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.

Ah, I see the breakdown in communication now.

I'd say this: As I quoted above, the rules are very clear. A new edition of rules doesn't invalidate every codex. I can see what you mean about 4th edition moves here if there was a different way of doing it in 4th edition, but the BRB and the Ork codex are still pretty clear about what to do.

Pretend that 4th edition is irrelevant, because it is. Don't read into the rules as applying to something that isn't relevant, because the rules as written work just fine with 5th edition.

Dashofpepper wrote:Pretend that 4th edition is irrelevant, because it is. Don't read into the rules as applying to something that isn't relevant, because the rules as written work just fine with 5th edition.

Yes, everything apart from the reference to a "6 for the Waaagh! move", as the Waaagh! move no longer exists.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote: I don't care what 4th edition said; I didn't play during 4th edition - I started 40k after 5th edition came out. The only rules I know are 5th edition, and the 5th edition Ork codex.

And herein lies your problem.

The movement that happens during the shooting phase that the Ork codex refers to WAS called Fleet of Foot
Get it that time?

That's RAI. Don't read into it that its referring to fleet of foot, it only specifies movement that happens during the shooting phase. Apparently, both 4th and 5th edition have rules that let you move during the shooting phase. There's no break there. Its only referring to the move that happens during the shooting phase; even if it was written during a different edition, it still applies. There's a move that happens during the shooting phase, and its called the run.

The ork codex TELLS you what to do about the movement during the shooting phase.

Its circular logic.

"Use this during the move in the shooting phase."

"You can't use that move because it doesn't say that you're allowed to run."

"Running is the move in the shooting phase."

"But it doesn't SAY run."

"But run IS the move in the shooting phase."

"But it doesn't have the word RUN in the rule."

"But there's only one move during the shooting phase, and its referring to that one."

Yeah....around and around and around.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:Pretend that 4th edition is irrelevant, because it is. Don't read into the rules as applying to something that isn't relevant, because the rules as written work just fine with 5th edition.

Yes, everything apart from the reference to a "6 for the Waaagh! move", as the Waaagh! move no longer exists.

The Waaaugh! move is whatever move happens before the assault phase, and during the shooting phase. What move is that? I'm pretty sure its the run.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote: I don't care what 4th edition said; I didn't play during 4th edition - I started 40k after 5th edition came out. The only rules I know are 5th edition, and the 5th edition Ork codex.

And herein lies your problem.

The movement that happens during the shooting phase that the Ork codex refers to WAS called Fleet of Foot
Get it that time?

That's RAI. Don't read into it that its referring to fleet of foot, it only specifies movement that happens during the shooting phase. Apparently, both 4th and 5th edition have rules that let you move during the shooting phase. There's no break there. Its only referring to the move that happens during the shooting phase; even if it was written during a different edition, it still applies. There's a move that happens during the shooting phase, and its called the run.

The ork codex TELLS you what to do about the movement during the shooting phase.

Its circular logic.

"Use this during the move in the shooting phase."

"You can't use that move because it doesn't say that you're allowed to run."

"Running is the move in the shooting phase."

"But it doesn't SAY run."

"But run IS the move in the shooting phase."

"But it doesn't have the word RUN in the rule."

"But there's only one move during the shooting phase, and its referring to that one."

Yeah....around and around and around.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:Pretend that 4th edition is irrelevant, because it is. Don't read into the rules as applying to something that isn't relevant, because the rules as written work just fine with 5th edition.

Yes, everything apart from the reference to a "6 for the Waaagh! move", as the Waaagh! move no longer exists.

The Waaaugh! move is whatever move happens before the assault phase, and during the shooting phase. What move is that? I'm pretty sure its the run.

Does WAAAGH specifically say Run or does it say Fleet?

You right, this will be a circular argument as long as you keep using 4th Edition rules in place of 5th Edition rules.

Waaaugh says neither run nor fleet. It confers the fleet special rule to Ork infantry units.

The rest just refers to your movement during the shooting phase. I don't care if it was written in 4th edition, because it jives just fine with 5th edition.

The BRB says that a codex with a rule more specialized than USRs take precedence. The Ork codex has one of those rules.


*shrugs again*

Brother Ramses wrote:The NEW movement done during the shooting phase is called RUN. Everyone has it now. If Ghaz's WAAAGH!! was meant to be used with RUN, it would refer to run. Since the Ork codex came out before 5th Edition, there is no way it could. However there is a 5th Edition Ork FAQ and in that document it STILL does not tell you to use the WAAAAGH!! with RUN.

How is this not only RAW, but FAQ'ed RAW?!?!?!?

The FAQ doesn't address that at all. It makes no mention of what to do with the 6 for Ghazzie. Maybe GW felt that it didn't need to be FAQ'ed because it was clear enough as it is.

Dashofpepper's argument is the best, relies only on 5th edition rules, and does not have to be inferred from previous editions.

Ok, you've all completely lost me.

To you who said fleet does not exist, you are somewhat correct. Fleet is a run that allows someone to assault after the run.

What does Gwar! mean that Ghaz's WAAGH! does not give an auto 6 to anything? Not disagreeing, just want to know. And what do you mean that WAAGH move doesn't exist?

WAAGH does say fleet, Dash, I have my dex right here.

Cryonicleech wrote:What does Gwar! mean that Ghaz's WAAGH! does not give an auto 6 to anything? And what do you mean that WAAGH move doesn't exist?

Waagh! refers to 4th Edition Fleet of Foot rule that no longer exists . Ghazgkhull's automatic 6 is an automatic 6 on something that no longer exists. The orks never had a "Waagh! move", it's just the name of the rule that gave them FoF with some added spice.

Just do like my group does - declare Waagh! at the start of the shooting phase, run if you wish and assault as if you had 5th edition Fleet on units that benefit from Waagh! at all. It might not be RAW but it surely works nice.

And what do you mean by that?

Fleet is a USR in my rulebook right now. reading, it says that fleet is essentially a run move that allows someone to assault.

Actualy, you're all fairly wrong on this - in 4th ed Waaagh! move did not specifically refer to anything either. In both editions you have been required to infer that Waaaagh! movement is either the Fleet! roll or the Run! roll. Both editions have required interpretation and inference in order to deduce what the rules mean.

Howveer this isn't a problem, as ALL the rules require interpretation - anything else is positivist rubbish. So you determine that the Waaaagh! movement, which occurs in shooting and before assault, can ONLY refer to run movement. It does not require the words "run" in there.

Ork Codex suffers from the designers needing to put it out before 5th ed, but having to write it so that the rules worked in both editions. They could NOT state that Waagh! movement = Run, as Gwar! wants, as that would have made no sense for 5 months, and would have led to confusion.

So waaaagh! movement == movement made in the shooting phase == run. Any other interpretation is logically flawed.

Cryonicleech wrote:And what do you mean by that?

Fleet is a USR in my rulebook right now. reading, it says that fleet is essentially a run move that allows someone to assault.

When the Ork codex was released, the 5th Edition rulebook was not yet out. The 4th Edition rulebook had a rule called Fleet of Foot that allowed d6 movement during the shooting phase. The Ork codex refers to this version of Fleet of Foot in terms of WAAAGH!.

In 5th Edition there is a new rule called Run that takes the place of the original Fleet of Foot. Fleet is now a mechanic of the assault phase that allows you to assault despite running during the shooting phase.

The problem that is arising right now is that there is one camp that wants to assume the intent of GW and say that the old version of Fleet of Foot has been replaced with the new version of Run and that Ghaz's special WAAAGH!! automatically gives them a 6" move on the Run roll.

However, since there has not been a GW FAQ or errata that says that the old Fleet of Foot is interchangable with the new Run or that it is even now Run, the other camp says that it is not legal to automatically get an automatic 6" on the WAAAGH using the new Run as if it was the old Fleet of Foot.

Further clarification:

4th edition has a rule called Fleet of Foot

5th edition has a rule called Fleet.

5th edition does not have a rule called Fleet of Foot

Fleet of Foot and Fleet do different things in different phases and really cannot be considered to be even remotely the same thing. References to the 4th edition rule Fleet of Foot cannot be considered to also refer to the 5th edition rule Fleet.

Balzac wrote:Further clarification:

4th edition has a rule called Fleet of Foot

5th edition has a rule called Fleet.

5th edition does not have a rule called Fleet of Foot

Fleet of Foot and Fleet do different things in different phases and really cannot be considered to be even remotely the same thing. References to the 4th edition rule Fleet of Foot cannot be considered to also refer to the 5th edition rule Fleet.

From the 5th edition USR "Fleet" "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."

That sure as hell sounds like a 5th edition reference to my 4th edition Ork dex which has "Fleet of Foot" rule.

Indeed.

And folks, again - pretend that 4th edition doesn't exist. Apparently, this entire argument started because guys were comparing 4th edition to 5th edition not seeing something map out.


Gwar's camp: Waaaugh! refers to fleeting during the shooting round, and fleeting during the shooting round doesn't exist anymore, so Ghazghkull's effect on a non-existent move means nothing.


Me: Waaaugh! confers fleet for a turn, and describes how to move during the shooting phase. You roll a D6 and move that far, then assault as normal. It doesn't have the word run in it, it just describes what and when to do it and the description and time when you do it matches precisely to run. Therefore it is logical to assume this is the run. Therefore Ghazghkull affects your run, because the run is the movement you take during the shooting phase as described in the Waaaugh!

-----------------------------------------------
As I previously said, I didn't play 40k in 4th edition. Its rules are irrelevant to me, and also irrelevant to everyone else. Don't compare the Ork Codex to 4th edition and look for things that don't jive, apply it to 5th edition. I don't buy that the Ork Waaaugh! applies to something that is no longer in the game when the Waaaugh! meshes perfectly with the rules, and tells you to run. No, it doesn't say "During the run phase" it says, "Movement during the shooting phase."

They're the same.

Dashofpepper wrote:Don't compare the Ork Codex to 4th edition and look for things that don't jive,

The problem with that idea is that there are items in various codexes that were written for 4th edition that no longer work in 5th. The FAQ entry I referenced earlier addresses this, telling us to ignore these items. Not to creatively interpret them to fit with rules that have fundamentally changed from their 4th edition incarnation.



This is one of the problems with GW's piecemeal codex release approach. We have codexes now spanning 3 different editions of the game, and people coming into the game now can get justifiably confused by it all.

olympia wrote:

Balzac wrote:Further clarification:

4th edition has a rule called Fleet of Foot

5th edition has a rule called Fleet.

5th edition does not have a rule called Fleet of Foot

Fleet of Foot and Fleet do different things in different phases and really cannot be considered to be even remotely the same thing. References to the 4th edition rule Fleet of Foot cannot be considered to also refer to the 5th edition rule Fleet.

From the 5th edition USR "Fleet" "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."

That sure as hell sounds like a 5th edition reference to my 4th edition Ork dex which has "Fleet of Foot" rule.

Convenient of you to leave out the rest of the description of the 5th Ed. Fleet USR since it says nothing of rolling for movement or that it takes place during the Assault phase. All Fleet does is allow you to Assault after Running in the Shooting Phase. Nothing more.

Brother Ramses wrote:Convenient of you to leave out the rest of the description of the 5th Ed. Fleet USR since it says nothing of rolling for movement or that it takes place during the Assault phase. All Fleet does is allow you to Assault after Running in the Shooting Phase. Nothing more.

That's how people tend to argue "I want it this way" arguments, by leaving out the parts that would hurt them.

Dashofpepper wrote:Indeed.

And folks, again - pretend that 4th edition doesn't exist. Apparently, this entire argument started because guys were comparing 4th edition to 5th edition not seeing something map out.


Gwar's camp: Waaaugh! refers to fleeting during the shooting round, and fleeting during the shooting round doesn't exist anymore, so Ghazghkull's effect on a non-existent move means nothing.


Me: Waaaugh! confers fleet for a turn, and describes how to move during the shooting phase. You roll a D6 and move that far, then assault as normal. It doesn't have the word run in it, it just describes what and when to do it and the description and time when you do it matches precisely to run. Therefore it is logical to assume this is the run. Therefore Ghazghkull affects your run, because the run is the movement you take during the shooting phase as described in the Waaaugh!

-----------------------------------------------
As I previously said, I didn't play 40k in 4th edition. Its rules are irrelevant to me, and also irrelevant to everyone else. Don't compare the Ork Codex to 4th edition and look for things that don't jive, apply it to 5th edition. I don't buy that the Ork Waaaugh! applies to something that is no longer in the game when the Waaaugh! meshes perfectly with the rules, and tells you to run. No, it doesn't say "During the run phase" it says, "Movement during the shooting phase."

They're the same.

Continuing to think that the WAAAAGH movement now refers to the Run USR when the codex was written before the Run USR was ever released is straight up RAI. You are choosing to assume that GW placed the wording to allow for Fleet of Foot (4th Ed) to carry over to Run (5th Ed). The rules do not support that assumption.

It has been said, but what here has not? So for those to . . . busy to go look here we go!

Games Workshop wrote:
Q. If my Codex includes some options (or other
rules) that seem to have no effect in the new
edition (like the Thornback biomorph, which
makes the model count as double the number of
models for the purposes of outnumbering the
enemy in combat resolution), are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something
else that does work?
A. No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no
effect, like in the case of the example above, it
simply does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just
leave it until the next edition of the Codex rather
than change its effects through an errata.

Carry on.

kirsanth wrote:It has been said, but what here has not? So for those to . . . busy to go look here we go!

Games Workshop wrote:
Q. If my Codex includes some options (or other
rules) that seem to have no effect in the new
edition (like the Thornback biomorph, which
makes the model count as double the number of
models for the purposes of outnumbering the
enemy in combat resolution), are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something
else that does work?
A. No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no
effect, like in the case of the example above, it
simply does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just
leave it until the next edition of the Codex rather
than change its effects through an errata.

Carry on.

Oh sick burn!

kirsanth wrote:It has been said, but what here has not? So for those to . . . busy to go look here we go!

Games Workshop wrote:
Q. If my Codex includes some options (or other
rules) that seem to have no effect in the new
edition (like the Thornback biomorph, which
makes the model count as double the number of
models for the purposes of outnumbering the
enemy in combat resolution), are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something
else that does work?
A. No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no
effect, like in the case of the example above, it
simply does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just
leave it until the next edition of the Codex rather
than change its effects through an errata.

Carry on.

The problem is that doesn't really add anything; it just says that if an ability clearly doesn't work, it doesn't work, and it's not going to be errata'd.

However, if it was clear that Ghazgkull's Waaagh didn't work it wouldn't be as contentious as it is.

So you think its not clear that the words are different?

I knew this would happen.
"THE FAQ ONLY SAYS TO IGNORE CLEAR THINGS HURRRRRRRR! EVEN THOUGH IT IS CLEAR DURRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!"

-Shakes head in t3h Shame -

If were clear, then the FAQ would be moot. There would be no argument to address with it.

:EDIT: Yep, circular logic's a bitch.

Orkeosaurus wrote:If were clear, then the FAQ would be moot. There would be no argument to address with it.

Wait. . . you really think that the words are the same?

Really?

kirsanth wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:If were clear, then the FAQ would be moot. There would be no argument to address with it.

Wait. . . you really think that the words are the same?

Really?

As many times as fleet has been interchanged with run in this thread, I really think he does.

I don't think it's universally clear that the rule no longer works. I think that the multiple people on this thread supporting it's continued validity is proof of that.

The FAQ doesn't say anything besides "if it doesn't do anything, it doesn't do anything". It's not proof of anything. It's circular logic. That FAQ is really only good for telling you that they don't plan to errata defect rules in the future, which is helpful, but not in this debate.

No.
It is good for telling people that when an out of date rule is referenced, ignore said rule, it has no effect.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't think it's universally clear that the rule no longer works. I think that the multiple people on this thread supporting it's continued validity is proof of that.

The FAQ doesn't say anything besides "if it doesn't do anything, it doesn't do anything". It's not proof of anything. It's circular logic. That FAQ is really only good for telling you that they don't plan to errata defect rules in the future, which is helpful, but not in this debate.

So you are not going to answer Kirsanth's question?

Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't think it's universally clear that the rule no longer works. I think that the multiple people on this thread supporting it's continued validity is proof of that.

No, it just proves people can't read.