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.

Gwar! wrote:
Also Ghazguls one used to let you count your fleet roll as a 6, but since there is no fleet roll anymore, without an errata from GW, RaW you have to roll for Ghazguls special Waaaagh!

This is so aggressively dumb that it hurts my head. This is why no one listens to your RAW ranting Gwar. The Waagh roll is clearly the run/fleet roll, so with Ghaz these rolls are a 6. Period.

By that Logic Dark Angels Storm Shields are "Clearly" 3++, Space Wolves "Clearly" ignore negative Modifiers in CC, the Thornback Biomorph "Clearly" gives +1 Combat resolution.

See where "clearly" leads?

I agree that its silly to say "you need to roll for Ghaz's Waaagh!" and I'm sure most people play it as an Auto6, but it begs the question, GW could easily fix this with a single line of erreta, but they do not. Why is that?

No way Waaagh. All of those "examples" are things that HAVE been clarified by GW and therefore DO NOT APPLY to this.

I just cannot accept that anyone who actually plays this game would try to deny Ghaz his special rule in such a way.

(semi) on topic question: Orks 4th or 5th?

Chaos Daemons?

Thanks!

Orks are 100% 4th
Daemons are 100% 5th

@The Clown: I agree with you, but the fact of the matter is by the Rules, it does work that way, because GW have refused to rectify it.

Orks 5th The pre dawn of war version of 5th edition 40K.

Developed at the same times by the same people.

Gwar! wrote: I can tell you I love the new Codex Format. It's not dumbed down at all. It's streamlined, much easier to use and a lot more intuitive.

I see this sentiment expressed on occasion and it boggles my mind that people really like this new format. I can get that the Army List section with the specific options for each unit is an improvement, but the rest of the format is just crap. The rules are sprinkled all over the place. For example, the armory page in the new SM codex has info on about half the weapons. For the other half you are pointed to various pages all over the book. Fail. The CSM codex has the same problem with rules for icons, marks, possessed skills, and the dreadnought crazed rule sprinked throught out the book. It's two steps forward, one step back.