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.

This looks Shooped.

I can tell, because of the pixels!

But seriously, get your head out your ass. John Spencer's views are no more valid than those of a Chimp with Downs Syndrome.

Until they release an official errata, RaW you can never take wounds for the Waaagh! and Ghazguls Waaaagh! doesn't let you move 6", END OF FETHING DISCUSSION!

Well, now that Gwar has chimed in, we all know the *right* way to play.

Gee thanks.

coredump wrote:Well, now that Gwar has chimed in, we all know the *right* way to play.

Gee thanks.

Um, all I did was point out the RaW. You can play it however you damn want. I'm just sick of people point to John Spencer and saying "Look this is how he plays now you all have to play it that way!"

This idiotic situation isn't the players fault, it is Games Workshops fault for refusing to either update the codexes fully in a timely fashion (ask any Dark Eldar player), failing to write even their current codex's well, and refusing to give us an official stopgap in the form of Published errata while the spend another 10 years writing codex's for anything except Speace Mareenz!

Hell, if they just buckled down for a week, and updated the wordings for all the Codex's, and released a small sort of minidex called "Codex: How to use your old rules we haven't bothered to update yet with 5th edition" for a nominal price, I'd buy it in an instant.

nostromo wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Nurglitch wrote: Since Squad A ran prior to the Waaagh! and hence the rest of the turn when Waaagh! takes effect, it does not have Fleet of Foot.

I have no idea how you reach that conclusion from the actual rules.

[sarcasm]That's ok people with that 3K posts don't have to provide facts and logic in the rules forum anymore.[/sarcasm]

Incorrect. It has been established by divine fiat that post count doesn't matter, and that truth is a matter of owning one or more tropical islands.

Gwar! wrote:But seriously, get your head out your ass. John Spencer's views are no more valid than those of a Chimp with Downs Syndrome.

I wouldnt put down what John Spencer does. He and his co-workers only try and do their best to answer peoples questions.

Comparing what he and his fellows do for rulings as equal to what a chimp with Down Syndrom can do, is out of line and un called for.

Joking or not, all they try and do is what is very much a part of their job. Customer Service. They take it serioulsy and make genuine attempts at such for the sake of all players.

Because YOU choose not to use it, because it doesnt come from Alessio, gives you no right to put down their work in such fashion.

Beyond that, telling a fellow Dakka Member to "get their head out of their ass" is not appropriate for the forums. Wheather you agree with what that person was trying to explain, in his case a E-mail from John Spencer, you should have respect enough to be polite in your responses.

Um, what?

Honestly mate, get a sence of humour.

Regardless of what John "does", there is a worrying trend of people saying "ZOMFG I POZT DIS PICTURE! JOHN SAYZ ITZ LIEK THEESE!!!"

Despite what you think, John does not have any more sway over rules questions than Yakface or you or me. What he has done is say "this is how I would play it" not "This is how the rules say you play it". He should be doing the latter, not offering his opinions on Rules as Intended.

And I also want to point out, the are Customer Service for the GW Store. They are boxpackers, nothing more.

Over-reaction, much?

He posted the screenshot of his answer from John Spencer.

He didn't claim that it somehow ended the discussion, or that it proved one side or the other.

It's no worse than any of the other posts in this thread claiming it works one way or the other with nothing to back them up... and better in some ways, because some people are willing to accept John's answers as a workaround for their own games.

Well, every time I state what the Rules actually are, All I get are people screaming "No it used to work like this" or "John says to do it like this" or "I think this is how we should play it instead" rather than follow the rules

And you were expecting what?

Given that both sides of the argument have been presented, mentioning how you think it should be played or how John thinks it should be played is fine. The rules aren't perfect in this instance, so giving people options is far more productive than simply repeating what you think the rules are telling us to do.

The problem with your reasoning there, is I am not saying how I think I should play it. I am saying how the Rules say you should play it.

The rules are more than adequate. They are outdated yes, and do not function as they did when they were written, but such is the cost of updating the core ruleset.

So, I would like an apology, I am not telling you what I think the rules are telling us, I am telling you what the rules actually say.

This is the forum for the actual rules. If you want to make up rules you have a forum all for you.

Gwar! wrote:The problem with your reasoning there, is I am not saying how I think I should play it. I am saying how the Rules say you should play it.

Er...yes... that was my point.

You've pointed out what you think the rules say. Others have pointed out what they think the rules say.

People reading the thread then make up their own minds as to who they agree with, and whether or not they are going to follow the rules (whichever version they think is correct) in this instance, or play otherwise.

At that point, it's pretty common for people to point out how they choose to play it...

So, I would like an apology, I am not telling you what I think the rules are telling us, I am telling you what the rules actually say.

An apology for what?

I never claimed you were doing anything else. I merely pointed out the reason that people were presenting the way they choose to play it.

Gwar! wrote:Um, what?

Honestly mate, get a sence of humour.

I dont have a sense of humour while on forums where all someone is trying to do is present their fair opinion. I do not know you, and you do not know me. What I might find humours in a movie or among my friends I do not necessarily care for in a location, such as forums, where context and inflection of tone etc can not be determined. This is not the first time I have seen people become offended at your rudeness even to the point a MOD had to remind you to tone it down.

Gwar! wrote:And I also want to point out, the are Customer Service for the GW Store. They are boxpackers, nothing more.

JohnOSpencer wrote:I just wanted to point out that my job is actually all Customer Service, the sales are just a facet of that. I don't have to upsell anyone, no minimum sales numbers to meet-just take the order for those who don't want to do place it online. I consider answer rules questions a very important part of my job and take it very seriously.

Seems to me the man thinks differently of his job. Wonder who has the more accurate description of what they are suposed to be doing?

JohnOSpencer wrote:just take the order for those who don't want to do place it online.

I rest my case.

wow this thread moving off topic ... at least we all agree on RAI fleet and a wound on a run roll of 1 ...Still, till there is some thing writen (on the web site) about this it should just be another thing to talk about before you start playing.

Argh...This thread makes my head hurt.

Forgive me for citing the "official house rules," but it seems odd to me that GW would bother FAQing a question about the Waaagh! special rule for 5th ed. if 5th ed. did away with said rule.

Ork 5th Ed FAQ wrote:Q: Are saves allowed against wounds caused by rolling a '1' for the 'Waaagh!' fleet roll? Or by a Bosspole's re-roll?

A:Armour and invulnerable saves are allowed. These are just the same as wounds suffered in close combat from a normal weapon (actually, a big green fist...).

No, they haven't issued an errata on the issue....but if the rule no longer had an effect wouldn't they issue an errata for that?

Just saying, especially as they did go through the trouble of deleting the rule from some Ork units in the errata (Stormboyz, Deffkoptas, Runtherds, Wazdakka.)

Gwar! wrote:

JohnOSpencer wrote:just take the order for those who don't want to do place it online.

I rest my case.

So you ignore the last part saying rules questions and answers are an important part of his job he takes seriously.



fail.

Gwar! wrote:This looks Shooped.

Definitely not shopped, I remember answering that one. He was asking about Ghazghkull's waaagh!

Gwar! wrote:And I also want to point out, the are Customer Service for the GW Store. They are boxpackers, nothing more.

You are not quite correct in our job. We are customer service. We help our stores, but we are more there to help our customers.
We give RAI answers. That is the only answer you can give on rules questions like these where it has been established that there is no RAW. You don't have to like the answers, you didn't ask for them. We just want to help the person who asked the question, they are the one that wants the help.

And...I haven't packed a box in 3 or 4 years, since we moved mail order (direct) to Memphis.

I think all the relevant points of this particular argument have been covered and now has gotten off-topic into the realm of discussing John Spencer's job description (again).

As such, the thread is being locked.