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.

Nurglitch wrote:
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.

Congratulations, you've proved... nothing?
As I and others have told you:Yes, Waaagh movement fits quite nicely into the definition for running. That doesn't mean Waaagh movement is actually defined as running anywhere in the rules, which would be required for your reading to be RAW.

You aren't 'proving' anything logically, you're just inferring that they must be exactly the same ruleswise because they are similar.

Gorkamorka:

But Waaagh! movement is defined in the rules. That's why I've quoted the rules and even bolded the parts involving the definition. I'm utterly baffled as to why it isn't obvious to you. So how about you help me out as I go through the quoted material and see what I'm missing?

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?

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

Right. It has an effect that kicks in after running. Running is not the effect. Running is something that happens beforehand.

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.

Shooting is resolved during the shooting phase as well. It's also not Waaagh movement.


Running is Running. Nothing else is Running unless the rules actually say that it is running.
Waaagh! movement is never defined as Running. It is linked to Fleet, but not Running. Fleet grants you an ability after Running. It doesn't grant you movement.

You're essentially trying to say that being able to open a door is the same as being able to walk through an open door. They both reference a door... but they're not the same thing.

We can infer that the tactical squad can move 6" even though it is not explicitly stated, then making the inference that Nurglitch has proposed is inherent to utilizing this rule system.

However, I disagree that you have satisfied the requirement of it having the exact same characteristics in order to match the identities.

You have assumed that just because the rule referencing rolling a "1" that it means you are rolling 1d6 for the movement. This is where it falls apart, because a 1 can be rolled on d3 or 2d6. Assuming that it is meaning 1d6 worth of movement is required in order to match the identities exactly, but it is never stated in the text.

We have no information on how far the Waaagh movement is, other than that 1 can be rolled for it. Because it is undefined, it does not share the same characteristic of 1d6 worth of movement - it has no distance characteristic. As such, the two identities can't be matched.

Therefore, the penalty does not apply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oops, I guess the distance characteristic for Waaagh movement is simply >0, not non-existant.

Nurglitch wrote:

If the Waaagh! confers the benefit of Fleet to all Ork units regardless of when in the Shooting phase it is declared, then it likewise confers the cost of a wound to any , since all running movement in that phase has been converted to Waaagh! movement. Just as the benefit is retroactively applied to all units that ran, so is the cost. Call this an application of the principle of symmetry.

So your argument boils down to; "I don't think it seems fair".

Yeah, well, a lot of things don't seem fair in 40K.
I won't present a list of things that I think seems unfair.
First, because fairness has nothing to do with the rule-mechanics, and second, what seems unfair to me might seem perfectly reasonable to others.

All in all, my list of greviances is completely and utterly irrelevant.

You seem to feel that the benefit is applied retroactively. I disagree.
Come the Assault Phase the question is asked; "Did this unit run?"
Why, yes it did.
"Is the unit Fleet?"
Hang on. *mutters while trying to remember what I did a few seconds ago* "Did I call the WAAAGH! or not? Hey, I did. All my infantry units gets Fleet for the duration of the turn". Yes, the unit is Fleet.
"OK. You can assault."

The WAAAGH! has three conditions attached to it;
It cannot be called in turn 1.
It must be called during the Shooting phase.
Its effect only applies to ork infantry.

If you comply with these three conditions then the relevant unit in question gains Fleet. End of story.
Should you feel the desire to invent additional restrictions, then feel free. There is even a separate forum for such ideas. Go there.

Do I think this is the way the designers intended? No.
Is it perfectly legal the way the rule is written? Yes.

I would also like a rules quote on "the principle of symmetry". Sounds like a neat concept.
If such a quote cannot be presented then it has zero relevance in this discussion.

Actually Steelmage99, he has a very well delineated argument. I would invite you read the rest of the thread so that you get a better understanding...

No, I believe he hasn't.

After having read his "arguments" for the third time now (due largely to your very polite request, I might add), I have come to the conclusion that Nurglitch is trying really hard to avoid the issue.

Having found himself unable to argue about the wording relevant to the timing of the use of WAAAGH! and its consequenses, he has now started to deflect the issue and is worrying mostly about wether WAAAGH!ing is the same as running.

Should he at some point return to the issue that spawned this thread, I'll happily participate.

I'll add a question onto this thread. Do the supporters of the wounds-free Waaagh! consider Ghazghkull's Waaagh! to be a relic of the past as well? Because that's how his rule goes if we agree that Waaagh! Movement doesn't exist in the rules.

Oh, and we all agree that RAI, the wounds are taken, and that's how we all plan to play it in-game, right?

Pika_power wrote:I'll add a question onto this thread. Do the supporters of the wounds-free Waaagh! consider Ghazghkull's Waaagh! to be a relic of the past as well?

Absolutely. That was the general opinion last time this came up as well, if I recall. If it applies to the normal Waaagh, it applies to Ghaz's as well.

Oh, and we all agree that RAI, the wounds are taken, and that's how we all plan to play it in-game, right?

I don't agree that it's RAI, because I have no idea what was originally intended. Or, rather, we can assume (since it worked just fine) that the rules as written were as intended for 4th edition. We know that the codex was supposed to be forwards compatible (because the studio said so when it was released). But we can only guess as to whether the intention in 5th edition was for Running to replace Fleet for the purposes of the Waaagh or for the wound on a 1 to simply be phased out as an obsolete rule. Or whether the intention was for Waaagh to be called at the start of the phase, or later in the phase and be retroactive, or later in the phase and only apply to units that run from that point. Or something else entirely.

Having said that, I would still be playing it as I mentioned earlier in the thread: that it should be called at the start of the phase, and the penalty apply to the Run roll, because I believe that to be the best way to play it.

insaniak wrote:

Pika_power wrote:I'll add a question onto this thread. Do the supporters of the wounds-free Waaagh! consider Ghazghkull's Waaagh! to be a relic of the past as well?

Absolutely. That was the general opinion last time this came up as well, if I recall. If it applies to the normal Waaagh, it applies to Ghaz's as well.

Oh, and we all agree that RAI, the wounds are taken, and that's how we all plan to play it in-game, right?

I don't agree that it's RAI, because I have no idea what was originally intended. Or, rather, we can assume (since it worked just fine) that the rules as written were as intended for 4th edition. We know that the codex was supposed to be forwards compatible (because the studio said so when it was released). But we can only guess as to whether the intention in 5th edition was for Running to replace Fleet for the purposes of the Waaagh or for the wound on a 1 to simply be phased out as an obsolete rule. Or whether the intention was for Waaagh to be called at the start of the phase, or later in the phase and be retroactive, or later in the phase and only apply to units that run from that point. Or something else entirely.

Having said that, I would still be playing it as I mentioned earlier in the thread: that it should be called at the start of the phase, and the penalty apply to the Run roll, because I believe that to be the best way to play it.

I'd place my guess at RAI being Waaagh Movement = running, because while it's possible that they wanted to phase the Waaagh rules, I find it doubtful that they'd completely neuter Ghazghkull's Waaagh.

RAW, the wounds aren't taken and Ghazghkull's Waaagh doesn't give auto-6.

Pika_power wrote:
I'd place my guess at RAI being Waaagh Movement = running, because while it's possible that they wanted to phase the Waaagh rules, I find it doubtful that they'd completely neuter Ghazghkull's Waaagh.

RAW, the wounds aren't taken and Ghazghkull's Waaagh doesn't give auto-6.

That pretty much sums it up.

Yes, by RAW Ghazhkulls WAAAGH! doesn't confer Fleet and no WAAGH!-movement exists.

While it not clear what GW meant it really obvious their intent. They wanted you to call your WAAAGH! then roll your run move any 1's cause a wound. It's freaking very very obvious, now if you got some jackass that wants to be a English major and say that it's not written clear enuff to be sure then whatever. Roll a dice...

While YMDC often gets heated, you General_Chaos seem to be taking this thread personally. Maybe go take a tourrette's walk to calm down a bit?

sourclams wrote:While YMDC often gets heated, you General_Chaos seem to be taking this thread personally. Maybe go take a tourrette's walk to calm down a bit?

It's true that most arguments and personal insults spark from YMDC.

Onto the subject, i think you need to declare it first, before you run.

So, essentially, the main point of supposed contention here is the lack of clarity on what the Waaaugh movement refers to, not the actual ability to use the benefits of Waauggh! Am I correct?

If I were say playing RAW, I could still Declare a Waaugh at some point and gain Fleet of Foot, which would enable me to assault after running. The only unclear part is what exactly this "Waaugh Movement" is refering to in regards to suffering wounds when rolling a 1 on a D6.

Despite all the rules debating, I'm curious how most people actually play this rule and what the generally excepted terms of "fair play" are. I would guess that, to avoid a major rules argument during a game, you would decide the best way to play is to accept that "Running=Waaaugh Movement" since it occurs during the same phase during which you declare your Waaugh movement and take 1 wound for any rolls of a 1 for their Running phase afterwards. Has anyone here played in tournaments with or against Orks? Was it played this way or differentely?

Also, assuming you play this way...do you feel the Waaugh needs to be declared before any other units run or shoot? Or just before units you actually intend to assault with take a running action?
(ie. Could I...
1. Shoot with Lootas and Shoota boyz
2. Run with Gretchin
3. Declare my Waaugh and Run with Boyz.

Oh, oh, I know! Lets do this the Jervis Way!

It works on a 4+!

sourclams wrote:While YMDC often gets heated, you General_Chaos seem to be taking this thread personally. Maybe go take a tourrette's walk to calm down a bit?

Oh not at all, but if you sit at my table and try to reason out why your don't need to take a wound for rolling a 1 on your run move, then you mights well just pack your stuff back up cause your apparently taking this game a bit to serious for me

General_Chaos wrote:

sourclams wrote:While YMDC often gets heated, you General_Chaos seem to be taking this thread personally. Maybe go take a tourrette's walk to calm down a bit?

Oh not at all, but if you sit at my table and try to reason out why your don't need to take a wound for rolling a 1 on your run move, then you mights well just pack your stuff back up cause your apparently taking this game a bit to serious for me

So, wait... You would actually refuse to play someone because they want to play by the rules and not some bastardised House Rule version?

Yea the way the rules are wrote, I can again see it going either way.

But IMO, if your going to WAAGH! you should declare it before you run. You can go ahead and shoot everything first if you want as that has no real affect on a WAAGH!. You shouldnt be able to run, and then call a waaagh! as how the rules are wrote in the dex.
"on a roll of a 1, the unit suffers 1 wound for infighting. But the unit may still move the 1 inch"

So in reading that, you would be cheating running first, AND THEN calling a waaagh! Because say you roll 5 for your run, then call a waagh! Youd still have to roll a d6, as it says in the dex, and what happens if you roll a 1? Youve already moved 5 inches, and the rule says if you roll a 1, you may still move the 1 inch. So running first and THEN calling a waagh! ends up making a cluster F*** of rules being broken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

General_Chaos wrote:

sourclams wrote:While YMDC often gets heated, you General_Chaos seem to be taking this thread personally. Maybe go take a tourrette's walk to calm down a bit?

Oh not at all, but if you sit at my table and try to reason out why your don't need to take a wound for rolling a 1 on your run move, then you mights well just pack your stuff back up cause your apparently taking this game a bit to serious for me

So, wait... You would actually refuse to play someone because they want to play by the rules and not some bastardised House Rule version?

Basterdized house rule? As mentioned before, sure if your an english major, you can punch holes in the rules the GW wrights all day long. But lets be realistic here. Saying that you can use these holes to NOT take wounds and NOT allow someone to do something simply because there is a . in a spot it normally shouldnt be or whatever the case may be, is just being stupid.
The WAAGH! rule is in the codex, now however you tear it apart, its still in there, meaning an Ork player can assault after running, thanks to the WAAAGH! rule. These kind of arguments are just so stupid to me. I agree with General Chaos, you play at my table,a nd try this gak, you can pack it up and go play by yourself

Kingcracker: YMDC is used to decide what RAW is. Occasionally we look at what RAI is. We only start looking at its application on the tabletop when there is a poll by Yakface, otherwise we leave people to play it how they play it. We're not necessarily trying to English Major our way into winning games, but we enjoy ourselves by picking the rules apart.

What i find funny is that people are often willing to ignore other similar slips. For example ...

Tau target Lock. Take a target priority test and you can shoot at another unit. There is no longer a test and most people play it as simply auto passing. We all know that the test was a LD test but how many people still feel they need to do that?

Banshee Mask ... On the first round of assault, gives initiative 10 and negates any initiative bonus conferred by cover and grenades. Cover no longer gives a bonus it in fact drops the I1.

... there's lots more but you get the picture. Any codex not written solely for the 5th edition is going to have problems. Most of these we solve by looking at what they used to do.

This is probably the right approach since that makes them work as they used to. The trouble is these rule are at best house rules, "Waaagh Movement" was never defined. To a new player it might be a rule like target priority that no longer exists. In many ways they are right.

.
.
.
.
End of the day we'll all play that if you want to waaagh then you take a wound if you roll a 1 when you run. Its just a shame that GW can't simply make a block correction for their older codices.

Pika_power wrote: We're not necessarily trying to English Major our way into winning games, but we enjoy ourselves by picking the rules apart.

I do both, if only because I want to twist the younglings at my local group unto my image

@Tri: I don't ignore those slips... I know the Target Lock does nothing, I explain that the Banshee Masks suck etc...

Gwar! wrote:I do both, if only because I want to twist the younglings at my local group unto my image

He does this by employing a fiendish device known as The Analiser...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I do both, if only because I want to twist the younglings at my local group unto my image

He does this by employing a fiendish device known as The Analiser...

Is that the same thing they used to write codex: csm?

After reading this I am not sure what the origonal question was, but I have an opinion on this tough.

1st. Is it legal, within the rules to, move and ork mob in the movement phase, run the mob in the shooting phase, then declare a waaagh, and then assualt. (NO). I think the rules are clear. You cant assualt after running. Now if the ork player declared the waaagh prior to running, then (YES) he would have the ability to Assualt in the Assualt phase of the game. I also think that the origonal post stated that a player also rolled the dice to Waaagh after running. (That would not work where I Play)

2nd. I agree that the fleet of foot is not a movement. It gives the unit with the ability to run during the shooting phase and still assualt, without haveing to declare it everytime you run the unit. Unlike you have to with the Orks when you Waaagh them.

net_junky wrote:
1st. Is it legal, within the rules to, move and ork mob in the movement phase, run the mob in the shooting phase, then declare a waaagh, and then assualt. (NO). I think the rules are clear. You cant assualt after running. Now if the ork player declared the waaagh prior to running, then (YES) he would have the ability to Assualt in the Assualt phase of the game. I also think that the origonal post stated that a player also rolled the dice to Waaagh after running. (That would not work where I Play)

I'm curious why you think this.
Gaining the ability to assault after running gives you the ability to assault after running regardless of when you gained the ability in relation to the run.

I play orks, I always declare my Waaagh at the start of the shooting phase and if I roll that dreaded one, hey guess what.....I take the wound.
I agree that RAW the waaagh can be declared at any point in the phase and technically you can ignore the 'wound' but I like having opponents to play against

belial wrote:I play orks, I always declare my Waaagh at the start of the shooting phase and if I roll that dreaded one, hey guess what.....I take the wound.
I agree that RAW the waaagh can be declared at any point in the phase and technically you can ignore the 'wound' but I like having opponents to play against

If your opponents are the kind of people who refuse to play you because you want to play by the rules, you need new opponents.

Gwar! wrote:

belial wrote:I play orks, I always declare my Waaagh at the start of the shooting phase and if I roll that dreaded one, hey guess what.....I take the wound.
I agree that RAW the waaagh can be declared at any point in the phase and technically you can ignore the 'wound' but I like having opponents to play against

If your opponents are the kind of people who refuse to play you because you want to play by the rules, you need new opponents.

Except that this situation, like other rules that aren't brilliantly written, takes away the enjoyment of a game. RAW Crusader assault launchers dont work, would you seriously
demand that in a game.
The rules state if you roll a 1 take a wound. It doesnt say you can ignore that bit if you declare the waaagh after your run move.

Yes its a great loophole, doesn't mean you have to use it.