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.

belial wrote:

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.

If you roll a one for Waaagh Movement, whatever the heck that is.

belial wrote: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.

The rules also say that firing Get's Hot! weapons causes a wound on a roll of 1. It also doesn't say you can ignore that bit if you declare the Waaagh! Oh wait, Get's Hot is not relevant in this situation. Neither is your precious Waaagh! movement.

The rules do not have to specifically say you can ignore a rule if the rule is not relevant in the first place. Calling a Waaagh! in no way forces you to roll for units that have already run.

The Waaagh movement is something that doesn't technically exist. But as we are all discussing it, it must exist.
Im happy with how i play my waaagh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thebetter1 wrote:

belial wrote: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.

The rules also say that firing Get's Hot! weapons causes a wound on a roll of 1. It also doesn't say you can ignore that bit if you declare the Waaagh! Oh wait, Get's Hot is not relevant in this situation. Neither is your precious Waaagh! movement.

The rules do not have to specifically say you can ignore a rule if the rule is not relevant in the first place. Calling a Waaagh! in no way forces you to roll for units that have already run.

Except we are discussing Waaagh! Benefits without Costs? one would presume the 'waaagh' is relevant. Gets hot is irrelevant however.

The original post has a problem in that it is willing to apply the cost (wound on a 1) retroactively ... which is not something supported by the rules. The idea that the benefit is applied retroactively simply is not correct. The units gain the benefit of being fleet, which simply states that if the unit has run they may assault. Two quite different states here, which is being missed in the discussion.

1) When waagh is in effect a roll of 1 on the movement die means that one model takes a single wound. This is an effect that starts once the waugh is declared, nothing about going back in time here, it runs from that time forward.

2) When waagh is in effect an ork infantry unit is given the fleet rule (technically fleet of foot but the two terms appear to have been used inerchangeably by GW-- if not then fleet of foot rules questions have to refer back to old sources). The fleet rule simply says that a unit may assault in the same turn in which it has run. It doesnt matter at what point the unit acquires the fleet rule so long as it is before the assault phase. In the assault phase we look at the unit; does it have fleet? has it run? Those are the criteria. there is nothing requireing that the unit have had fleet BEFORE it ran.


The rules simply do not apply retroactively. The STATES of the units at times can be retroactive (ie this unit has run) but a rule thats not in effect yet cant be applied.

This is simply one of those rules that has been changed by a difference in the core rules, there have been others and in the future will likely be more given GW's publishing schedule.




That said, my orcs waagh before they move, unless Im playing our local TFG

Sliggoth

@Sliggoth: You bring up a Good Point with Fleet of Foot vs Fleet. However, GW have amazingly pre-empted that by stating "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."

Yes, I was stunned and appalled too.

Pika_power wrote: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.

Except that's not true at all. I much prefer the viewpoints of actual players as opposed to the useless internet lawyers.

The arguing in this thread is pretty ridiculous. Thankfully you guys are always too busy arguing on here instead of out playing in real life so we rationale folk can play the game in peace. I have never, and will never, have an argument about this because it is painfully obvious what was intended.

Night Lords wrote:Except that's not true at all. I much prefer the viewpoints of actual players as opposed to the useless internet lawyers.

What if your "useless" internet lawyers are also players?

Then I have never seen them, or, more likely (and importantly), they dont have the balls to try to pull this off in real life because they know their irrational arguments will get them no where.

Night Lords wrote:Then I have never seen them, or, more likely (and importantly), they dont have the balls to try to pull this off in real life because they know their irrational arguments will get them no where.

Hello, I play Warhammer 40,000.

Night Lords wrote:

Pika_power wrote: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.

Except that's not true at all. I much prefer the viewpoints of actual players as opposed to the useless internet lawyers.

It's a bit of a generalisation. Not everyone who gets into these discussions does so purely from a delight in picking the rules apart. Some of us just like to discuss the rules in order to better understand how they work.

Understanding what the rules actually say makes you better equipped to decide how to play it, and how to deal with it when you do wind up in a situation where your opponent is playing it differently.

I have never, and will never, have an argument about this because it is painfully obvious what was intended.

Obvious to you. You might be surprised by how often players have different views on what is 'painfully obvious.'

Then again, after spending any time on YMDC, it shouldn't really be that much of a surprise.


But, seriously, even if you and your opponent both agree that it's obvious that running triggers the wound, it's still not obvious how the Waaagh actually fits into the shooting phase.

Do you have to call it at the start of the phase, despite the rules not actually requiring such?
Do you call it at any time and apply it retroactively, despite that causing headaches and forcing you to remember which unit rolled what?
Do you call it at any time and only apply Fleet to units that run after it is called, despite the rules for Fleet not supporting that?
Do you do something else entirely?

Hence the discussion. You may personally find the argument over Waaagh movement to be worthless. Others hold the view that better understanding the rules mechanics behind a given rule may help iron out remaining issues related to that rule. We've already seen in this thread that some players misunderstood exactly how Fleet works in the current rules, leading to a misunderstanding of how the Waaagh works. It's not all just about useless internet rules lawyering.

Night Lords wrote:Then I have never seen them, or, more likely (and importantly), they dont have the balls to try to pull this off in real life because they know their irrational arguments will get them no where.

Their completely logical arguments based entirely upon the rules you agree to play by when you use the 40k rulebooks and don't state otherwise? Blasphemy.

I'm surprised at how many people in this thread don't understand what RAW is or how it works, or what YDMC is or how it works.

Good for you...?

Gorkamorka wrote:

Night Lords wrote:Then I have never seen them, or, more likely (and importantly), they dont have the balls to try to pull this off in real life because they know their irrational arguments will get them no where.

Their completely logical arguments based entirely upon the rules you agree to play by when you use the 40k rulebooks and don't state otherwise? Blasphemy.

I'm surprised at how many people in this thread don't understand what RAW is or how it works, or what YDMC is or how it works.

Gorkamorka speaks with Wisdom!

Gorkamorka wrote:

I'm surprised at how many people in this thread don't understand what RAW is or how it works, or what YDMC is or how it works.

Maybe we dont give a flying poop about RAW because the rulebook is clearly no law book, and was not written in such a way (hence the rule on page 1). YMDC is not called RAW, the tenets mention both RAW and RAI.

I think we're about done here.