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.

As promised here's my email from GW confirming that Old Zogwort can, in fact, use all Wierdboy abilities including Zzap and Frazzle! I got permission from Ben Cumming to quote him from this email:

To clarify on his answers below; I had asked him if Orks still had "Mob Up" and asked him as to if Warbosses could use their leadership if they were within LOS of a fleeing unit (rumor I'd heard at the store I play at).

And of course, asked him about Old Zog.

Then you had some rules questions ...

The Mob Up rule is a very old rule from previous editions. Not applicable any more.
You cannot use warboss LD in LOS.
On Zogwort - Frazzle and Zzap auto-hit, so no BS is needed. The Ork codex takes precedent over the rulebook here.

Let me know if any of that is helpful!

Thanks

Ben

--
Ben Cumming

As promised here's my email from GW confirming that Old Zogwort can't, in fact, use all Wierdboy abilities including Zzap and Frazzle! I got permission from Ben Cumming to quote him from this email:

To clarify on his answers below; I had asked him if Orks still had "Mob Up" and asked him as to if Warbosses could use their leadership if they were within LOS of a fleeing unit (rumor I'd heard at the store I play at).

And of course, asked him about Old Zog.

Then you had some rules questions ...

The Mob Up rule is a current rule from 6th edition. Very applicable now.
You can use warboss LD in LOS.
On Zogwort - Frazzle and Zzap do not auto-hit, so BS is needed. The Ork codex does not take precedent over the rulebook here.

Let me know if any of that is helpful!

Thanks

Ben

--
Ben Cumming

Seems like a pretty stupid thing to post, Peregrine, if in fact DieselJester's post is legitimate.

Gen'ralMekrot wrote:
Seems like a pretty stupid thing to post, Peregrine, if in fact DieselJester's post is legitimate.

IF it's legitimate. It's just as likely that my post is the legitimate one, and nobody is going to use a "ruling" that hasn't been published as an official FAQ. Even if the OP didn't make the whole thing up the people answering GW's rule questions email are notorious for giving completely different answers to the same question, so anything that isn't an official FAQ yet is worthless.

This specific issue is addressed on the YMDC forums of this very website. From the sticky post, you can find the following:

Lorek wrote:2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

But the FAQ says literally the exact opposite (unless they updated it since I last looked) Check it and see, bottom of Page 5.

I still think it's stupid though. Why bother giving him shooting attacks that he can supposedly use just fine in the fluff if he can't even see to be able to shoot?!?!?!?!

IF it's legitimate. It's just as likely that my post is the legitimate one, and nobody is going to use a "ruling" that hasn't been published as an official FAQ. Even if the OP didn't make the whole thing up the people answering GW's rule questions email are notorious for giving completely different answers to the same question, so anything that isn't an official FAQ yet is worthless.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. As an Ork player I was excited and I suppose quite naive as well. I will just have to wait till the next Ork codex I suppose.

If the tournament scene isn't your primary motivator, you could always find an understanding opponent. It might not be "official 40k," but you'll find most people are pretty understanding with regard to old codices.

(Forgeworld is particularly bad about this. By RAW, an Elysian CCS can't issue orders to other Elysians. They have to give orders to units from Codex: Imperial Guard.)

Most things can be resolved with a friendly chat before the game. It helps set the tone for the next few hours, too.

 Peregrine wrote:

Gen'ralMekrot wrote:
Seems like a pretty stupid thing to post, Peregrine, if in fact DieselJester's post is legitimate.

IF it's legitimate. It's just as likely that my post is the legitimate one, and nobody is going to use a "ruling" that hasn't been published as an official FAQ. Even if the OP didn't make the whole thing up the people answering GW's rule questions email are notorious for giving completely different answers to the same question, so anything that isn't an official FAQ yet is worthless.

What do you want? A screenshot of my original email, or maybe I forward it directly to you or something? Sheesh... It took me months to pry something somewhat official from GW and Mr. Cumming says that he'll try to get it included in the next FAQ, even though he doesn't have much pull in that department.

Most judges/refs that I know would accept this in lieu of an official FAQ until the next one comes out. Use it or not guys. I thought that this would help settle some arguments that have been going on about Old Zog here on the forums.

Well, this isn't the right forum for that, and the fact that this guy doesn't have much pull in the rules department should be a big tip off that his interpretation of the rules has no bearing beyond his own opinions.

 DieselJester wrote:
It took me months to pry something somewhat official from GW and Mr. Cumming says that he'll try to get it included in the next FAQ, even though he doesn't have much pull in that department.

And this is the problem. The people answering GW's rule question email are notoriously inconsistent and don't seem to have any "official" status in the company. It's probably only exaggerating a little bit to speculate that they're whatever random office staff happen to have some spare time to write an answer, not necessarily experienced and informed players/designers. That's fine for answering questions from 12 year olds, but until there's an actual FAQ ruling from GW's real rule authors you're not going to convince many people to accept your supposed email.

Most judges/refs that I know would accept this in lieu of an official FAQ until the next one comes out.

Where are these tournaments where the TO accepts a random claim of "I have an email from GW" as a ruling? I'd like to go win them with my new wishlist of overpowered rules.

 DieselJester wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Gen'ralMekrot wrote:
Seems like a pretty stupid thing to post, Peregrine, if in fact DieselJester's post is legitimate.

IF it's legitimate. It's just as likely that my post is the legitimate one, and nobody is going to use a "ruling" that hasn't been published as an official FAQ. Even if the OP didn't make the whole thing up the people answering GW's rule questions email are notorious for giving completely different answers to the same question, so anything that isn't an official FAQ yet is worthless.

What do you want? A screenshot of my original email, or maybe I forward it directly to you or something? Sheesh... It took me months to pry something somewhat official from GW and Mr. Cumming says that he'll try to get it included in the next FAQ, even though he doesn't have much pull in that department.

Most judges/refs that I know would accept this in lieu of an official FAQ until the next one comes out. Use it or not guys. I thought that this would help settle some arguments that have been going on about Old Zog here on the forums.

The From address of an email is easy to forge, and a screenshot easier still.

I'm not saying you have, and everything you've posted seems to indicate you had never considered the possibility that someone would. But there are people who would, so no one here has any reason to take your word for it or believe any evidence you proffer.

And as tomjoad said, if he has no pull in the rules department then his rulings have no official weight. You may as well have asked one of the guys in China who printed the codex.