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.

I just kill the model if I roll a one. Its just one model.

I can see the argument tho. The Dex came out before 5th ed so there was no running back then. However they would get a waagh! move back in those days. Since back then if I remember correctly fleeting allowed you to skip your shooting and move an extra D6. Now fleeting lets you assault after you "RUN".

Tri:

Actually no, without logic 40k as a set of rules simply doesn't exist. Like an iceberg 9/10s of the game is not explicitly represented and requires people to make the necessary inferences needed to make them known. My favourite example is the movement speed of Tactical Space Marines (Tactical Space Marines are Infantry, Infantry move 6", Tactical Space Marines move 6", QED).

In this particular case I was invoking what's known as the relation of Identity, though rather poorly since as you pointed out merely quacking or walking like a duck limits the logical conclusion we can draw (if we want deductive certainty in our inference) to saying that it may be a duck and it may be something else that walks and quacks like a duck.

Waaagh! is triggered in the Shooting phase. Its effect is to make all running cause a wound on a roll of 1, and to confer the Fleet rule to all non-Gretchin Ork units. That's because it explicitly describes Waaagh! movement happening in the running phase. There is no Waaagh! movement in the Assault phase, and therefore has no connection to charging through difficult terrain.

Speaking of complaining about the rules, I don't. I actually think they're quite sufficiently clear and well written for their purpose, which is to be applied by intelligent people, rather than unintelligent automata like a computer program.

[rant]
Back when I was in school we were taught to apply logic to just such logic systems as these rules, learning how to extract information about those systems from the language in which it was embedded, prove that it was the correct information free of artifacts of translation, and then either debug or discuss the features of those rules. As part of Introduction to Symbolic Logic this was a requirement of my major (philosophy). I'm no expert, but I'm pretty familiar with cross-compatibility issues (they actually crop up a lot in philosophy, thanks to its pre-occuption with scholarship) and there's no compatibility issue here. Waaagh! works just like it did in the 4th edition and the writers of the Ork Codex did a rather decent job of producing a book that managed to be compatible with the new set of rules.

So far I can only find three actual genuine problems with the 5th edition rules and one of those is a problem with the Codex Chaos Space Marines - another 4th/5th hybrid. The rest of the problems seem to come in two flavours:

1. People not actually reading the rules closely and thoroughly. From not actually knowing what the rules say, to basic mistakes of grammar, people tend to blame their own poor reading skills (or memories...*) on the rules.

2. People treating the written material like it's a formal language, a code like C++ to be implemented mechanically by the players.

This is made worse by the attitude that people's opinions on the rules are equally valid; they aren't! People are too quick to blame the rules for their own shortcomings, and too quick to try and exploit the rules for their own advantage in the game.
[/rant]

Nurglitch wrote:Clearly Waaagh! movement exists: it's written right there in the rules. Clearly Waaagh! movement happens in the Shooting phase and involves rolling 1D6. Again, it's written right there in the rules.

That doesn't prove that Waaagh movement exists. All it does is prove that Waaagh movement existed and involved rolling a D6 in 4th edition, when the codex was written.

After all, Target Priority is written right there in the Tau Empire rules as well. Still doesn't actually do anything under the current ruleset.

Nurglitch you and i have both played 40k for years we know its history and we can proof read for the author. While i agree that you roll a D6 for the run and on a 1 one of the boys takes a wound. That has nothing to do with how the rules work now, it is purely because i know that's how the author wanted it to work, since that is how it work when it was released.

Waaagh! does nothing in the Shooting phase ... being fair it was badly worded from the start, since it never straight says on the fleet roll, just Waaagh movement (which every one guessed to be fleet). What it should have said is "Any 1 rolled when moving in the shooting phase cause a wound to that unit" ... basically a catch all phrase

insaniak:

My point is textual: since the extension is written in the rules, it exists, it is the rules as written. To assume otherwise, that Waaagh! movement exists in the game would be fallacious on my part because that would assume exactly what I'm trying to prove! However, my point is that since the term "Waaagh! movement" exists and its description matches that of running, they are the same, and running is Waaagh! movement.

The Codex was written to be compatible with the 5th edition: you need look no further than Ghazghkull's Adamantium Skull that confers a +2A on the assault when in the 4th edition Slow and Purposeful precluded him from ever gaining such bonuses.

The Tau Empire Codex was not written to be compatible with the 5th edition rules and the references to target priority are veridical examples of orphans in the rules, although one should rightly judge that Tau wargear requiring its user to pass a target priority check should be treated as automatically passing it.

So yes, just like all the other rules in the Codex, the Waaagh! rule continues to refer to something happening on the board. In particular it refers to the benefit of Fleet at the cost of a wound on a roll of 1 on the run roll of 1D6.

Game-play wise it's best to declare any planned Waaagh! at the beginning of the shooting phase so people don't have to go back and make armour saves for any mob that rolls a 1.

Nurglitch wrote:insaniak:

My point is textual: since the extension is written in the rules, it exists, it is the rules as written. To assume otherwise, that Waaagh! movement exists in the game would be fallacious on my part because that would assume exactly what I'm trying to prove! However, my point is that since the term "Waaagh! movement" exists and its description matches that of running, they are the same, and running is Waaagh! movement.

So yes, just like all the other rules in the Codex, the Waaagh! rule continues to refer to something happening on the board. In particular it refers to the benefit of Fleet at the cost of a wound on a roll of 1 on the run roll of 1D6.

But that's not what the rules say.
RAI, sure, they probably meant it to be the run movement. RAW 'waaagh' movement is not running, and never actually happens.

Just because things are extremely similar, even to the point of being entirely identical in everything but name, does not mean they are exactly the same thing.

Tri:

Actually, I've written rather a lot on this thread explaining that it is in fact how the rules work and how anyone without any prior historical knowledge of the rules should read them as indicating.

Waaagh! does do something in the shooting phase: it inflicts a wound on units that roll a 1 for their run roll. It then allows them to charge in the Assault phase. That's what the rules say; that's why I quoted them.

The fact is that it's not badly worded as the original connection between Fleet movement and Waaagh! movement was beyond reasonable doubt: the identity matched. Currently, as I argue citing the text, the extension Waaagh! movement indicates running.

So, regarding the criticism that the text doesn't support the position that Waaagh! movement is running, I've shown that to be false by citing the text and pointing out that in fact the relevant text fits together just fine.

Nurglitch wrote:
So, regarding the criticism that the text doesn't support the position that Waaagh! movement is running, I've shown that to be false by citing the text and pointing out that in fact the relevant text fits together just fine.

Except that it still fits together the other way just fine, and probably better since GW itself says to ignore rules/wargear that no longer apply to edition continuity.

I don't deny that your method works, but it relies on intuitive leaps that do change the rules (however subtly or otherwise) as compared to what is explicitly written on the page of the Ork Codex.

sourclams wrote:Thanks for stating your opinion.

rednekgunner wrote:Also, it was written by many people who are considered to be experts in the field of 40k.

At least 50% of the people in this thread disagree with you on this one.

I agree with Sourclams.

As the Great and Powerful Gwar! did not have a part in writing the INAT FAQ (apart from an Uncredited role in writing the source for Entire Space Wolf Section), I question the Validity of this Document.

Also, @rednekgunner: Using the INAT FAQ to win a Rules argument is like using a Wikipedia article in your University Thesis.

I have yet to see you (rednekgunner) present any sort of argument as to why we should ignore how the rules work.

Gorkamorka:

Actually yes, being entirely identical in everything but name makes two things the same thing. That's exactly what identity is. The Morning Star and the Evening Star is one famous example. Or there's Sir Walter Scott and the author of Waverly. Unmarried men being bachelors is yet another.

Mind you, I think your critique highlights an interesting point about the rules, because you're treating them as if they were a programming language in which all objects rigorously have a single name to distinguish them from all other objects. The rules are not a programming language and are written colloquially. Perhaps we should add another acronym to the bestiary: "Rules as Programmed Exactly" or RAPE, which neatly describes what happens when the text is treated like a block of code.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams:

Please cite exactly where I have made any sort of unwarranted intuitive leap in my exegesis of the rules as they are written.

Nurglitch wrote:Waaagh! does do something in the shooting phase: it inflicts a wound on units that roll a 1 for their run roll.

That's the intuitive leap to which sourclams is referring.

Waaagh doesn't do anything to units that run. It never references the Run rule at all.
If confers Fleet on certain units, and inflicts a wound for units that roll a 1 for that movement.

So by RAW, Waaagh does not damage units in 5th edition, because Fleet no longer confers movement.

Inflicting a wound on the unit requires the intuitive leap that what was Fleet movement is now Running. It's a logical way to play the game, but it's not what the rules say to do.

insaniak:

Yes, my point is that the Waaagh! rule does reference the Run! rule because it refers to "Waaagh! movement", is declared and resolved in the Shooting phase, mentions moving 1", confers the Fleet rule, and causes a wound on a Waaagh! movement roll of 1. That's four points of identity, if anyone is counting.

Since Fleet can no longer confer movement, then it no longer has anything to do with movement, right?

Wrong, Fleet allows a unit to charge or assault after it has run.

If Waaagh! confers Fleet, then Waaagh! confers the ability to charge after running. That's the first point of identity - Waaagh! has something to do with running.

Running requires the player to roll 1D6 and to take that as the distance a unit can run, its running movement. The Waaagh! rule specifies that a unit that rolls a 1 can still move 1". That's the second point of identity - Waaagh! has something to do with moving.

The fact that a roll of 1 is referred to is another point of identity: a 1 is one of six results that can be achieved by running. That is the third point of identity - Waaagh! has something to do with moving such that a 1 can be rolled.

Finally, the Waaagh! is declared in the Shooting phase, when running happens. That's the fourth point of identity.

Same phase (shooting), same mechanic (rolling 1D6), same action (moving), same extension (Fleet). This is the logical way to play the game because it's what the rules say to do!

Waaagh! movement is running.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's the quotes rearranged so that it's easier to follow the thread that connects them and should clarify what they say:

Waaagh!, Ork Special Rules, Codex: Orks, p.31 wrote:Once per game, the Ork player can declare a Waaagh! during his Shooting phase. This many not normally be declared on the first turn as a proper Waaagh! needs some momentum behind it. For the duration of that turn, all friendly Ork infantry units have the 'fleet of foot' rule (not Gretchin units, they're far too weedy for a proper Waaagh!).

Fleet*, Universal Special Rules, Rulebook, p.75 wrote: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 in which it has run.

Run!, The Shooting Phase, Rulebook, p.16 wrote:In their Shooting phase, units may choose to run instead of firing, immediately moving D6" (we find that this is a popular choice for units that have no ranged weaponry or no target!). Running movement is not affected by difficult terrain - it is always simply D6" - but models running through dangerous terrain must test as normal. Units that run in the Shooting phase cannot assault in the following Assault phase.

If a unit rolls a 1 when making this Waaagh! movement, the Orks start fighting before they get to the enemy. One model from that unit takes a single wound. Note that the unit may still move an inch, and assault as normal.

Edit: Oops, misattributed the second paragraph of the Waaagh! rule to the Fleet rule...

Nurglitch wrote:Yes, my point is that the Waaagh! rule does reference the Run! rule because it refers to "Waaagh! movement",

Nowhere in the codex does it say "Waaagh! moment = Run".

Therefore, it isn't. Plain and Simple.

Also, please explain how you think it is referencing something that didn't exist when the book was printed?

Gwar!:

It says that Waaagh! movement is running in the text of the Waaagh! rule itself.

I've diagrammed it for your convenience in my previous post.

Nurglitch wrote:Gwar!:

It says that Waaagh! movement is running in the text of the Waaagh! rule itself.

I've diagrammed it for your convenience in my previous post.

What? No it doesn't. It says Waaagh Grants Fleet. Waaagh! does NOT mention Running in any way shape or form.

Nurglitch wrote:Gwar!:
I've diagrammed it for your convenience in my previous post.

...incorrectly. It doesn't say it is running or reference running, and all of your points are based on similarities and inferences instead of actual textual proof.
RAW it isn't running, no matter how alike they are.

Waaagh!, Ork Special Rules, Codex: Orks, p.31 wrote:Once per game, the Ork player can declare a Waaagh! during his Shooting phase. This many not normally be declared on the first turn as a proper Waaagh! needs some momentum behind it. For the duration of that turn, all friendly Ork infantry units have the 'FLEET OF FOOT' rule (not Gretchin units, they're far too weedy for a proper Waaagh!).

Fleet*, Universal Special Rules, Rulebook, p.75 wrote: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 in which it has RUN.

Run!, The Shooting Phase, Rulebook, p.16 wrote:In their Shooting phase, units may choose to run instead of firing, IMMEDIATELY MOVING D6" (we find that this is a popular choice for units that have no ranged weaponry or no target!). RUNNING MOVEMENT is not affected by difficult terrain - it is always simply D6" - but models running through dangerous terrain must test as normal. Units that run in the Shooting phase cannot assault in the following Assault phase.

If a unit rolls a 1 when making this WAAAGH! MOVEMENT, the Orks start fighting before they get to the enemy. One model from that unit takes a single wound. Note that the unit may still move an inch, and assault as normal.

This is really simple: Waaagh! references Fleet. Fleet reference Run. Therefore, Waaagh! references Run. Specially, when it says "this Waaagh! movement" it is referring directly to the Run rule referenced in the Fleet rule referenced in the first paragraph of the Waaagh! rule.

THIS[Waaagh! movement = Running movement]

rednekgunner wrote:Why thank you for asking. At the shop I play at we have adopted the INAT FAQ, because GW has all but endorsed it, and in it it says, "ORK.31A.01 – Q: Can a player wait until the end of the shooting phase to call the Waaagh?
A: Yes, but any units that make a „run‟ move before the Waaagh! is called do not gain the fleet ability in the subsequent Assault phase [clarification]. Also, it was written by many people who are considered to be experts in the field of 40k.

I think the key phrase/words in here is:

"all but endorsed it"

Meaning, it hasn't been endorsed. If your reasoning for following your waaaagh rule is because your flgs uses the inat faq, then please state that from the beginning.

It doesn't follow raw, but at least that would be good to know from the get go.

As far as 'experts' go, they modify the rules, not clarify them. It's like they play 40k their own way. That's not illegal, but it's certainly not raw.

Throwing this in: Ghazghkull's Waaagh causes all rolls for Waaagh Movement to be 6.

By RAW, we don't get damaged. Likewise, Ghazkhgull doesn't give sixes.

Nurglitch wrote:

Waaagh!, Ork Special Rules, Codex: Orks, p.31 wrote:Once per game, the Ork player can declare a Waaagh! during his Shooting phase. This many not normally be declared on the first turn as a proper Waaagh! needs some momentum behind it. For the duration of that turn, all friendly Ork infantry units have the 'FLEET OF FOOT' rule (not Gretchin units, they're far too weedy for a proper Waaagh!).

Fleet*, Universal Special Rules, Rulebook, p.75 wrote: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 in which it has RUN.

Run!, The Shooting Phase, Rulebook, p.16 wrote:In their Shooting phase, units may choose to run instead of firing, IMMEDIATELY MOVING D6" (we find that this is a popular choice for units that have no ranged weaponry or no target!). RUNNING MOVEMENT is not affected by difficult terrain - it is always simply D6" - but models running through dangerous terrain must test as normal. Units that run in the Shooting phase cannot assault in the following Assault phase.

If a unit rolls a 1 when making this WAAAGH! MOVEMENT, the Orks start fighting before they get to the enemy. One model from that unit takes a single wound. Note that the unit may still move an inch, and assault as normal.

This is really simple: Waaagh! references Fleet. Fleet reference Run. Therefore, Waaagh! references Run. Specially, when it says "this Waaagh! movement" it is referring directly to the Run rule referenced in the Fleet rule referenced in the first paragraph of the Waaagh! rule.

THIS[Waaagh! movement = Running movement]

No, it doesn't work like that. Waaagh says "You get Fleet of Foot".
Fleet Says "You may assault after running"

The two are not connected. There is no Logical way you can infer that Running = Waaagh! Movement, mainly because nowhere does it say Running is Waaagh movement.

Nurglitch has it exactly right.

Nurglitch wrote:Clearly Waaagh! movement exists: it's written right there in the rules. Clearly Waaagh! movement happens in the Shooting phase and involves rolling 1D6. Again, it's written right there in the rules.

There are also biomorphs that exist that have no effect. It's there in the 'nid current codex. How do you play that?

It's clear that some biomorphs don't have an effect on the game anymore or their effect on the game has changed.

I think it's safe to say that the same thing happens with waagh.

Gwar! wrote:
No, it doesn't work like that. Waaagh says "You get Fleet of Foot".
Fleet Says "You may assault after running"

The two are not connected. There is no Logical way you can infer that Running = Waaagh! Movement, mainly because nowhere does it say Running is Waaagh movement.

Yes, actually, it DOES work like that. Try constructing a truth table for the argument that Running = Waagh! Movement, given the references written into the rules. The statement is a tautology; therefore, Running = Waagh! movement. QED.

What other movement is made during a Waagh! -- every time?
Basically I understand the issue with run = Waaagh! But I still question it.
Does this mean all rolls during a Waaaagh!'s movement should be involved? This is at least as . . . logical.

Waaaaagh! movement is no more defined than placing models.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
No, it doesn't work like that. Waaagh says "You get Fleet of Foot".
Fleet Says "You may assault after running"

The two are not connected. There is no Logical way you can infer that Running = Waaagh! Movement, mainly because nowhere does it say Running is Waaagh movement.

Yes, actually, it DOES work like that. Try constructing a truth table for the argument that Running = Waagh! Movement, given the references written into the rules. The statement is a tautology; therefore, Running = Waagh! movement. QED.

Lets see...
Actions defined by the 5th ed rules: Waaagh movement (F), Running (T)
Actions entitled "Waaagh movement": Waaagh movement(T), Running(F)
Actions defined as or specifically referencing running: Waaagh movement(F), Running (T)
I could go on.

The waaagh rule says:
Units gain fleet (the ability to assault after running).
Waaagh movements (undefined) have these caveats.

It doesn't say what a waaagh movement is. It doesn't ever reference running.

Okay Gwar, quick logic lesson time. In basic propositional logic we have this inference called a "Hypothetical Syllogism". It has the following form:

If A then B
If B then C
Therefore, if A then C.

This means that there is a logical way to both infer and to prove that Running movement is Waaagh! movement, by diagramming the chain of references made by the rules.

The Waaagh! rule references the Fleet rule, which in turn references the Run rule, and thus are embedded in each other just as I have diagrammed. The Waaagh! rule also corresponds to the phase in which the Run rule takes affect, refers to the movement referred to in the Fleet rule, which is running, and finally agrees with the run rule on one of its possible results.

The rules say that Running movement is Waaagh! movement because the rules say that Waaagh! confers Fleet of Foot on a unit when it is invoked in the Shooting phase. Fleet of Foot is Fleet. The only effect of Fleet is to allow a unit to move in the assault phase if it has run. Running movement is moving 1D6 in the Shooting phase. This Waaagh! movement results in a wound if a 1 is rolled, but the unit can still move an inch.

As the diagram shows, the Fleet and the Run rule are embedded in the Waaagh! rule.

It says it right there in the damned rules!

What part of this don't you get?

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
No, it doesn't work like that. Waaagh says "You get Fleet of Foot".
Fleet Says "You may assault after running"

The two are not connected. There is no Logical way you can infer that Running = Waaagh! Movement, mainly because nowhere does it say Running is Waaagh movement.

Yes, actually, it DOES work like that. Try constructing a truth table for the argument that Running = Waagh! Movement, given the references written into the rules. The statement is a tautology; therefore, Running = Waagh! movement. QED.

Are you actually saying that you can't run unless you waagh?

Because if you ran that boolean expression in a computer program, that would be the result.

Nurglitch wrote:If Waaagh! confers Fleet, then Waaagh! confers the ability to charge after running.

Unfortunately, that punches a great gaping hole in the argument.

Waaagh! = the ability to do something after running. (According to your logic)
'Waaagh! movement', without any other definition, can only be 'movement triggered by the Waaagh! rule'

So, Running can not be the movement referred to by the Waaagh! rule. If 'Waaagh movement' is triggered by the Waaagh rule, and the Waaagh is an ability to do something after running, then only movement that happens after running can be 'Waaagh movement'.

Nurglitch wrote:Okay Gwar, quick logic lesson time. In basic propositional logic we have this inference called a "Hypothetical Syllogism". It has the following form:

If A then B
If B then C
Therefore, if A then C.

This means that there is a logical way to both infer and to prove that Running movement is Waaagh! movement, by diagramming the chain of references made by the rules.

The Waaagh! rule references the Fleet rule, which in turn references the Run rule, and thus are embedded in each other just as I have diagrammed. The Waaagh! rule also corresponds to the phase in which the Run rule takes affect, refers to the movement referred to in the Fleet rule, which is running, and finally agrees with the run rule on one of its possible results.

The rules say that Running movement is Waaagh! movement because the rules say that Waaagh! confers Fleet of Foot on a unit when it is invoked in the Shooting phase. Fleet of Foot is Fleet. The only effect of Fleet is to allow a unit to move in the assault phase if it has run. Running movement is moving 1D6 in the Shooting phase. This Waaagh! movement results in a wound if a 1 is rolled, but the unit can still move an inch.

As the diagram shows, the Fleet and the Run rule are embedded in the Waaagh! rule.

It says it right there in the damned rules!

What part of this don't you get?

What part of it aren't you getting?
Read Waaagh. Read Fleet.
Fleet does not reference or invoke the running rules. Fleet simply grants you the ability to perform an assault action that running would normally prevent you from doing.
It in no way provides this logical chain between waagh movement and running that you seem so intent on claiming is clear.

insaniak:

No, not according to my logic. According to the Waaagh! rule the player declares the Waaagh! in the shooting phase.

Waaagh has two effects, a cost and a benefit.

The benefit is that the unit can charge in the Assault phase after running in the Shooting phase.

The cost is that while running during the Shooting phase, if the unit rolls a 1, the unit suffers a wound.

As I've pointed out, your contention that Running cannot be Waaagh! movement is false because Waaagh! movement is declared and resolved during the Shooting phase. That's the four points of identity I was talking about earlier:

The Waaagh! movement is declared and resolved in the Shooting phase, mentions moving 1", and causes a wound on a Waaagh! movement roll of 1, and confers the Fleet rule.

And what's so special about the Fleet rule? It references the Run rule! Fleet itself conveys no movement, but it does tell you what to do if the unit has run. HAS RUN. Past-tense reference to the Run rule.

Part of the problem people are having seeing this, I suspect, is the order in which the features of the Waaagh! rule are cited. First they cite the rule that allows units that ran in the Shooting phase to charge in the Assault phase, and then they tell you what happens when they run in the Shooting phase when the Waaagh! is in play.

The Waaagh! rule tells you what happens as the unit runs and what happens after the unit has ran. Its running.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gorkamorka:

Okay, is the following a real quote from the rulebook?

Fleet*, Universal Special Rules, Rulebook, p.75 wrote: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 in which it has run.

Do you see the word "run" anywhere in there?