Can you Run and WAAGH! at the same turn?

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!**

Dashofpepper wrote:Gwar, I like you and you *are* usually right, but that made no sense. :(

Ghazghkull jets? Assault infantry? I'm confused.

As for Difficult terrain tests, you don't make difficult terrain tests when you run. You roll a D6 and that's how far you go. If you declare a Waaugh! before running, then running is your Waaaugh! movement, in which case Ghazghkull's special powers let you auto-roll a six for that run.

Where does difficult terrain come into it? Dangerous terrain is another story of course, but....

You are claiming that the "Waaagh! movement is any movement after you declare it. Assault Move is movement

**Dashofpepper**

Again, referring to the rules....

For the duration of the Waaagh! all Ork infantry units automatically count as rolling a 6 for the Waaaugh! movement they wish to make.

It refers to a single movement, not every movement. If the Waaaugh! encompasses moves you make until the end of your turn, and this rule allows you to select the movement that you get to make and call your Waaaugh! movement, then at best, you get to choose which movement to call your Waaaugh! movement and auto-roll 6s for.

However, given that unless you're assaulting through cover, assaulting is automatically 6 anyway, I can't imagine anyone wanting to use this for anything other than running.

Gwar, stop nit-picking; you just happen to have called it wrong this time.

**Gwar!**

Dashofpepper wrote:Gwar, stop nit-picking; you just happen to have called it wrong this time.

No, I do not. You have it wrong. Show me where it states the Waaagh! movement is Running, or in fact where it says what the Waaagh! movement is at all.

It doesn't, because the rules have changed and changed the way the rules work.

You can try and derail my argument by accusing me of nitpicking or whatever other personal attack you want to use, the fact is, I know what I am doing. I have the actual rules to back me up, and you do not.

**kirsanth**

Dashofpepper wrote:Again, referring to the rules....

For the duration of the Waaagh! all Ork infantry units automatically count as rolling a 6 for the Waaaugh! movement they wish to make.

It refers to a single movement, not every movement.

It specifically refers to WAAAGH! movement, and you quoted it.

That no longer exists.

Like Outnumbering in combat (See Thornback).
Or Targeting Priority (See Target Lock, or whatever that Tau wargear is that people whine should work despite the rules).

Et cetera (See 5e rules)

shrug

**Gwar!**

kirsanth wrote:
Dashofpepper wrote:Again, referring to the rules....

For the duration of the Waaagh! all Ork infantry units automatically count as rolling a 6 for the Waaaugh! movement they wish to make.

It refers to a single movement, not every movement.

It specifically refers to WAAAGH! movement, and you quoted it.

That no longer exists.

Like Outnumbering in combat (See Thornback).
Or Targeting Priority (See Target Lock, or whatever that Tau wargear is that people whine should work despite the rules).

Et cetera (See 5e rules)

shrug

kirsanth is 100% correct

**Dashofpepper**

Well, I don't have anything else to say at this point.

I've quoted all the relevant rules, proven how I'm right, even contextualized it, and you haven't countered anything I've said - you've just told me that I'm wrong and attempted to bring up loop-holes in my proof, which I've soundly closed. I'm not making personal attacks, just noting that instead of refuting my quotations of the rules and proof, you're nit-picking by looking for a loophole in the rules, which are quite clear.

*shrugs*

**combo**

Exact wording of fleet is
"There are many variants of this rule. Fleet of foot, fleet of claw, even fleet of hoof. Title aside, all models with these abilities are treated the same. A unit with this rule may assault in the same turn its has run."

Ergo unfortunately unless the Waagh rule specifically states that it replaces normal running with a specific "Waaagh!" movement instead of run, or Ghazghulls Thraka's states "allows you to run six inch" then rules as written breaks down

**kirsanth**

Dashofpepper wrote:Well, I don't have anything else to say at this point.

I've quoted all the relevant rules, proven how I'm right, even contextualized it, and you haven't countered anything I've said - you've just told me that I'm wrong and attempted to bring up loop-holes in my proof, which I've soundly closed. I'm not making personal attacks, just noting that instead of refuting my quotations of the rules and proof, you're nit-picking by looking for a loophole in the rules, which are quite clear.

I thought your first sentence made sense. I kind of lost you after that, especially when I read that first sentence again.

But. . .Loop holes?

You mean the text that the rules are written in?

Using the rules as written is a loophole?

I TOTALLY understand your point now.

**Gwar!**

Dashofpepper wrote:Well, I don't have anything else to say at this point.

I've quoted all the relevant rules, proven how I'm right, even contextualized it, and you haven't countered anything I've said - you've just told me that I'm wrong and attempted to bring up loop-holes in my proof, which I've soundly closed. I'm not making personal attacks, just noting that instead of refuting my quotations of the rules and proof, you're nit-picking by looking for a loophole in the rules, which are quite clear.

*shrugs*

I am not nit picking by playing by the rules, which you are not.

**combo**

Just for the record, surely such a glaring error has been FAQ'd or Errata'd. My girlfriend bought the codex for Orks just two weeks ago, ill check whether it says run or waagh movement on her codex tomorrow.

**Gwar!**

combo wrote:Just for the record, surely such a glaring error has been FAQ'd or Errata'd. My girlfriend bought the codex for Orks just two weeks ago, ill check whether it says run or waagh movement on her codex tomorrow.

It says Waaagh Movement, and what makes you think GW give two gaks about the players? The current state of their Codex releases and FAQ's show clearly that they don't.

**insaniak**

combo wrote:Just for the record, surely such a glaring error has been FAQ'd or Errata'd.

Indeed it has. The current rulebook FAQ tells us (last entry) if your published-before-5th-edition codex contains a rule that don't seem to do anything under the 5th edition rules, it should be just ignored.

Waaagh! grants the Ork unit Fleet. In 4th edition, Fleet actually gave the unit extra movement. So the Waaagh! movement referred to by the Waaagh! rule is the extra movement granted by Fleet.... and as such, does not exist under 5th edition, and so as per the FAQ, any mention to Waaagh! movement should be just ignored.

(That being said, I play that Waaagh! has to be declared at the start of the phase, and that the Run movement is then Waaagh! movement. It's not RAW, but it seems like the better way to play it, given that the codex was supposedly written with 5th edition rules in mind.)

**Gwar!**

insaniak wrote:
combo wrote:Just for the record, surely such a glaring error has been FAQ'd or Errata'd.

Indeed it has. The current rulebook FAQ tells us (last entry) if your published-before-5th-edition codex contains a rule that don't seem to do anything under the 5th edition rules, it should be just ignored.

Waaagh! grants the Ork unit Fleet. In 4th edition, Fleet actually gave the unit extra movement. So the Waaagh! movement referred to by the Waaagh! rule is the extra movement granted by Fleet.... and as such, does not exist under 5th edition, and so as per the FAQ, any mention to Waaagh! movement should be just ignored.

Oh Snap! Go get the dishes cause you just got served!

But seriously, he is right. Waaagh! movement does nothing in 5th ed now.

**frgsinwntr**

cool!

BUT

how do you tell your opponent this in a game with out sounding like a jerk

**Orkeosaurus**

You let them use it anyways?

You let them switch out Ghazgkull for a regular warboss and purchase something else with the leftover points?

**Canonness Rory**

Trying to rules-lawyer like this would get you kicked out of any tournament.

The rules are pretty obvious.
You declare your waagh in the movement phase.
All orks in your army get fleet of foot, and can thus move, run, and then assault. Your waagh movement is running.

With ghazgull's special rule, your fleet of foot movement (also known as your waagh movement) is a 6.

I dare anyone to try to dispute that in a tourney. the TO will probably personally take your picture, put it on the wall of "do not allow to play" and then throw you out himself.

**insaniak**

frgsinwntr wrote:BUT how do you tell your opponent this in a game with out sounding like a jerk

You don't. You discuss it with them before the game, and come to an agreement as to how to play it.

**Mars.Techpriest**

Say it before the game starts, when you look at his list. 'Ya know gazgul doesn't effect running right?" Or just let'em use it as 'House ROI Rule'. Which is what I'd actualy do.

**Gwar!**

Canonness Rory wrote:Trying to rules-lawyer like this would get you kicked out of any tournament.

Except, ya know, the ones run by TO's who follow the rules.

**Orkeosaurus**

I doubt there are very many tournaments run by TOs who you would consider to "follow the rules", Gwar!.

**Gwar!**

Orkeosaurus wrote:I doubt there are very many tournaments run by TOs who you would consider to "follow the rules", Gwar!.

Very True

**frgsinwntr**

I am a TO. I follow rules. As for putting up a picture and mocking someone? i believe there are rules about that? maybe harassment laws?

**Orkeosaurus**

frgsinwntr wrote:As for putting up a picture and mocking someone? i believe there are rules about that? maybe harassment laws?

Maybe if the TO is following the player to his house or something?

**Gwar!**

frgsinwntr wrote:I am a TO. I follow rules. As for putting up a picture and mocking someone? i believe there are rules about that? maybe harassment laws?

No, harassment laws do not even come close. Where is Polonius when you need him!

**frgsinwntr**

http://www.letswrap.com/legal/harass.htm

Criminal harassment is defined as "engag(ing) in intentional conduct which the actor [harasser] knows or has reason to know would cause the victim, under the circumstances, to feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated; and causes this reaction on the part of the victim. (M.S. § 609.749, Subd. I).

kinda easy to prove you'd feel persecuted/oppressed or intimidated if there is a pic hanging up mocking you right?

but seriously. All it takes is for the TO to have a conversation with you about how they do things at their store

**Orkeosaurus**

That appears to be a definition of terms, not a law. (Polonius correct me if I'm wrong here!)

609.749 HARASSMENT; STALKING; PENALTIES. wrote:Subdivision 1. Definition. As used in this section, "harass" means to engage in intentional
conduct which:
(1) the actor knows or has reason to know would cause the victim under the circumstances to
feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated; and
(2) causes this reaction on the part of the victim.
Subd. 1a. No proof of specific intent required. In a prosecution under this section, the state
is not required to prove that the actor intended to cause the victim to feel frightened, threatened,
oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated, or except as otherwise provided in subdivision 3, paragraph
(a), clause (4), or paragraph (b), that the actor intended to cause any other result.

Subd. 2. Harassment and stalking crimes. (a) A person who harasses another by
committing any of the following acts is guilty of a gross misdemeanor:
(1) directly or indirectly manifests a purpose or intent to injure the person, property, or rights
of another by the commission of an unlawful act;
(2) stalks, follows, monitors, or pursues another, whether in person or through technological
or other means;
(3) returns to the property of another if the actor is without claim of right to the property
or consent of one with authority to consent;
(4) repeatedly makes telephone calls, or induces a victim to make telephone calls to the actor,
whether or not conversation ensues;
(5) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring;
(6) repeatedly mails or delivers or causes the delivery by any means, including electronically,
of letters, telegrams, messages, packages, or other objects; or
(7) knowingly makes false allegations against a peace officer concerning the officer's
performance of official duties with intent to influence or tamper with the officer's performance of
official duties.
(b) The conduct described in paragraph (a), clauses (4) and (5), may be prosecuted at the
place where any call is either made or received or, additionally in the case of wireless or electronic
communication, where the actor or victim resides. The conduct described in paragraph (a), clause
(2), may be prosecuted where the actor or victim resides. The conduct described in paragraph
(a), clause (6), may be prosecuted where any letter, telegram, message, package, or other object
is either sent or received or, additionally in the case of wireless or electronic communication,
where the actor or victim resides.
(c) A peace officer may not make a warrantless, custodial arrest of any person for a violation
of paragraph (a), clause (7).

**Lorek**

Hey, remember when I said you guys should stop your threads one page sooner?

Stay on topic, folks.

**Dashofpepper**

So lets try another tack -

If I'm in the final round of a GT, or at the final round of 'Ard Boyz...

GW runs it right?

Honest opinion here, how do you think they're going to draw this one? Because if someone actually *did* try telling me during a game that I couldn't use Ghazghkull, I actually *would* kick you in the nuts. That's not a figurative kick either.

**frgsinwntr**

hmm i don't think anyone is saying you can't use ghazzie... just that his rules don't work the same way they used to in 4th ed (if they worked at all)

And... kicking in the nuts is a childish way to solve disputes. I prefer the more adult way of rational discussion

**Gwar!**

Dashofpepper wrote:So lets try another tack -

If I'm in the final round of a GT, or at the final round of 'Ard Boyz...

GW runs it right?

Honest opinion here, how do you think they're going to draw this one? Because if someone actually *did* try telling me during a game that I couldn't use Ghazghkull, I actually *would* kick you in the nuts. That's not a figurative kick either.

And? GW runs it, they use GW rules. GW Rules state Ghazgulz Waaagh! Does nothing extra past a Normal Waaaagh!