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.

Steelmage! We know! We've seen the page! We know the entries have the word Waaaagh! in them! We also know that the Waaagh! rule applies to infantry.

Ever-decreasing circles, apparently.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:

Does Infantry refer to Page 8 in the BBB? Does infantry refer to page 6? Like I said earlier, is there a distinction between Infantry/infantry, like Troops/troops? This I think is an interesting question in and of itself.

I don't see any definition of "infantry" on page 6.

Does anybody really believe that GW gave WAAAGH to a model that can't use it?

Yes, I do, and so do many others.

Wazzdakka has Waaagh. Stormboyz have Waaagh. It does nothing for either of them.

Indeed there is no mention of "infantry" on page 6. There is a destinction made between vehicle and non-vehicle models. I say that "infantry" could refer to that distinction where as "Infantry" refer to the distinction made on page 8. Just like Troops and troops.


Ok. I don't agree with you. I don't believe that GW did that. And that is a far as we are going to go, I suppose.

Steelmage! We know! We've seen the page! We know the entries have the word Waaaagh! in them! We also know that the Waaagh! rule applies to infantry.

Ever-decreasing circles, apparently.

Then why this claim? He does have the WAAAGH rule.

"Bikes do indeed not get WAAAGH, but Wazdakka does. Of this there is zero doubt."

Just because you say it doesn't make it so. The Waagh rule applies to infantry, Wazdakka is not infantry.

We're going around in circles.

It seems that the conclusion, from your point of view, is that GW included a rule in some unit entries that the units in question couldn't use. Pretty odd, in my book, but hey. Each to their own.

I think he meant "get" as in "benefit from." He could have been more precise.

Still don't see anything on page 6 that would substantiate your claim that "infantry" and "Infantry" are different. Also, granting that they are different, can you prove that Stormboyz are "infantry," or that Wazzdakka is?

The distinction I am making (up) makes this whole problem go away. Should "infantry" refer to non-vehicle model (page 6) then Stormboyz and Wazdakka are "infantry" and can make use of the rule presented in their profile. I seems the most logical and simple solution (to me).
I can infer that since both the units have the WAAAGH rule specifically mentioned in their entries they make use of it.

I guess, we will have to agree to disagree.

wow good discusions here. And the biggest reason I posted the question was maybe it was intended fo rthem to be able to waaagh! but someone forgot to write it that way, maybe they didn't mean to be that way and they goofed.
So my question now is how do I get a stamp of "this is it" ruling from the person"s" involved in writing the FAQ previously mentioned. And I would like a reason. Because yes it would be cheesey if the stormboyz got the Waaagh! but doesn't make sense that they wouldn't, althpugh it's not like GW is well known for their sensibility. And yes I can see it going either way... And no I don't use the stormboyz yet...

well, you are gak out of luck when it comes to an official answer. Cross your fingers and hope for a FAQ.

If you are in doubt you should always take the option that gives you the least advantage. It makes it easier to get and maintain friends.

Makari, I am undecided about the intent of the rule, but the RAW is clear enough that we don't really need to speculate on intent until such a time as GW should choose to modify the rule through a so-called FAQ (really an errata list)

Steelmage99, nice try, but nowhere do the rules actually use the term "infantry" where they mean "non-vehicle models." Show me a place in the BGB where they do. Page 6 shows no such connection.

A Chaos Spawn has Slow and Purposeful. Part of that rule allows the firing of weapons as if stationary. Should we "infer" that GW meant to give Chaos Spawns shooting weapons, but forgot?

Steelmage99 wrote:The distinction I am making (up) makes this whole problem go away.

Not really... since your distinction also grants Waaagh! to every non-vehicle unit in the codex, whether it is in their entry or not.

To me, it seems far more likely that the wording of the Waaagh! rule means exactly what it says and the inclusion of it in the profiles of two units who don't receive a benefit from it is simply a typo than that Deffcoptas and Warbikes were intended to benefit from it...

insaniak wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:The distinction I am making (up) makes this whole problem go away.

Not really... since your distinction also grants Waaagh! to every non-vehicle unit in the codex, whether it is in their entry or not.

Erhm what....how do you figure that?

Ha, he [edit: by which I mean insaniak!] may have a point.

"Once per game, the Ork player may declare a Waagh! during his Shooting phase. . . . For the duration of that turn, all friendly Ork infantry units have the 'fleet of foot' rule (not Gretchin units. . .)."

So it would appear that whether the Waaagh! rule actually appears in the entry or not is immaterial.

Ding! Im out.

Except that Stormboyz and Bikers still gain no benefit from the Waaagh rule because they are not "infantry".

Exactly.

Peachy!

Ok so my question is Where does it say that Jump infantry are not infantry I'm trying to find that. And not just a sub entry of infantry.

Pages 8 and 55 establish them as a class of their own, just like bikes, jetbikes and beasts.

@Steelmage99

No problem, I was reading too much into what you said, as usual the internetz takes its toll on a person's speech. So no apologies needed

The bit in the Eldar Codex regarding certain infantry types (like Dark Reapers) not getting fleet (because of their save), meaning that even units in the same class don't get the benefits the majority does.
In their case, the "unless noted otherwise" prevents them (in the 3rd edition codex) - the new codex does this by not including it in their profile, if I'm not mistaken. In this case, the same would apply to the Stormboyz - but whether they get it or not for sure is for a FAQ, like you said...

BTW, using Wazdakka as an example isn't valid because he is a special character, thus entitled to rules that otherwise wouldn't be available.

Destrado wrote:BTW, using Wazdakka as an example isn't valid because he is a special character, thus entitled to rules that otherwise wouldn't be available.

Yes, he also gets Move Through Cover as an IC, but somehow, I don't think it will get applied very often. Skilled rider, however...