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.

You know, I've been playing this the way I think it should be played, but then the other day I suddenly wasn't so sure.

It's the Ork WAAAGH! - In the Codex it talks about the WAAAGH move, which in 4th Edition was a Fleet Move (d6 move). And it is important, because something bad happens when you roll a "1" as per Codex: Orks! Of course, now when you get Fleet it is something different - and no roll is needed.

Lately, I've been removing Orks who roll a "1" on the run they do before the WAAGGH! But is that the right way to do it? It isn't really a "WAAGGH! Move" since it is just a normal run which I could do any turn I want. And what if I decide not to run? That's my option, and I could avoid the nasty "1" altogether, then benefit from FLEET after calling my WAAGGHH shortly after.

So - what is the WAAGGHH move in 5th Edition? Is it the run move like I thought, or does it simply not exist anymore (absolving me from the need to ever roll that Ork-Wounding "1" again?)

In 5ed, the Waagh gives all units with the Waagh special rule, fleet for 1 turn. You roll a d6 like you normally do for any run roll per unit. If you roll a 1 for the run roll while a Waagh is going on, then that unit takes a single wound which armor/invul saves can be used to save against. This is done for every unit that runs during the Waagh with the Waagh special rule. Also to note, even if you roll a 1, you still get to move 1 inch for the run roll.

Solorg wrote:So - what is the WAAGGHH move in 5th Edition? Is it the run move like I thought, or does it simply not exist anymore (absolving me from the need to ever roll that Ork-Wounding "1" again?)

Yes.


Or, more specifically, nobody knows for sure, despite numerous threads discussing it since the 5th edition rules were released. The way the rule is worded, the 'Waaagh movement' is the movement conveyed by the Fleet rule... so technically Waaagh movement no longer exists. So you no longer suffer the penalty for rolling a 1, and Ghaz no longer conveys an automatic 6.

It's further complicated by the fact that there is no requirement to call the Waaagh at the start of the phase, so if you treat the Run movement as Waaagh movement and call a Waaagh in the middle of the shooting phase, you would need to retroactively apply the penalty to any units that rolled a 1, if you remember which ones they were... Or not, depending on your viewpoint.


I suspect you'll find, though, (particularly since the Ork Codex was supposedly written to be forwards compatible with the 5th ed rules) that most players call the Waaagh at the start of the phase, and treat the Run as the Waaagh movement.

Just to make it clear what the strict RaW is:

Waaagh! Movement doesn't exist, there are no penalties for rolling a 1 for a run and Ghazguls auto 6 doesn't work. You can, if you wish, play it with the 4th edition functionality, but that is a matter for you and your opponent to house rule.

Thanks for clearing that up Gwar! [sarcastic eye rolling orkicon]

Gwar! wrote:Just to make it clear what the strict RaW is:

Waaagh! Movement doesn't exist, there are no penalties for rolling a 1 for a run and Ghazguls auto 6 doesn't work. You can, if you wish, play it with the 4th edition functionality, but that is a matter for you and your opponent to house rule.

That isn't correct IMHO.

The rules tell you that the unit suffers a wound "If a unit rolls a 1 when making this Waaagh! movement" but that the unit "may still move an inch and assault as normal".

So the rules TELL you that there is some sort of 'Waaagh! movement' and that it involves rolling a die.

Now, you and I understand how the rule changed from 4th to 5th edition, but if you take that knowledge out of the mix then the rule does not make any sense as written and cannot be played 'as written' without ignoring a chunk of the rule.

So no matter HOW you decide to play this, including the way Gwar suggested you'll be making a house rule.

yakface wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Just to make it clear what the strict RaW is:

Waaagh! Movement doesn't exist, there are no penalties for rolling a 1 for a run and Ghazguls auto 6 doesn't work. You can, if you wish, play it with the 4th edition functionality, but that is a matter for you and your opponent to house rule.

That isn't correct IMHO.

The rules tell you that the unit suffers a wound "If a unit rolls a 1 when making this Waaagh! movement" but that the unit "may still move an inch and assault as normal".

So the rules TELL you that there is some sort of 'Waaagh! movement' and that it involves rolling a die.

Now, you and I understand how the rule changed from 4th to 5th edition, but if you take that knowledge out of the mix then the rule does not make any sense as written and cannot be played 'as written' without ignoring a chunk of the rule.

So no matter HOW you decide to play this, including the way Gwar suggested you'll be making a house rule.

And this is where I disagree. Absolutely nothing indicates Run is the same as Waaagh! movement, whatsoever. The change from 4th to 5th has made "Waaagh! movement" non-existent. I know you personally do not like that idea, but that is what the situation is. The situation is we have something called a Waaagh! movement, and no rules describing what it is. Ergo, it doesn't mean anything.

Unfortunately, your answer is based off previous editions knowledge. Someone with no knowledge of 4th edition or how the rule is "supposed" to work would, imo, come to the same conclusion that I have.

Gwar! wrote:


Unfortunately, your answer is based off previous editions knowledge. Someone with no knowledge of 4th edition or how the rule is "supposed" to work would, imo, come to the same conclusion that I have.

No, Waaagh movement is clearly listed as existing including a penalty for what happens if a '1' is rolled and a description that assault moves can still be made even if that '1' is rolled.

Now I totally agree that there are no rules a player can find for 'Waaagh!' movement, but until a player can find those rules, the game is not playable as written. Your suggestion is *not* as written because as written Waaagh movement exists and there are penalties for doing it, we just don't know how to do it.

yakface wrote:
No, Waaagh movement is clearly listed as existing including a penalty for what happens if a '1' is rolled and a description that assault moves can still be made even if that '1' is rolled.

Now I totally agree that there are no rules a player can find for 'Waaagh!' movement, but until a player can find those rules, the game is not playable as written. Your suggestion is *not* as written because as written Waaagh movement exists and there are penalties for doing it, we just don't know how to do it.

How is the game not playable as written? Do the rules ever ask you to do something you cannot do?
The rules don't actually ever ask you to make a waaagh movement, and the penalty is inside a conditional that can't be satisfied and thus is never invoked.

The answer to 'Did you roll a one during a waagh movement?' is 'No', not 'I need to perform a waagh movement and the game breaks'.

I also think it is again worth noting that (at least in my experience) the vast majority of players do not play in this fashion.

But if someone asks you "Did you perform your Waagh!" movement correctly?" you have no way of saying 'Yes'.

solkan wrote:But if someone asks you "Did you perform your Waagh!" movement correctly?" you have no way of saying 'Yes'.

Good thing the rules never ask that, or ask you to make a waagh movement, then.

*deploy forces*
"Did you perform your target priority test correctly?"
"What, I never even..."
"GAME IS UNPLAYABLE, PACK IT UP!"

Gorkamorka wrote:

solkan wrote:But if someone asks you "Did you perform your Waagh!" movement correctly?" you have no way of saying 'Yes'.

Good thing the rules never ask that, or ask you to make a waagh movement, then.

*deploy forces*
"Did you perform your target priority test correctly?"
"What, I never even..."
"GAME IS UNPLAYABLE, PACK IT UP!"

Your example would be entertaining if the rules actually referenced target priority tests.

You want to compromise and just say that the Orks can't use Waagh! at all because it references a non-existent rule?

You know I just play it the old way.. nobody has ever even asked.

ghaz makes it 6" every other instance its a run move of d6 with a wound on a 1. definitely RAI but its never been a problem

NaZ

Gorkamorka wrote:

yakface wrote:
No, Waaagh movement is clearly listed as existing including a penalty for what happens if a '1' is rolled and a description that assault moves can still be made even if that '1' is rolled.

Now I totally agree that there are no rules a player can find for 'Waaagh!' movement, but until a player can find those rules, the game is not playable as written. Your suggestion is *not* as written because as written Waaagh movement exists and there are penalties for doing it, we just don't know how to do it.

How is the game not playable as written? Do the rules ever ask you to do something you cannot do?
The rules don't actually ever ask you to make a waaagh movement, and the penalty is inside a conditional that can't be satisfied and thus is never invoked.

The answer to 'Did you roll a one during a waagh movement?' is 'No', not 'I need to perform a waagh movement and the game breaks'.

I also think it is again worth noting that (at least in my experience) the vast majority of players do not play in this fashion.

When I say 'not playable' what I am expressing is that the rules do not clearly tell players how to play the situation, which is what the terminology 'RAW' is supposed to mean. It is saying that the rules clearly tell us one single way to play.

But if you sit someone down who's never played 40K before and hand them the rulebook and the Ork codex and ask them to tell you how the 'Waaagh!' rule works they'll likely spend several minutes (probably more) searching through both books before finally saying "I'm not sure what this 'Waaagh' movement is or when I'm supposed to roll the dice to find out if the unit takes a wound." They may even try to make some logical leaps and assume that 'Waaagh' Movement refers to the assault movement 'granted' by being fleet of foot and assume they're supposed to roll some sort of dice for that (but they just aren't seeing it somewhere). Or they may assume that 'Waaagh' Movement refers to a unit's run move, etc, etc, etc.

What they wouldn't ever do is come to the conclusion of "I can't seem to find what 'Waaagh Movement' does therefore I'm just going to ignore the reference all together" because that's not how rules in a game work.

ONLY when you explain to that new player about how 40K updates its core rules which therefore change the meaning of rules in codices would they go 'aaaaahhhh' and understand what the heck we're even talking about.

So again, the point is, the rules are NOT clear in this situation and therefore there is no 'RAW' way to play that everyone should recognize. Rather there is a muddy mess that has to be dealt with through player agreement. You can agree to ignore the references in the rules that no longer make sense or you can agree to play it like it 'used to be' played, or something else all together. But there is no 'clear' way to play by the rules as written.

What I find really interesting about all this is

"Wagghh!!... once per game,the orc player can declare a waagghh during his shooting phase.This may not normally be declared on the first turn as a proper waagghh requires some momentum behind it.for the duration of that turn, all friendly orc infantry units have the 'fleet of foot' rule"

Units?!? One of the few (only?) times an ork rule doesn't refer to a Mob.

yakface wrote:

Gwar! wrote:


Unfortunately, your answer is based off previous editions knowledge. Someone with no knowledge of 4th edition or how the rule is "supposed" to work would, imo, come to the same conclusion that I have.

No, Waaagh movement is clearly listed as existing including a penalty for what happens if a '1' is rolled and a description that assault moves can still be made even if that '1' is rolled.

Now I totally agree that there are no rules a player can find for 'Waaagh!' movement, but until a player can find those rules, the game is not playable as written. Your suggestion is *not* as written because as written Waaagh movement exists and there are penalties for doing it, we just don't know how to do it.

Who said RAW had to be functional? Nobody.
That's why things like INAT exist, and in this case I just see you in disagreement because Gwar! is correct on RAW, while you are simply coming from an INAT standpoint.

Yakface = the Immortal Defender of INATkind

Yak: what about the Rulebook FAQ which states that rules or options which appear to have no effect are ignored? The Waaagh! movement appears to have no effect, so by RAW it should be ignored.

In practice, I'd play it that the "Waaagh!" movement is their Run move for that turn, but that'd be a house rule.

Cheexsta wrote:Yak: what about the Rulebook FAQ which states that rules or options which appear to have no effect are ignored? The Waaagh! movement appears to have no effect, so by RAW it should be ignored.

In practice, I'd play it that the "Waaagh!" movement is their Run move for that turn, but that'd be a house rule.

That bit in the FAQ is absolutely relevant. Again I am not saying that players shouldn't come to the agreement that the 2nd part of the Waaagh rules should be ignored, only that the rules (e.g. 'RAW') do not clearly give one way to play that is unambiguous in this situation because of exactly the point I brought up in my last post.

And really the question of whether or not that FAQ ruling applies to this situation is the kind of conversation that *needs* to happen because whether or not the 'rule clearly has no effect' as the FAQ dictates is pretty darn unclear. Because the whole 'rule' is the 'Waaagh' (not Waaagh Movement) and clearly it does have some effect (everyone can agree at least it grants fleet), which pretty much in-and-of-itself makes it incongruous with the FAQ ruling.

Ah, but FAQs aren't RAW...


But apparently conflicting information, contrary rules and poorly covered superceedence are...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Ah, but FAQs aren't RAW...

They are for purposes of discussion on this forum.

Yak: point made. No matter what, you're going to have to have some kind of discussion with your opponent about how it works (if it does at all). Cool.

I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion. I personally play it that the "run" counts as the WAAAGH! move, but as far as I can tell, that's a house rule.

What surprises me is that it hasn't come up in the Orks FAQ.

A new Ork Codex would fix this problem, too, though everything else in the Ork Codex looks pretty good (other than all the typos on stats) so there you have it.

I actually thought it was really clever that GW modified the meaning of Fleet in order to accomodate a RUN move and also to prevent the Ork WAAAGGHH from breaking... almost!

The reason it hasn't come up is that outside of forums this has never come up, including in 'ArdBoyz, anyone who tries to get rid of Waagh will be slapped personally by Jervis.

And for the lawyering bit, The Waagh does exist, it gives all of your orks fleet for one turn. You may ignore the rest of the rule if you want and be in compliance with the FAQ.

I disagree. Yak is correct.

If Ork players wish to claim the 6” auto-roll for Ghazzy, I’ll expect them also to take their casualties on a 1.

i wondered this myself as I play against orks mostly. it would seem to me a good point of discussion for a house rule and if its a problem then roll it off for 4th or 5th RAW.

I don't have the ork dex but if the don't have fleet anyway (which I'll assume they don't) you could always play it as it gives them fleet on a d6 so the can perform an assault after running and have to roll a d6 on the assault and then just follow the rules from that point.
I hope that helped in some way. Sorry if it didn't help or didn't make sense.

f00n wrote:i wondered this myself as I play against orks mostly. it would seem to me a good point of discussion for a house rule and if its a problem then roll it off for 4th or 5th RAW.

The only way someone wouldnt come to an agreement is if the non Ork player didnt WANT them to use the WAAAAGH rule. In which case would be what I call a "jerk move"

Come on people this really is a silly thing to argue about. Everyone knows that it works by calling a waaagh, rolling for the run, and gaining fleet ontop of the run. Taking saves on a 1 if rolled. Saying you CANT use it, and the WAAAGH rule just doesnt exist is stupid.

KingCracker wrote:

f00n wrote:i wondered this myself as I play against orks mostly. it would seem to me a good point of discussion for a house rule and if its a problem then roll it off for 4th or 5th RAW.

The only way someone wouldnt come to an agreement is if the non Ork player didnt WANT them to use the WAAAAGH rule. In which case would be what I call a "jerk move"

Come on people this really is a silly thing to argue about. Everyone knows that it works by calling a waaagh, rolling for the run, and gaining fleet ontop of the run. Taking saves on a 1 if rolled. Saying you CANT use it, and the WAAAGH rule just doesnt exist is stupid.

Hi, my name is James McStartedinfifthedition. I have no idea how Waaagh! used to work. From what I can tell, there is nothing stopping me from declaring it AFTER I have made my run moves, nor does anything tell me what a Waaagh! move is.

This, to me, is how Waaagh! works and has always worked.

tl;dr - How it used to work doesn't matter. If it did, SoB would still be rhino rushing 12", disembarking from the front, shooting unit A and then assaulting unit B.

*coughcough*Thread Necromancy*coughcough*

In fairness, a month isn't really necromancy... more like... not sure really! xD

Ello James, weird Im meeting alot of Jameses lately.


I remember you and me had a go around on this the LAST time GWAR

Your right it doesnt say WHEN in the shooting phase to declare, other thenit just says in the shooting phase. The weird part though, is about how it says if you roll 1s you take a wound. What else would it be talking about for rolling 1s then I wonder? Well you roll for running....so youd HAVE to declare the WAAAGH before running a unit, other wise the WAAAGH rule is totally broken, makes no sense and Ork players couldnt use it for real.