his waagh. He just has to be in the army. it's the same as a Wolf Lord with Saga of the Wolfkin, which gives bonuses to Wolves Stats. Even if the Wolf Lord dies, he is still in the army (albeit dead) and they keep the bonus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

arinnoor wrote:My opponent aargued since Thraka Waaagh replaces the normal Waaagh I lose it.

Nope, you still get to call his Waaagh.

I would strongly suspect that one would be ruled the other way if they ever FAQ it though, since it refers to Ghaz calling the Waaagh!... which he can't very well do if he's already dead.

insaniak wrote:I would strongly suspect that one would be ruled the other way if they ever FAQ it though, since it refers to Ghaz calling the Waaagh!... which he can't very well do if he's already dead.

And I strongly suspect that GW being GW would just tell players that it works if he is dead...

on a 4+

Oh GOD the 4+ joke. Its funny, but its not.

I still say, he has to be alive for you to use Ghaz's WAAGH! The rules for the waaagh constantly state thrakas name over and over. Its HIS personal waaagh. How can you benefit from it, if hes dead? That just doesnt make any sense at all saying that you can still benefit from thrakas waaagh if thraka himself is dead? To me, since it isnt 100% perfectly clear in the codex, an Ork player would be rules abusing like a sombitch if they used his waaagh AFTER he died.

KingCracker wrote:Oh GOD the 4+ joke. Its funny, but its not.

I still say, he has to be alive for you to use Ghaz's WAAGH! The rules for the waaagh constantly state thrakas name over and over. Its HIS personal waaagh. How can you benefit from it, if hes dead? That just doesnt make any sense at all saying that you can still benefit from thrakas waaagh if thraka himself is dead? To me, since it isnt 100% perfectly clear in the codex, an Ork player would be rules abusing like a sombitch if they used his waaagh AFTER he died.

Ee izn't ded, eez jus avin a nap soz ee can ave annova go afta!

I really does make you wonder why GW can't write :(

lol Thats true for sure! Honestly, you (and Im talking YOU) could probably go on for days about how terrible there writing is. Didnt it use to be solid back in the olden days? I seem to remember 3rd edition(when I first really got into it) the rules were fairly strait. Then again I could of been a GW fanboy for all I know

What is really, really funny is how RaW Dæmonhunters Frag Assault Launchers work but the SM and SW ones don't.

My brother and I were talking about something similar last night. We find it funny (talking about Necrons is what brought it up) how they write codices for say 4th edition, get about half way through, and start writing codices for 5th edition before the 5th edition rules are even made. So then 5th comes out, some of the codices are ok with 5th, some are re written, and the rest are STILL in 4th or DH case, 3rd.
Some rules are just completely unusable, like you mentioned above, and leaves you scratching your head all the damn time. Gotta love that premium we all pay uh?

KingCracker wrote:...how terrible there writing is...

I thought this was funny ::

KingCracker wrote:Didnt it use to be solid back in the olden days? I seem to remember 3rd edition(when I first really got into it) the rules were fairly strait.

It's natural to remember things as being better 'in the old days'... but in this case, they really weren't.

2nd edition was full of all sorts of rules conflicts and holes, due to the complexity of the ruleset. That was the era when GW were putting FAQs in White Dwarf each month, and still didn't manage to cover everything.

3rd edition was just a mess. 4th started to clean things up a little, and 5th has (mostly) been a huge improvement, IMO. Although it's starting to look like increasing the complexity of the codexes again is running them back into problems.

5th has had the most solid rule set so far. However, I don't think it's the complexity of the codices, but simply sloppy rules writing in the codices that is mucking things up again.

They need to write with the actual rules of the game in mind when they write the special rules in the codices.

willydstyle wrote: However, I don't think it's the complexity of the codices, but simply sloppy rules writing in the codices that is mucking things up again.

What I was getting at was that, at least where GW are concerned, those two are linked IMO. The more complex they make their rules, the more chance there is that their not-so-precise style of rules writing will cause issues.

Then they need to change their attitude. Complexity and lack of precision do not necessarily go hand-in-hand, though I do realize that all of the possible rules interactions for a given unit do make things more complicated.

Nothing about it gives the impression that it dies with him. It specifically states that his Waargh may be summoned at any time and that it replaces the normal waaargh. The summoned at any time isn't "Can be summoned at any time if Ghazghul is on the board". It replaces the normal Waargh. The normal waargh can still be initiated if the only thing left on the board is a fleeing grot.

IMO this is almost along the only tanks can tank shock because it only says tanks, almost

Ghaz himself replaces the waaagh! with his super waaagh! I dont see how you could use GHAZIES waaagh when ghaz himself is dead. Thats the price you pay for not using his waaagh before he dies, or charging a demon prince without using his waaaagh.

KingCracker wrote:IMO this is almost along the only tanks can tank shock because it only says tanks, almost

Ghaz himself replaces the waaagh! with his super waaagh! I dont see how you could use GHAZIES waaagh when ghaz himself is dead. Thats the price you pay for not using his waaagh before he dies, or charging a demon prince without using his waaaagh.

Nowhere does it say he has to be alive to use it. It follows the rules for calling a Waaaagh!, which do not need a Warboss or anything except a single Grot on the table.

Yes but a normal grot or boy or whatever gets a normal waaaagh. Ghaz brings a different waaagh, there for you need Ghaz to use the waaagh. Without him, a grot/boy would use the normal waaagh

KingCracker wrote:Yes but a normal grot or boy or whatever gets a normal waaaagh. Ghaz brings a different waaagh, there for you need Ghaz to use the waaagh. Without him, a grot/boy would use the normal waaagh

The contention is that Ghaz's Waaagh! is a special rule that applies because you have Ghaz in your army list... not specifically because you have him on the table.

The entry does suggest that the Waaagh! is called by a specific action of Ghaz's (referring to it as Ghaz's warcry, and stating that he can't combine his Waaagh on the same turn as a Weirdboy's Waaagh!... which is good enough for me to say that he has to be around to call it. But I can see how others could take it the other way, since it doesn't explicitly say as much.

GWAR - Yes but using that very same logic, one could easily argue, It also DOESNT state that after Ghaz dies, you may still use his WAAAGH!


Insaniac - Thats why I was saying earlier that it is starting to remind me of the only tanks can tank shock deal. Simply because, everyone says only tanks can tank shock, because it only says tanks, not only that but it says tanks a million +1 times in the description. In the Ghazkulls warcry section it says his name 5 times. Never once does it even suggest that anything else can use his warcry. Again, leading me to believe that only Ghaz can use his own warcry, not after he dies. Im glad we see eye to eye on alot of things

Hell I wouldnt argue that you could use the warcry if he was still in reserve, as he wouldnt be dead.

KingCracker wrote:
GWAR - Yes but using that very same logic, one could easily argue, It also DOESNT state that after Ghaz dies, you may still use his WAAAGH!

No, it isn't. Nowhere says that Ghaz has to be alive, on the table etc. If it had said "While Ghaz is alive", then he would have to be. It doesn't however, it just requires him to be in the Army.

Or are you saying that if Ghaz is in reserve on Turn 2 you cannot call a Waaagh?

Gwar! wrote:

KingCracker wrote:
GWAR - Yes but using that very same logic, one could easily argue, It also DOESNT state that after Ghaz dies, you may still use his WAAAGH!

No, it isn't. Nowhere says that Ghaz has to be alive, on the table etc. If it had said "While Ghaz is alive", then he would have to be. It doesn't however, it just requires him to be in the Army.

Or are you saying that if Ghaz is in reserve on Turn 2 you cannot call a Waaagh?

And if he is dead, then guess what? Hes not in the army any more, meaning you cannot use his waaagh!

I also stated above, that I wouldnt argue if you had Ghaz, alive, and in reserve. Simply because he is in the army.

Id like to point out that yes my "it doesnt say you CAN use the waaagh after he dies" argument is just as usable as your "it doesnt say you cant". Infact those 2 are almost the exact same argument. And to add to it, O <-- this is a circle, and using the 2 mentioned arguments, is us arguing in a circle, and not going anywhere.

KingCracker wrote:And if he is dead, then guess what? Hes not in the army any more, meaning you cannot use his waaagh!

Errm... no? He is in the army, he is just dead.

By your logic, a when Wolf Lord with Saga of the Wolfkin dies all the fenrisian wolves suddenly lose their Extra Initiative and Leadership...

Well thats a bit different actually. Thrakas waaagh! is only used one time, so if he dies before he can use it, the army cannot get the benefit of his waaagh.

Im not incredibly familiar with the SW codex, but with what your saying, it sounds like they get that upgrade from the get go. So in my thinking, they keep it even after the wolf lord has died.

KingCracker wrote:
Id like to point out that yes my "it doesnt say you CAN use the waaagh after he dies" argument is just as usable as your "it doesnt say you cant". Infact those 2 are almost the exact same argument. And to add to it, O <-- this is a circle, and using the 2 mentioned arguments, is us arguing in a circle, and not going anywhere.

No, these arguments are quite different. The 'It doesn't say you can't' argument is only invalid when the rules don't say you can.

If the rules say you get the new waaagh, then you get it until the rules say you don't (which they never do).

To the OP, this thread is a perfect example of the "roll a d6 to figure it out" statement. GW cant write rules that are clear enough to clear. Ive argued my points.

And of course the 2 arguments arnt exactly the same, my point was as far as arguing goes, they hold the same weight for either side. You can say "well the rules dont say you cant, so you can" followed by "yes but the rules dont say you CAN so you cant" Thats what my point was, neither one is a good argument because they lead you in the same direction, the ever present O