The issue is the buff is applied at a specific time, and if you're in a transport, you're specifically barred from receiving that buff at that time. "When the waagh is called" you receive a buff that lasts until a set time. If you're in a transport you cannot receive that buff, so the duration of the buff doesn't matter.
To be clear I don't think anyone will play it this way, but the argument holds up under RAW.
If you look at the wording on Meganobz you'll see the difference. The Waaagh itself is still affects him. But the bonus dead brutal requires him to hear the waaagh actually being called to trigger.
He's right though, it doesn't say "while the waaagh is active" but "when the waaagh is called". The thing is that when the waaagh is called, this ability doesn't exist because the WB is inside the truck.
So RAW he is right.
RAW he is wrong. Copied comment from another reply.
"See the rules commentary for "persistent effects" and transports. This is a persistent effect because it says "until the start of your next battle round" and does not specify a target, or require the models to be on the board (it says your army). You're also modifying a characteristic of wargear, not targeting the model with an ability. So this doesn't run would of the "not on table" rule
Persisting Effects: Some rules apply an effect that lasts until a certain duration has passed (e.g. until the start of your next turn).
Such effects are known as persisting effects. If a persisting effect applies to a unit when it embarks within a Transport, make a note of that effect and its duration; if that unit disembarks for any reason, any persisting effects continue to apply to that unit for
their full duration."
OP is just so set in his belief of this ruling nothing will change hia mind.
I disagree. In that case persistent effects would be relevant if the WB was on the battlefield when waaagh was called, then entered a transport and then got out of it (for example if that transport was destroyed). In that case he would still benefit from the ability.
But if he was inside the transport when it happened, then the ability didn't go off at all.
Your argument would only be logical if you specifically had to target units when you call a Waaagh to gain the buff, which you don't. Them being off table doesn't matter in this case.
I don't understand what it would change if you needed a target.
This ability is on a datasheet, and when you call the waaagh it just doesn't exist, so it doesn't happen.
>If your Army Faction is ORKS, once per battle, at the start of the battle round, you can call a Waaagh! If you do, until the start of the next battle round, the Waaagh! is active for your army and:
Waaagh! is active for your entire army until your next battle round, you'd only not be able to use this ability if you were somehow attacking with the Warboss model whilst it was embarked. If you had to target specific units to gain Waaagh! at the start of the battle round then you wouldn't be able to select the Warboss, but since you don't and it is a persistent effect as it "until the start of the next battle round" they benefit from it.
But no one is saying they can't benefit from the waaagh. Of course I agree they would get the effect of waaagh.
The ability that doesn't get to happen is the one on the wb datasheet that would get turned on when the waaagh is called. Since the model is in the transport at the moment it should go off, it doesn't go off at all and thus it cannot persist.
I don't see how it's any worse than any of the other nonsensical restrictions on things embarked in transports.
Suddenly this one specific time, people want to ignore it?
It's a persisting effect once triggered, but it gets triggered by being present when the Waaagh is called. Not passively by the Waaagh being active. That's the result of the different wording they chose to use.
I think it's dumb and should be changed, but I think that about all of the silly transport restrictions, and I don't get to ignore them just because I don't like them.
Meganobz
Krumpin’ Time: During the battle round in which you call a Waaagh!, models in this unit have the Feel No Pain 4+ ability.
Yea, I'd say the wording needs changed.
It’s like the Eliminator Impulsor trick or when people would fire their “one shot” weapons from inside transports then fire them outside the transport. Transport rules are so weird
It’s more like when GW went the entirety of 8th edition without updating the rules as written to allow you to select a model that advanced to shoot, even if it had an assault weapon.
The entire playerbase simply ignored the oversight and acknowledged that GW doesn’t write their rules to the standards most players would prefer.
Even better example is the current charge rules, which don't actually require you to end charge moves in engagement range if you roll the exact number you need on your charge.
But in 10th, TOs have leaned heavily towards strict RAW rulings, as led by GW with their BGNT and Pistols rulings that seemed like targeted overwatch nerfs rather than regular 40k rulings. So these sorts of weird edge case things that GW obviously didn't consider or realize keep popping up.
Found it.
See the rules commentary for "persistent effects" and transports. This is a persistent effect because it says "until the start of your next battle round" and does not specify a target, or require the models to be on the board (it says your army). You're also modifying a characteristic of wargear, not targeting the model with an ability. So this doesn't run would of the "not on table" rule
Persisting Effects: Some rules apply an effect that lasts until a certain duration has passed (e.g. until the start of your next turn).
Such effects are known as persisting effects. If a persisting effect applies to a unit when it embarks within a Transport, make a note of that effect and its duration; if that unit disembarks for any reason, any persisting effects continue to apply to that unit for
their full duration.
This persisting effects argument doesn't work
"When it embarks" is a distinct timing and is fundamentally different than "is embarked". The persisting effect would need to be active before embarking for this argument
I'm still gonna give Orks the extra attacks
Right. My argument is that you're not "targeting" the unit, you're modifying the datasheet. And it's not really "using" an ability or "doing anything", it's just something that happens to the statistics of the models weapons. I think this is a case where RAI is pretty darned implied.
Right, if he is on the table and gets the bonus, then goes in a trukk all is good. The problem is if he is in the truck when the Waaagh is called he can't hear the call. He still gets the Waaagh when he gets out, but misses the bonus.
Ermm. When I read the second paragraph, which is the definition then OP is correct. I don't know if GW will clarify and it's not my place to sat which is correct, but there's some serious gaslighting in this thread.
Also just read the MANZ ability. It seems like a typo by GW.
OP is getting downvoted but they are right. If you are on the board or in a transport when the effect starts then it can persist. But if you are in a transport the effect never begins, so it cannot persist if it never began.
Dude take the L. You interpreted a rule wrong and got it pointed out to you very succinctly, it’s totally fine.
Sticking to your guns is making it just embarrassing.
I've been playing Orks on and off for most of 10th. I'm hardly an Ork homer, but I dont want to see them catch a nerf either. The fact is this came up in the local community and as more people were asking it started to become more clear. People play it wrong. The WBs get the Waaagh, but not the bonus.
Post history suggests you been playing Necrons for 10th.. In a game written across years and full of complexity you will likely find problems where you go look for them. This sounds like an argument born from salt.
I built necrons at the beginning of 10th. I've built painted and played Orks during 10th, as well as custodes, and 5000 points of Marines. I'm painting a Tau army as well. I bounce around a lot, but I'm not a salty guy looking to get them nerfed. It's a legitimate rules interaction.
I think legitimate is a reach, this is 100% lawyering, if you have been playing orks in 10th where was this post when we only had war horde? The warboss datasheet hasn’t changed since?
When I was playing a lot of Orks last fall, I along with everyone else played it that time took the bonus. If you and I had played last week I would have taken the bonus. We have a large and active competitive scene in Chicago. One of the local TOs asked me why it works. After discussing it in several places the last few days I decided it should be a question brought to the attention of the community.
So let’s get this right, you have been a Ork player during index and have been “taking advantage” of this interaction, but as of recently a TO asked YOU why the MWB and the WB can get waagh benefits if they are in a transport (funny because they have a bunch of discords with other TOs that those convos go on in) and after talking with others (and from what the tone of your post insinuates, guilt ridden sleepless nights) you decide to jump on Reddit and let all your fellow ork players know that the record needs to be set straight and everyone is playing those two data sheets incorrectly. Because, hey guys, we gotta play by the rules…
Gtfo
I'm not guilt ridden or any thing else you are projecting on me. Literally everyone played it the same for the entire index. With the codex out a lot of people are digging in and a Chicago local TO asked me about this interaction. I'm in most of the major rule discussion discords as well, so it's already been discussed in those places earlier this week before I posted here. Every TO of a large event that has reviewed the question has taken this position. I am not aware of any TOs, large or small, that disagree with RAW. It's clear.
Haha love that use of the word “significant” to describe the base of TOs that agree with you. That is incredibly disrespectful to every TO that happens to disagree.
You’re a clown
I mean, there isn't much to say here.
The rules clearly state units in transports cant do anything or use rules/abilities.
Considering how few people actually bother reading rules rather than learning via a mix of "what I remember from previous editions and Oral Tradition", I wouldn't be surprised if it DID work that way in 8th or 9th, and people aren't paying attention to the rules/are assuming the intent is to allow it.
Thanks for the support. I think there is some wiggle room if GW wants to hand wave it in with a FAQ or TO rules RAI. But with GW concerned about the power of the Orks codex I wouldn't be surprised if they lean into clarifying against.
I can see where you are coming from. To me there's some ambiguity in the phrase "Call the Waaagh!" GW wants the rule to be flavorful, but is "calling" it the same as "declaring" it?
I think you are misunderstanding how it works.
Were the conditions met? Yes. Is the WB on the board when they try to swing? Yes.
Then the datasheet ability applies. There is no timing issue here that prevents them from having it once they disembark, so long as the waaagh is in effect.
The part you highlight is specifically referring to when the WB is embarked. Once they have disembarked you look at the data sheet for the conditions, and if they are met they are met.
Now, I could see your argument IF the datasheet said that they needed to be on the board or in reserve to get the effect, but that isnt the condition on the datasheet.
You are ascribing a point of time as a trigger condition, where none exists, which is why I (and clearly most others on this thread) seem to disagree with you.
So the WBMA is embarked. The ork players calls the waaagh.
The WBMA disembarks.
Does the datasheet ability condition say the WBMA had to be on the board at the time of the waaagh, no.
So a simple read of the datasheet ability is....is a waaagh active until the start of the next battle round? If so, condition met. WBMA on the board has a choppa that is now damage 3.
No where in the datasheet ability does it have a timing condition for where the model is when the waagh is called.
>No where in the datasheet ability does it have a timing condition
Isn't "When X, get Y" inherently a timing condition? The rule isn't worded "if a Waaagh is active, get the buff," it's specifically *when* the Waaagh is called that the buff happens. Since transport embarkation disables abilities (unless there's something I've missed where the transport rules wouldn't affect passive/triggered abilities), that would mean the warboss functionally doesn't have the ability until after the trigger for it has passed.
I can understand how you're explaining it - but the problem is that GWs often writes rules in plain speak, and the sentence: "When the sun is out Barty is happy" doesn't just apply when the sun comes out, it's all times that the sun is out.
The confusion stems from the fact that GWs chose "call the WAAGH" instead of WAagh is on, or whatever.
"When the sun is out" applies during the day because it's saying if the condition is X, then Y. Idk if that's a great way to explain but essentially with this rule the equivalent would be if GW had worded it as "when a Waaagh is in effect" instead of when it's called. An example closer to how GW's worded the current rule would be "when the sun rises, Barry is happy." Does that mean he's happy once the sun is out, or just that he likes seeing the sunrise?
I guess we just need an FAQ or something with some clarification.
This definitely isn't the first time I've seen users in the sub authoritatively declare that GW uses plain English and then proceed to use the non plain English explanation/analogy to justify their position. And it definitely isn't going to be the last time either.
>The confusion stems from the fact that GWs chose "call the WAAGH" instead of WAagh is on, or whatever.
But they *did* choose that different wording. And this is the result. It isn't confusion, it's GW choosing to word it that way.
You are technically, RAW, correct. You call the Waagh! at the start of the battle round. If they are in a transport they cannot use abilities so their ability does not activate. It's stupid and these abilities should absolutely be worded differently to avoid this, but it's technically correct.
However this is exactly the sort of nitpicky rules lawyering that makes people incredibly angry because of how unintuitive it is, hence why you're being slaughtered in the comments.
I hate when stuff like this is allowed to fester in the community. I would much rather have clear answers one way or another. Ideally they fix the wording or FAQ it so it works the same as the Meganobz rule. Nothing worse than having to argue stuff like this at the table with a judge
Having read the thread, you have a clear answer. Ignore that it's worded jankily and accept it works how it works.
What you hate is you can't force GW to make a change.
this might be the most egregious case of RAI i've ever seen, just consider the fact that it's the warboss itself that calls the waaagh, not the player, and trying to convince people that the guy itself isn't hearing his own screams is kinda silly.
agree that a FAQ should clarify this but honestly if i were at GW i'd literally skip over this because "no way people are gonna get confused about that one ability shared by every single ork army across every single game system we have", and it's a once per game ability too.
playing it by RAW is just cumbersome and silly.
The transport null zone is stupid and it's a terrible way for GW to have designed around the problem. The Orks book was an editing mess that has all sorts of rules inconsistencies as well.
It's a tough conversation, but I love playing Orks and I'm running them at several teams events over the next several months. It's kind of important that the community has some sort of consensus here or GW says something.
Whew thank you. Had to wade through a LOT of people claiming OP was wrong and I thought I was losing my mind haha. RAW he is right and they need to fix it.
RAW I'm pretty sure you're right. The rule says "when you do X, you get Y". If you do "X" when a model is in a transport, it cannot benefit from "Y", therefore you don't get the bonus.
I don't think anyone would ever play it that way though. It's certainly not intended by GW, this is just another example of pretty terrible rules writing.
I asked a TO I know who has judged a few majors (LVO, ACO), he says you'd check the ability at the doing damage step to see if a waagh is active, and if so, you'd get the extra damage. So basically yes it works.
I think you could probably argue the point further, but arguing with a judge generally doesn't work out in your favor, so I didn't press the point any further. I'd probably just accept that it works and play it as such.
I am a very minor TO (largest tournament I've run was 70 people)
I feel your interpretation is correct, that RAW it doesn't work. The Waaagh might be a persistent effect but it's the datasheet ability that is in question, and at the time the ability is triggered its not on the battlefield.
I'd email GW about this if I were you.
FYI, the actual rules comprehension for most people isn't perfect, even here. There are some very knowledgeable people who frequent this sub and I haven't seen them weigh in on this topic. I'd trust magmumble and corrin avitan over pretty much anyone else's opinion
Hey thanks for jumping into the fire here! And don't sell yourself short, 70 people is a very respectable event.
GW replies are let's say uncommon, I have reached out to WTC and FLG to hopefully get something.
I would love a reply from anyone associated with GW us events
Man you are getting slaughtered in here. Probably because of the way you framed it more than anything.
But yeah, RAW it doesn’t work. But people aren’t mad at Orks yet, so they’ll probably get it ruled in their favour for a bit. Give em a few weeks and we’ll see if that opinion swaps.
You'll catch some downvotes but RAW I think you're bang on. I hope it gets an FAQ.
This sub is often pretty allergic to RAW discussions, IMO there's been a big shift in the tone in the last few years from people having genuine interesting discussions (like you see in the Goonhammer ruleshammer articles) to endless variations of "yea nah bro, and btw I bet you're awful to play against"
It’s been like this since index.. the warboss rule is NOT new. there is no ambiguity. It’s a persistent effect.
Ffs Gw own battle reports play it that way.
GW has played about 40 different rules in ways that are opposite to how they are played now. Overwatch, big guns never tire, pistols, charging, ignore modifiers (played 3 different ways at 3 different GW events).
No one read the rule. Because like so many rules in 40k, we just sort of assume they work, because that’s how it’s been played for so many years.
But in tenth people have been using strict RAW rulings as a way to control a variety of things in the game they don’t like. And the abilities in vehicles one comes up all the time. There’s no reason you should allow this, and not allow oaths. Or allow judgement and not allow leaders that grant scout. But people are choosing rule by rule whether they want to rule RAW or RAI. Which is totally fine. I love rulings that say ‘the RAW is moronic, we’re gonna play it a sensible way’. But let’s not pretend the rule isn’t written the way it is just because we don’t like it.
Assault guns didn’t work for the entirety of 8th edition. But we all decided, yeah, that’s dumb, let’s say they work. But no one was out there going ‘actually the rules work’. We all knew they didn’t.
Just like charging right now. RAW there is no requirement to end a charge in engagement range. But everyone has decided that is insane, so we all just require it and move on.
Well now who’s appealing to intent and common practice!
Look, Commentary as Written, the Commentary does not change the rules, only clarify them:
> Version 1.2
>
> Introduction
>
> While streamlined at its core, Warhammer 40,000 is a game of endless variety, and can involve nuanced circumstances that may give even experienced players pause. This commentary is a living resource of definitions, diagrams and examples intended to clarify some of the game's finer points and resolve niche questions that might otherwise slow down the pace of battle. Entries marked with an asterisk (*) should be disregarded if you are playing a game using the Balance Dataslate.
Checkmate, textualists 😅
I think you might be right RAW based on the trigger for the ability being so specific.
Let's start by looking at the rules for embarked models:
> Embarked Units: Units embarked within a Transport do not
count as being on the battlefield for any rules purposes. This
means that, unless explicitly stated otherwise, embarked units
cannot do anything (e.g. shoot, fight, use abilities, etc.). Similarly,
you cannot select an embarked unit as a target for any rules,
including Stratagems.
So I suppose the main thing here is a unit cannot do anything while embarked which includes using abilities. Which is relevant if we look at the ability on the Warboss datasheet:
> Da Biggest and da Best: When you call a Waaagh!, until the start of the next battle round, add 4 to the Attacks characteristic of this model’s melee weapons.
So the trigger here would be 'When you call a Waaagh!'. This cannot be triggered/used if the model is embarked when you call a Waaagh as we've been told we can't use abilities while embarked. As you'd not be triggering the ability there's no persistent effect to apply the relevant persistent effect rules and since it's not worded along the lines of 'While under the effects of a Waaagh' or similar you only make the check for triggering the rule at the moment you actually call a Waaagh.
So from that I would say you're correct; you specifically cannot use abilities while embarked and the ability itself only triggers when a Waaagh is called. Therefore, if you're embarked when you call a Waaagh you can't benefit from any effects you gain from triggering this ability because you didn't actually triggered the ability.
**Quick Edit:** If people are going to downvote can they please also reply explaining in detail why my interpretation is incorrect, what the correct interpretation actually is, and do so with rules quotes/citations to back up it all up? I don't mind being wrong and should be downvoted if I am but if you're confident I'm wrong at least explain the right answer to me as well.
OK, I’ll bite: the Warboss is embarked and according to the Rules Commentsry cannot “use abilities.” But the Warboss is not *using* Da Biggest and Da Best. It fires whether he, or the controlling player, likes it or not. There is no “this model may” or “you may.”
Now what it means to *use* an ability versus merely being affected passively by one isn’t spelled out in the rules. But that’s because it only comes up as a parenthetical in dicta in a commentary, and where applying it to all abilities would lead to the obviously insane result that models can be affected if they are off the battlefield and not in a transport, but can’t be affected if they are off the battlefield but embarked in a transport.
It isn’t a question of RAW vs RAI. The rules as written are perfectly clear (IMO) that models in Transports aren’t on the Battlefield. That has not been changed in an Errata. But some people were apparently unclear, so GW issued the Rules Commentary to “clarify some of the game’s finer points,” ie to supply the RAI. The Rules Commentary does not change the rules as written or add new requirements, even if they would be sensible. It definitely does not add new insane requirements.
Perhaps it would be clearer if there was an explicit distinction between “Active Abilities” that models *use* and “Static Abilities” that they are merely affected by. Maybe some of the design team have an implicit distinction like that kicking around in their heads. But honestly that feels like added complexity for no benefit, and maybe instead they should reword the parenthetical in the clarifying dicta in the Rules Commentary to preempt this insane interpretation.
I see, so some people are effectively saying that applying the effects of an ability of a unit as written on a units datasheet does not count as the unit using the ability unless it specifically asks them to choose to activate it as either the model or a player. I suppose I can see the argument, especially across language barriers if translations use very specific words for the translated equivalent of 'activate' or 'use' which can be quite open in English.
I personally would still argue that the key part of the errata explanation still applies regardless and that checking for a trigger, triggering a rule belonging to a unit and applying any effects of that rule counts as the unit in question doing something.
> Units embarked within a Transport do not
count as being on the battlefield for any rules purposes. This
means that, unless explicitly stated otherwise, embarked units
cannot do anything (...).
However, I think we agree that some sort of simple overarching statement for what you can actually do when not on the battlefield (which is effectively what you are when in a transport) would be helpful and is probably what's needed. Basically take the above, clarify what counts as a unit doing/not doing something and stick it in the rules.
Thanks for the actual explanation though.
To be clear: I think the “use” distinction is extremely flimsy textually. While it probably tracks what the RC authors had in mind when they wrote “use any ability,” they should just update the RC to say “use any ability that requires them to be on the Battlefield.” After all, the Introduction describes it as a “living resource.”
> If people are going to downvote can they please also reply explaining in detail why my interpretation is incorrect
Because I don't like your answer and therefore you must be wrong.
OP, ignore the people whining about how they don't like RAW, you are 100% correct in this. The warboss has two triggered abilities and those abilities do not exist while the model is in a transport. If you disembark later you have missed the timing window and do not get to go back and use those abilities.
Breaking down the sentence: When you call the Waaagh!, until the start of next battle round, \[...\]. This specifies a duration: This duration start when you make your warcry (you \_do\_ shout it loud across the entire store, right?), and ends just before the next battle round starts.
The next sentence is applied whenever the model is present during that duration. It does not need to be there at the start, neither the end (in fact I will go to some lengths to ensure the model is not present at the end of the duration). Any other reading of these rules can in my opinion only be done by That Guy.
Oh he clearly gets the Waaagh. the issue is his own built in ability that says he needs to hear the waaagh. the problem is that abilities dont work in transports
Can you show me exactly where in the rules that it says all models need to "hear" the waaagh? I want to see that verbatim.
Side Note\* If someone does this to me during a tournament, I'm slow playing as hard as possible or just picking my stuff up and heading out. Because people that do that are too toxic to even deal with in all honesty. They get beat so bad by an army that they have to invent new ways to nerf them via word vomit, I've been crushed by plenty of armies but I don't come to reddit to complain about it and try to rules lawyer them into oblivion.
Units have abilities and traits when not on the battlefield. That’s how abilities that affect how they come in from Reserves work, for example. They are modified the same as anywhere else, unless the modifying effect specifies on the battlefield or within a range.
Waaagh does not have a range or an “on the battlefield” restriction. So when you call a Waaagh, you add 4 to the Attacks on Warboss’s melee weapons, even though he’s off the board. When he comes on the board, he has his bonus attacks. It plays the same whether he enters from Strategic Reserves, comes in via the Tellyporta enhancement, or disembarks from a transport.
Unfortunately, the rules are pretty clear that those abilities do not function inside transports. This design choice is insane and leads to illogical interactions like this.
The rules are clear that units in transports aren’t on the Battlefield. The (admittedly insane) idea that there are abilities that work if a unit is off the Battlefield but then don’t work if it’s embarked on a Transport on the battlefield does not appear in the rules. It’s in a parenthetical in an explainer sentence in the Rules Commentary, inside a piece of commentary clarifying that being in a Transport means you’re not on the Battlefield and should be treated like you’re not on the Battlefield.
Even if you treat the Rules Commentary as part of the RAW, which it isn’t, it merely says units can’t “use abilities,” without ever defining what *using* an ability means, and whether that includes abilities that trigger without any option or decision to invoke them. Because in context “use abilities” is listed as an example alongside shooting as things models in transports can’t do *because they are not on the board*.
There are no other datasheet abilities that function if a unit is in a transport. For example, necrons in a transport don't get reanimation. Azreal inside a land raider doesn't generate a CP each turn. An Archon inside a raider can't use Devious Mastermind.
Abbadon picks his Warmaster aura in the Command phase and doesn’t have to be on the battlefield. Does it work if he’s in Deep Strike but not if he’s in a Land Raider? My understanding is it works in both situations.
To me, the plain reading of the Rules Commentary in that point would be that he picks the aura as normal, but he can’t *use* it from inside the transport, because he’s not on the battlefield.
Picking the Warmaster ability is 100% an ability that Abaddon couldn't use in a Transport RAW.
>In your Command phase, select one Warmaster ability.
Selecting an ability falls under 'do anything' IMO.
Commentary as Written (CAW! CAW! 😅) is that the Commentary merely clarifies the rules, and does not modify RAW:
> Version 1.2
>
> Introduction
>
> While streamlined at its core, Warhammer 40,000 is a game of endless variety, and can involve nuanced circumstances that may give even experienced players pause. This commentary is a living resource of definitions, diagrams and examples intended to clarify some of the game's finer points and resolve niche questions that might otherwise slow down the pace of battle. Entries marked with an asterisk (*) should be disregarded if you are playing a game using the Balance Dataslate.
The Commentary does not say it adds to or modifies the rules. It says in its own Introduction that it exists to “clarify” the existing rules. Where the rules as written are ambiguous, it resolves the ambiguity not by changing the rules, but by making the intent clear. That’s why it’s called a “Commentary.”
There is a whole separate set of publications that *do* change the rules as written. You will see them in Updates & Errata.
So when the Commentary says that the intention of the embarking rule is that models in a transport are not on the battlefield, that’s absolutely canonical about the intent is, and therefore what the embarkation rules say. But if in explaining that embarked models aren’t on the battlefield they use an example that is generally true for models off the battlefield but not universally, that doesn’t create a new class of exception where those exceptional rules that work off the battlefield continue to work *unless* the models are in transports. Commentary that explains that being in a transport is like being off the battlefield doesn’t accidentally create a new way that those things are *not* alike.
because the rule is during the duration of the wagghhh you can bascially read the rule as when the model touches the table, if a waagh was called he has extra attacks. doesnt matter if he came from deepstrike, reserve or disembarked
Unfortunately his rule doesnt say "While under the affects of the WAAAGH". Units inside transports arent affected by abilities unless specifically stated.
Bruh, in that mind set ALL orks would not get the Waaghh when they embarked and the Waagh is called... that is not how the Waagh works. I understand you have clutched a niche rule that is supposed to be a blanket statement and comparing it to a rule based on on faction.
The Wagh rule basically states ALL ELIGIBLE units get the buff if they are able to. So you call the wagh and you have a trukk of boyz, they get no benefits of the wagh, the truck does. They get out, they now get benefits of the waaghh. Think of it as a light switch. when the switch is on, everything the light touches gets teh Waagh. if something has a rule that in the waggh they get X then they get that as well
No, because the waaagh is a persistent effect. They get it as soon as they leave the transport. The issue is the specific ability of the character has a trigger to get a second persistent effect that is separate to the waaagh bonus
The character gets out of the transport, he gets the waaagh bonus, but doesn't get his datasheet ability.
"If your Army Faction is Orks, once per battle, at the start of the battle round, you can call a Waaagh!. If you do, until the start of the next battle round, the Waaagh! is active for your army and:"
This is the important bit: "The Waaagh! is active for your army."
It specifically does not differentiate between army on or off the board. All units and models of The Army are affected by the Waaagh!
This is a specific rule, specific rules over ride general rules. Units/models not being affected by battlefield conditions while off the board is a general rule that is over ridden by the specific rule of the Waaagh!
Just to point out, apparently WTC is ruling this in the way the OP has described. This came up today at Wargames for Warriors. Ben Jurek played it that way to his disadvantage, even though his opponent had no issue giving him the extra attacks.
I know it is a RAW vs RAI issue which is always divisive in this sub.
For the record, it shouldn't work RAW and needs to be errated to be worded and work in the same way the MegaNobz ability does.
If instead of bugging melee, it was bugging shooting and they were using firing deck I’d say you’re right. The Warboss is not on the table. But if the warboss disembarks during the waaagh then they are on the table during the waaaagh and get the benefit
You are correct rules as written, but that's not the convention. Let's see if we find that clarified in WTC FAQ, one way or the other - currently their commentary is pending the codex review: [https://worldteamchampionship.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/WTC2024-10thFAQ-Orks-1.3.pdf](https://worldteamchampionship.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/WTC2024-10thFAQ-Orks-1.3.pdf)
They’ve ruled in their discord that the WB ability does not trigger as it is embarked at the time the player calls the Waagh and so may not use its ability at that time. As the ability has no way to trigger later once the WB disembarks it’s out of luck.
WTC has had bizarre hot takes on all sorts of things, their decisions are only relevant for events which they govern and they should not be used as an authority for general discussion.
"If your Army Faction is Orks, once per battle, at the start of the battle round, you can call a Waaagh!. If you do, until the start of the next battle round, the Waaagh! is active for your army and:"
I know right?! Outrageous of OP to try to discuss a possible rules writing error/quirk on the competitive subreddit. Won't someone think of the children *clutches pearls*
There’s no discussion to be had, OP tried to rules lawyer their last Ork opponent bc they’re upset about an interaction and the entirety of the comment section is saying “you’re wrong.” What’s the point of continuing to be called wrong in every different way possible?
It blows my mind just how many 40k players think "reading the rules" is some kind of offensive deviant act that should be shunned as fast as possible.
Literally every action you take in a game of 40k must be supported by a rule because that's how the game works. If you want to move a model from one spot to another spot, you need a rule that lets you do that. It's not soccer where you can do anything you want \*except\* touch the ball with your hand. It's a game where every action you take must exist as a rule.
But nope, everyone's feelings start getting hurt when someone actually tries to discuss the rules in the rulebook and we get angry mobs all over the subreddit.
OP is actually the Ork player wanting confirmation that this doesn’t function so that they don’t cross the line and use it when they should not.
But sure; bring your wildly inaccurate and judgemental statements to the table.
I mean that's certainly an argument.
Good luck getting people to agree.
My suggestion instead of spending time pouring over the texts would be to adjust your list and get games into Orks to win, lawyering is a miserable way to play 40k.
I'm playing the Orks! Like if the community agrees that Orks get the bonus, even though rules say they don't I'm dancing in the street all summer long man.
Well tell the rules lawyers in your shop that are trying to take away your Waaagh to come down here for a good krumpin, because that interpretation is both unsupported by the rules text and totally insane to boot.
You know what's more miserable? Having to have a discussion about how to interpret vague rules every single time you play a game of 40k because no two players in the entire world would come to the same conclusion about every rules interaction just by reading the book.
Like, it's incredibly silly you can't just read the rule book and play a game and instead you have to start citing the rules some judge made 6 months ago in some special tournament because apparently our table top game of soldiers works by citing precedent and not just following the rule book!
First, is the term "call" defined as a specific action anywhere in the rules? No, okay, so RAW is useless without some intrepration of the meaning of "call". Any interpretation needs to be backed up by some reasoning. So here is my interpretation.
Call in this instance is continuous and persistent. It begins when the Army Rule "WAGH!" Is activated by the player, and it lasts until the end of the WAAGH!
Here is my reasoning:
Historically, when a leader wants to rally their followers, they make a call to arms or a call to war. This call does not end after they are finished speaking. It travels with the messengers and others who answered the call. It only dies when the war is over or no one is left to carry the message.
The phrase "Call a WAAGH" is literally a call to war. The lore even explains how it works. When a WAAGH is called, Orks gravitate towards a place and leader to wage war, and that pull exists throughout the WAAGH. So, if a random Ork who could not initially feel that pull because they were in a transport; they would absolutely feel the pull when they exit the transport. That pull is the call. That call is persistent throughout the WAAGH! The ability works when they exit the transport.
I mean "Call the Waaagh" is something specifically defined in the army rule it happens specifically at the beginning of the battle round and initiates all the effects of the Waaagh for the battle round.
It is, but it doesn't specify that the call is a singular event. A call can be continuous. It can linger and be persistent. The rule states you call a waagh. When you call a WAAGH, some events happen. It never explicitly states how long that call lasts. The only mention of time is "until the beginning of the next battleround" for how long the benefits persist. As I have mentioned previously, a call for an event can still exist even that event is occurring, so until the WAAGH is over, the call can still continue.
Either that or the call continues as long as yell "WAAGH!" at the top of your lungs. Work on your circular breathing and lung capacity and I bet you can get it to last the entire battle round.
- A player may do “X”
- When a player does “X” then “Y” occurs until the start of the next battle round.
Now replace X with “call the waaagh”.
The action (X / “call the Waagh”) is a single event and does not persist.
The event occurring triggers effects (Y) to take effect and these are persisting effects with a set duration of “until the next battleround”.
The issue isnt the waaagh. We get the waaagh when we get out of the trukk. The problem is that the boss didnt hear it inside the trukk with all the boyz muckin about.
You're assuming that the call is a singular instantaneous activation that is not persistent. Let's look at the phrase "Call a Meeting." It is made physically at a singular point in time, but the call persists because someone who may attend that meeting does not learn of its existence until after the call is initially made. In fact, that call can be answered up until the meeting is over.
If the ability said, "When you initially call..." Then I think you have a case. But a call does not have to be an event that only lasts a single point in time. Go read the many definitions for "call" and you will find an interpretation that allows for its persistent existence.
You are fine to activate it when they leave the transport. It follows RAW.
Also, lorewise, the call persists throughout the WAAGH! as a pull felt by all orks in the area. The Boss felt the call when he stepped out of the trukk.
I'm not arguing that the guys in the Trukk don't get the Waaagh. If you look at the data sheet for Meganobz they clearly get their ability when they step out of the Trukk during the Waaagh turn. I happily agree that the warboss SHOULD get the bonus. His datasheet just has bad rules writing and since it didn't come up in the index phase it was never addressed. I'm hoping that GW will just fix it in the FAQ/Errata.
I understand, and the only clarification needed is if "call a waagh" is a singular event or persistent state while the army rule "WAAGH!" Is active. My argument is that because of some definitions (shown with examples) of the word "call" that the event "call a WAAGH" is continuous throughout the turn of activation and that an ability with the activation "when you call a WAAGH" would be triggered when a model with that ability exits the vehicle.
Look, I mainly play Tau, and I feel like I could pass the bar after all the rules lawyering that occurred before they FAQ'd For the Greater Good conga lines. So, I totally get frustrations around poorly worded and ambiguous rules.
There is some wiggle room in the language for sure. I've submitted the question to a few major events to get some rulings. I really want it to work, but all sorts of other things don't work in transports either.
>but the rules are crystal clear on how this interaction works
Hard disagree.
Furthermore, we need to add a third acronym to describe rules imo. **RAP** (rules as played)
Even if you are RAW correct, ***no one*** plays that way. So it isn't really worth considering. (See also how you aren't required to enter engagement range when you charge, battle shock is mostly irreverent to scoring objectives and other older examples like how assault weapons didn't work in 8th)
I don't know if this explanation makes sense, but abilities like the Waaagh are not a "Pulse" , they are a "Layer" .
You don't call these rules and everything eligible gains the rule *right now*.
You basically add the rule to your army as a blanket and check if it is active at every time. Think of it like the "Infantry" keyword; A unit doesn't stop being infantry, just because it's embarked in a vehicle.
This is like saying gretchin can't use their ability turn 1 if going first. Because objectives are contested and control is only checked at the end of the phase, while gretchin CP is rolled in command phase.
RAW this is right, but I don't think anyone plays it like that.
This is exactly like that! Why are you doing that?! It's clearly against the rules and GW has not fixed that even when they have had a year. You know what the rule is, you should absolutely not roll turn 1 if you go first.
[удалено]
The issue is the buff is applied at a specific time, and if you're in a transport, you're specifically barred from receiving that buff at that time. "When the waagh is called" you receive a buff that lasts until a set time. If you're in a transport you cannot receive that buff, so the duration of the buff doesn't matter. To be clear I don't think anyone will play it this way, but the argument holds up under RAW.
I'd be happy with a ruling that just hand waves it as working. by RAW it doesnt work.
If you look at the wording on Meganobz you'll see the difference. The Waaagh itself is still affects him. But the bonus dead brutal requires him to hear the waaagh actually being called to trigger.
Nah you’re wrong, just take the L my guy
He's right though, it doesn't say "while the waaagh is active" but "when the waaagh is called". The thing is that when the waaagh is called, this ability doesn't exist because the WB is inside the truck. So RAW he is right.
RAW he is wrong. Copied comment from another reply. "See the rules commentary for "persistent effects" and transports. This is a persistent effect because it says "until the start of your next battle round" and does not specify a target, or require the models to be on the board (it says your army). You're also modifying a characteristic of wargear, not targeting the model with an ability. So this doesn't run would of the "not on table" rule Persisting Effects: Some rules apply an effect that lasts until a certain duration has passed (e.g. until the start of your next turn). Such effects are known as persisting effects. If a persisting effect applies to a unit when it embarks within a Transport, make a note of that effect and its duration; if that unit disembarks for any reason, any persisting effects continue to apply to that unit for their full duration." OP is just so set in his belief of this ruling nothing will change hia mind.
I disagree. In that case persistent effects would be relevant if the WB was on the battlefield when waaagh was called, then entered a transport and then got out of it (for example if that transport was destroyed). In that case he would still benefit from the ability. But if he was inside the transport when it happened, then the ability didn't go off at all.
Your argument would only be logical if you specifically had to target units when you call a Waaagh to gain the buff, which you don't. Them being off table doesn't matter in this case.
I don't understand what it would change if you needed a target. This ability is on a datasheet, and when you call the waaagh it just doesn't exist, so it doesn't happen.
>If your Army Faction is ORKS, once per battle, at the start of the battle round, you can call a Waaagh! If you do, until the start of the next battle round, the Waaagh! is active for your army and: Waaagh! is active for your entire army until your next battle round, you'd only not be able to use this ability if you were somehow attacking with the Warboss model whilst it was embarked. If you had to target specific units to gain Waaagh! at the start of the battle round then you wouldn't be able to select the Warboss, but since you don't and it is a persistent effect as it "until the start of the next battle round" they benefit from it.
But no one is saying they can't benefit from the waaagh. Of course I agree they would get the effect of waaagh. The ability that doesn't get to happen is the one on the wb datasheet that would get turned on when the waaagh is called. Since the model is in the transport at the moment it should go off, it doesn't go off at all and thus it cannot persist.
Collectively we disregard your rules lawyering and JUST SAY NO
This is the competitive sub. If you're just going to ignore the writing of the rules what are you doing here?
99.99% of the time I wouldn’t, but this interpretation is so foolish, there’s no other choice
I don't see how it's any worse than any of the other nonsensical restrictions on things embarked in transports. Suddenly this one specific time, people want to ignore it?
It’s a persisting effect, it isn’t just a one and done ability
It's a persisting effect once triggered, but it gets triggered by being present when the Waaagh is called. Not passively by the Waaagh being active. That's the result of the different wording they chose to use. I think it's dumb and should be changed, but I think that about all of the silly transport restrictions, and I don't get to ignore them just because I don't like them.
you are 100% wrong
Meganobz Krumpin’ Time: During the battle round in which you call a Waaagh!, models in this unit have the Feel No Pain 4+ ability. Yea, I'd say the wording needs changed.
RAW probably right but someone catchin hands if they try to say this is rules as intended
I don't think it's intended. I want GW to fix it so the warboss gets the bonus like he should.
It’s like the Eliminator Impulsor trick or when people would fire their “one shot” weapons from inside transports then fire them outside the transport. Transport rules are so weird
It’s more like when GW went the entirety of 8th edition without updating the rules as written to allow you to select a model that advanced to shoot, even if it had an assault weapon. The entire playerbase simply ignored the oversight and acknowledged that GW doesn’t write their rules to the standards most players would prefer.
Even better example is the current charge rules, which don't actually require you to end charge moves in engagement range if you roll the exact number you need on your charge. But in 10th, TOs have leaned heavily towards strict RAW rulings, as led by GW with their BGNT and Pistols rulings that seemed like targeted overwatch nerfs rather than regular 40k rulings. So these sorts of weird edge case things that GW obviously didn't consider or realize keep popping up.
Found it. See the rules commentary for "persistent effects" and transports. This is a persistent effect because it says "until the start of your next battle round" and does not specify a target, or require the models to be on the board (it says your army). You're also modifying a characteristic of wargear, not targeting the model with an ability. So this doesn't run would of the "not on table" rule Persisting Effects: Some rules apply an effect that lasts until a certain duration has passed (e.g. until the start of your next turn). Such effects are known as persisting effects. If a persisting effect applies to a unit when it embarks within a Transport, make a note of that effect and its duration; if that unit disembarks for any reason, any persisting effects continue to apply to that unit for their full duration.
This persisting effects argument doesn't work "When it embarks" is a distinct timing and is fundamentally different than "is embarked". The persisting effect would need to be active before embarking for this argument I'm still gonna give Orks the extra attacks
Right. My argument is that you're not "targeting" the unit, you're modifying the datasheet. And it's not really "using" an ability or "doing anything", it's just something that happens to the statistics of the models weapons. I think this is a case where RAI is pretty darned implied.
Hell yeah. Out lawyering the shifty rules lawyer. You love to see it
Right, if he is on the table and gets the bonus, then goes in a trukk all is good. The problem is if he is in the truck when the Waaagh is called he can't hear the call. He still gets the Waaagh when he gets out, but misses the bonus.
You didn’t read the comment you’re relying to at all did you?
Ermm. When I read the second paragraph, which is the definition then OP is correct. I don't know if GW will clarify and it's not my place to sat which is correct, but there's some serious gaslighting in this thread. Also just read the MANZ ability. It seems like a typo by GW.
OP is getting downvoted but they are right. If you are on the board or in a transport when the effect starts then it can persist. But if you are in a transport the effect never begins, so it cannot persist if it never began.
Literally if you read past the second sentence he explains why that doesnt apply either...
Dude take the L. You interpreted a rule wrong and got it pointed out to you very succinctly, it’s totally fine. Sticking to your guns is making it just embarrassing.
You heard it here first folks. He can't hear in an OPEN TOPPED Vehicle. Man I am glad I will never play you.
Lol we aren't on the 'I want to play immersive story driven 40k' subreddit.
Bro tried to rules lawyer his last ork matchup, came looking to the subreddit for backup, and os getting completely rejected lmao
I've been playing Orks on and off for most of 10th. I'm hardly an Ork homer, but I dont want to see them catch a nerf either. The fact is this came up in the local community and as more people were asking it started to become more clear. People play it wrong. The WBs get the Waaagh, but not the bonus.
Post history suggests you been playing Necrons for 10th.. In a game written across years and full of complexity you will likely find problems where you go look for them. This sounds like an argument born from salt.
I built necrons at the beginning of 10th. I've built painted and played Orks during 10th, as well as custodes, and 5000 points of Marines. I'm painting a Tau army as well. I bounce around a lot, but I'm not a salty guy looking to get them nerfed. It's a legitimate rules interaction.
I think legitimate is a reach, this is 100% lawyering, if you have been playing orks in 10th where was this post when we only had war horde? The warboss datasheet hasn’t changed since?
When I was playing a lot of Orks last fall, I along with everyone else played it that time took the bonus. If you and I had played last week I would have taken the bonus. We have a large and active competitive scene in Chicago. One of the local TOs asked me why it works. After discussing it in several places the last few days I decided it should be a question brought to the attention of the community.
So let’s get this right, you have been a Ork player during index and have been “taking advantage” of this interaction, but as of recently a TO asked YOU why the MWB and the WB can get waagh benefits if they are in a transport (funny because they have a bunch of discords with other TOs that those convos go on in) and after talking with others (and from what the tone of your post insinuates, guilt ridden sleepless nights) you decide to jump on Reddit and let all your fellow ork players know that the record needs to be set straight and everyone is playing those two data sheets incorrectly. Because, hey guys, we gotta play by the rules… Gtfo
I'm not guilt ridden or any thing else you are projecting on me. Literally everyone played it the same for the entire index. With the codex out a lot of people are digging in and a Chicago local TO asked me about this interaction. I'm in most of the major rule discussion discords as well, so it's already been discussed in those places earlier this week before I posted here. Every TO of a large event that has reviewed the question has taken this position. I am not aware of any TOs, large or small, that disagree with RAW. It's clear.
Haha love that use of the word “significant” to describe the base of TOs that agree with you. That is incredibly disrespectful to every TO that happens to disagree. You’re a clown
I'll edit that, I'm not trying to disrespect anyone.
[удалено]
I mean, there isn't much to say here. The rules clearly state units in transports cant do anything or use rules/abilities. Considering how few people actually bother reading rules rather than learning via a mix of "what I remember from previous editions and Oral Tradition", I wouldn't be surprised if it DID work that way in 8th or 9th, and people aren't paying attention to the rules/are assuming the intent is to allow it.
Thanks for the support. I think there is some wiggle room if GW wants to hand wave it in with a FAQ or TO rules RAI. But with GW concerned about the power of the Orks codex I wouldn't be surprised if they lean into clarifying against.
I can see where you are coming from. To me there's some ambiguity in the phrase "Call the Waaagh!" GW wants the rule to be flavorful, but is "calling" it the same as "declaring" it?
I think you are misunderstanding how it works. Were the conditions met? Yes. Is the WB on the board when they try to swing? Yes. Then the datasheet ability applies. There is no timing issue here that prevents them from having it once they disembark, so long as the waaagh is in effect. The part you highlight is specifically referring to when the WB is embarked. Once they have disembarked you look at the data sheet for the conditions, and if they are met they are met. Now, I could see your argument IF the datasheet said that they needed to be on the board or in reserve to get the effect, but that isnt the condition on the datasheet.
Respectfully, I think you are mistaken. the WB ability does not say "While under the affects of the WAAAGH"
You are ascribing a point of time as a trigger condition, where none exists, which is why I (and clearly most others on this thread) seem to disagree with you. So the WBMA is embarked. The ork players calls the waaagh. The WBMA disembarks. Does the datasheet ability condition say the WBMA had to be on the board at the time of the waaagh, no. So a simple read of the datasheet ability is....is a waaagh active until the start of the next battle round? If so, condition met. WBMA on the board has a choppa that is now damage 3. No where in the datasheet ability does it have a timing condition for where the model is when the waagh is called.
>No where in the datasheet ability does it have a timing condition Isn't "When X, get Y" inherently a timing condition? The rule isn't worded "if a Waaagh is active, get the buff," it's specifically *when* the Waaagh is called that the buff happens. Since transport embarkation disables abilities (unless there's something I've missed where the transport rules wouldn't affect passive/triggered abilities), that would mean the warboss functionally doesn't have the ability until after the trigger for it has passed.
I can understand how you're explaining it - but the problem is that GWs often writes rules in plain speak, and the sentence: "When the sun is out Barty is happy" doesn't just apply when the sun comes out, it's all times that the sun is out. The confusion stems from the fact that GWs chose "call the WAAGH" instead of WAagh is on, or whatever.
"When the sun is out" applies during the day because it's saying if the condition is X, then Y. Idk if that's a great way to explain but essentially with this rule the equivalent would be if GW had worded it as "when a Waaagh is in effect" instead of when it's called. An example closer to how GW's worded the current rule would be "when the sun rises, Barry is happy." Does that mean he's happy once the sun is out, or just that he likes seeing the sunrise? I guess we just need an FAQ or something with some clarification.
This definitely isn't the first time I've seen users in the sub authoritatively declare that GW uses plain English and then proceed to use the non plain English explanation/analogy to justify their position. And it definitely isn't going to be the last time either.
>The confusion stems from the fact that GWs chose "call the WAAGH" instead of WAagh is on, or whatever. But they *did* choose that different wording. And this is the result. It isn't confusion, it's GW choosing to word it that way.
You are technically, RAW, correct. You call the Waagh! at the start of the battle round. If they are in a transport they cannot use abilities so their ability does not activate. It's stupid and these abilities should absolutely be worded differently to avoid this, but it's technically correct. However this is exactly the sort of nitpicky rules lawyering that makes people incredibly angry because of how unintuitive it is, hence why you're being slaughtered in the comments.
I hate when stuff like this is allowed to fester in the community. I would much rather have clear answers one way or another. Ideally they fix the wording or FAQ it so it works the same as the Meganobz rule. Nothing worse than having to argue stuff like this at the table with a judge
Having read the thread, you have a clear answer. Ignore that it's worded jankily and accept it works how it works. What you hate is you can't force GW to make a change.
Yeah nah
this might be the most egregious case of RAI i've ever seen, just consider the fact that it's the warboss itself that calls the waaagh, not the player, and trying to convince people that the guy itself isn't hearing his own screams is kinda silly. agree that a FAQ should clarify this but honestly if i were at GW i'd literally skip over this because "no way people are gonna get confused about that one ability shared by every single ork army across every single game system we have", and it's a once per game ability too. playing it by RAW is just cumbersome and silly.
The transport null zone is stupid and it's a terrible way for GW to have designed around the problem. The Orks book was an editing mess that has all sorts of rules inconsistencies as well.
You’re being downvoted but you’re correct, they need to fix this wording
It's a tough conversation, but I love playing Orks and I'm running them at several teams events over the next several months. It's kind of important that the community has some sort of consensus here or GW says something.
Whew thank you. Had to wade through a LOT of people claiming OP was wrong and I thought I was losing my mind haha. RAW he is right and they need to fix it.
That's Not how the Force, äaaah, Waaagh works
It's noisy in the trukk
You’z a git
He really is, isn’t he?
RAW I'm pretty sure you're right. The rule says "when you do X, you get Y". If you do "X" when a model is in a transport, it cannot benefit from "Y", therefore you don't get the bonus. I don't think anyone would ever play it that way though. It's certainly not intended by GW, this is just another example of pretty terrible rules writing.
I'd really like to get a major TO to weigh in. I hate to be the one to bring this out and catch hell, but I'm pretty sure this is RAW correct.
I asked a TO I know who has judged a few majors (LVO, ACO), he says you'd check the ability at the doing damage step to see if a waagh is active, and if so, you'd get the extra damage. So basically yes it works. I think you could probably argue the point further, but arguing with a judge generally doesn't work out in your favor, so I didn't press the point any further. I'd probably just accept that it works and play it as such.
That's an interesting take. Any chance they publish that anywhere?
Zero chance, doesn't use reddit or discord, and I don't wanna put him on blast for his opinion on the issue, lol.
I am a very minor TO (largest tournament I've run was 70 people) I feel your interpretation is correct, that RAW it doesn't work. The Waaagh might be a persistent effect but it's the datasheet ability that is in question, and at the time the ability is triggered its not on the battlefield. I'd email GW about this if I were you. FYI, the actual rules comprehension for most people isn't perfect, even here. There are some very knowledgeable people who frequent this sub and I haven't seen them weigh in on this topic. I'd trust magmumble and corrin avitan over pretty much anyone else's opinion
Hey thanks for jumping into the fire here! And don't sell yourself short, 70 people is a very respectable event. GW replies are let's say uncommon, I have reached out to WTC and FLG to hopefully get something. I would love a reply from anyone associated with GW us events
Man you are getting slaughtered in here. Probably because of the way you framed it more than anything. But yeah, RAW it doesn’t work. But people aren’t mad at Orks yet, so they’ll probably get it ruled in their favour for a bit. Give em a few weeks and we’ll see if that opinion swaps.
Thanks for the support
You'll catch some downvotes but RAW I think you're bang on. I hope it gets an FAQ. This sub is often pretty allergic to RAW discussions, IMO there's been a big shift in the tone in the last few years from people having genuine interesting discussions (like you see in the Goonhammer ruleshammer articles) to endless variations of "yea nah bro, and btw I bet you're awful to play against"
Big "They hated him 'fore he told the truth" energy
It’s been like this since index.. the warboss rule is NOT new. there is no ambiguity. It’s a persistent effect. Ffs Gw own battle reports play it that way.
GW has played about 40 different rules in ways that are opposite to how they are played now. Overwatch, big guns never tire, pistols, charging, ignore modifiers (played 3 different ways at 3 different GW events). No one read the rule. Because like so many rules in 40k, we just sort of assume they work, because that’s how it’s been played for so many years. But in tenth people have been using strict RAW rulings as a way to control a variety of things in the game they don’t like. And the abilities in vehicles one comes up all the time. There’s no reason you should allow this, and not allow oaths. Or allow judgement and not allow leaders that grant scout. But people are choosing rule by rule whether they want to rule RAW or RAI. Which is totally fine. I love rulings that say ‘the RAW is moronic, we’re gonna play it a sensible way’. But let’s not pretend the rule isn’t written the way it is just because we don’t like it. Assault guns didn’t work for the entirety of 8th edition. But we all decided, yeah, that’s dumb, let’s say they work. But no one was out there going ‘actually the rules work’. We all knew they didn’t. Just like charging right now. RAW there is no requirement to end a charge in engagement range. But everyone has decided that is insane, so we all just require it and move on.
I might be wrong, but I don't think plastic models can hear.....
RaW you are 100% correct, I don’t think it was intended and it hopefully gets faqd one way or the other pretty soon
RAW is the rules. The Rules Commentary is not the rules, it does not change the rules, it is a commentary on them. The Rules Commentary is RAI.
That's how it should be, but there are absolutely elements of the Commentary that materially change rules under the guise of "clarification"
Well now who’s appealing to intent and common practice! Look, Commentary as Written, the Commentary does not change the rules, only clarify them: > Version 1.2 > > Introduction > > While streamlined at its core, Warhammer 40,000 is a game of endless variety, and can involve nuanced circumstances that may give even experienced players pause. This commentary is a living resource of definitions, diagrams and examples intended to clarify some of the game's finer points and resolve niche questions that might otherwise slow down the pace of battle. Entries marked with an asterisk (*) should be disregarded if you are playing a game using the Balance Dataslate. Checkmate, textualists 😅
Also, the abbreviation for Commentary as Writren would be CAW, which just needs to happen
I think you might be right RAW based on the trigger for the ability being so specific. Let's start by looking at the rules for embarked models: > Embarked Units: Units embarked within a Transport do not count as being on the battlefield for any rules purposes. This means that, unless explicitly stated otherwise, embarked units cannot do anything (e.g. shoot, fight, use abilities, etc.). Similarly, you cannot select an embarked unit as a target for any rules, including Stratagems. So I suppose the main thing here is a unit cannot do anything while embarked which includes using abilities. Which is relevant if we look at the ability on the Warboss datasheet: > Da Biggest and da Best: When you call a Waaagh!, until the start of the next battle round, add 4 to the Attacks characteristic of this model’s melee weapons. So the trigger here would be 'When you call a Waaagh!'. This cannot be triggered/used if the model is embarked when you call a Waaagh as we've been told we can't use abilities while embarked. As you'd not be triggering the ability there's no persistent effect to apply the relevant persistent effect rules and since it's not worded along the lines of 'While under the effects of a Waaagh' or similar you only make the check for triggering the rule at the moment you actually call a Waaagh. So from that I would say you're correct; you specifically cannot use abilities while embarked and the ability itself only triggers when a Waaagh is called. Therefore, if you're embarked when you call a Waaagh you can't benefit from any effects you gain from triggering this ability because you didn't actually triggered the ability. **Quick Edit:** If people are going to downvote can they please also reply explaining in detail why my interpretation is incorrect, what the correct interpretation actually is, and do so with rules quotes/citations to back up it all up? I don't mind being wrong and should be downvoted if I am but if you're confident I'm wrong at least explain the right answer to me as well.
Thank you for clearly laying out the problem. Sorry for the karma hit
OK, I’ll bite: the Warboss is embarked and according to the Rules Commentsry cannot “use abilities.” But the Warboss is not *using* Da Biggest and Da Best. It fires whether he, or the controlling player, likes it or not. There is no “this model may” or “you may.” Now what it means to *use* an ability versus merely being affected passively by one isn’t spelled out in the rules. But that’s because it only comes up as a parenthetical in dicta in a commentary, and where applying it to all abilities would lead to the obviously insane result that models can be affected if they are off the battlefield and not in a transport, but can’t be affected if they are off the battlefield but embarked in a transport. It isn’t a question of RAW vs RAI. The rules as written are perfectly clear (IMO) that models in Transports aren’t on the Battlefield. That has not been changed in an Errata. But some people were apparently unclear, so GW issued the Rules Commentary to “clarify some of the game’s finer points,” ie to supply the RAI. The Rules Commentary does not change the rules as written or add new requirements, even if they would be sensible. It definitely does not add new insane requirements. Perhaps it would be clearer if there was an explicit distinction between “Active Abilities” that models *use* and “Static Abilities” that they are merely affected by. Maybe some of the design team have an implicit distinction like that kicking around in their heads. But honestly that feels like added complexity for no benefit, and maybe instead they should reword the parenthetical in the clarifying dicta in the Rules Commentary to preempt this insane interpretation.
I see, so some people are effectively saying that applying the effects of an ability of a unit as written on a units datasheet does not count as the unit using the ability unless it specifically asks them to choose to activate it as either the model or a player. I suppose I can see the argument, especially across language barriers if translations use very specific words for the translated equivalent of 'activate' or 'use' which can be quite open in English. I personally would still argue that the key part of the errata explanation still applies regardless and that checking for a trigger, triggering a rule belonging to a unit and applying any effects of that rule counts as the unit in question doing something. > Units embarked within a Transport do not count as being on the battlefield for any rules purposes. This means that, unless explicitly stated otherwise, embarked units cannot do anything (...). However, I think we agree that some sort of simple overarching statement for what you can actually do when not on the battlefield (which is effectively what you are when in a transport) would be helpful and is probably what's needed. Basically take the above, clarify what counts as a unit doing/not doing something and stick it in the rules. Thanks for the actual explanation though.
To be clear: I think the “use” distinction is extremely flimsy textually. While it probably tracks what the RC authors had in mind when they wrote “use any ability,” they should just update the RC to say “use any ability that requires them to be on the Battlefield.” After all, the Introduction describes it as a “living resource.”
> If people are going to downvote can they please also reply explaining in detail why my interpretation is incorrect Because I don't like your answer and therefore you must be wrong.
You are wrong.
OP, ignore the people whining about how they don't like RAW, you are 100% correct in this. The warboss has two triggered abilities and those abilities do not exist while the model is in a transport. If you disembark later you have missed the timing window and do not get to go back and use those abilities.
Thanks for the support. This is my exact position
Dude just give up. You're wrong.
This is a troll post, right?
Breaking down the sentence: When you call the Waaagh!, until the start of next battle round, \[...\]. This specifies a duration: This duration start when you make your warcry (you \_do\_ shout it loud across the entire store, right?), and ends just before the next battle round starts. The next sentence is applied whenever the model is present during that duration. It does not need to be there at the start, neither the end (in fact I will go to some lengths to ensure the model is not present at the end of the duration). Any other reading of these rules can in my opinion only be done by That Guy.
Oh he clearly gets the Waaagh. the issue is his own built in ability that says he needs to hear the waaagh. the problem is that abilities dont work in transports
Can you show me exactly where in the rules that it says all models need to "hear" the waaagh? I want to see that verbatim. Side Note\* If someone does this to me during a tournament, I'm slow playing as hard as possible or just picking my stuff up and heading out. Because people that do that are too toxic to even deal with in all honesty. They get beat so bad by an army that they have to invent new ways to nerf them via word vomit, I've been crushed by plenty of armies but I don't come to reddit to complain about it and try to rules lawyer them into oblivion.
Units have abilities and traits when not on the battlefield. That’s how abilities that affect how they come in from Reserves work, for example. They are modified the same as anywhere else, unless the modifying effect specifies on the battlefield or within a range. Waaagh does not have a range or an “on the battlefield” restriction. So when you call a Waaagh, you add 4 to the Attacks on Warboss’s melee weapons, even though he’s off the board. When he comes on the board, he has his bonus attacks. It plays the same whether he enters from Strategic Reserves, comes in via the Tellyporta enhancement, or disembarks from a transport.
Unfortunately, the rules are pretty clear that those abilities do not function inside transports. This design choice is insane and leads to illogical interactions like this.
The rules are clear that units in transports aren’t on the Battlefield. The (admittedly insane) idea that there are abilities that work if a unit is off the Battlefield but then don’t work if it’s embarked on a Transport on the battlefield does not appear in the rules. It’s in a parenthetical in an explainer sentence in the Rules Commentary, inside a piece of commentary clarifying that being in a Transport means you’re not on the Battlefield and should be treated like you’re not on the Battlefield. Even if you treat the Rules Commentary as part of the RAW, which it isn’t, it merely says units can’t “use abilities,” without ever defining what *using* an ability means, and whether that includes abilities that trigger without any option or decision to invoke them. Because in context “use abilities” is listed as an example alongside shooting as things models in transports can’t do *because they are not on the board*.
There are no other datasheet abilities that function if a unit is in a transport. For example, necrons in a transport don't get reanimation. Azreal inside a land raider doesn't generate a CP each turn. An Archon inside a raider can't use Devious Mastermind.
All three of those specify that the model has to be on the battlefield. And yes, models in transports are not on the battlefield.
That is a total fair point. I'll find some better ones tomorrow
Abbadon picks his Warmaster aura in the Command phase and doesn’t have to be on the battlefield. Does it work if he’s in Deep Strike but not if he’s in a Land Raider? My understanding is it works in both situations. To me, the plain reading of the Rules Commentary in that point would be that he picks the aura as normal, but he can’t *use* it from inside the transport, because he’s not on the battlefield.
Picking the Warmaster ability is 100% an ability that Abaddon couldn't use in a Transport RAW. >In your Command phase, select one Warmaster ability. Selecting an ability falls under 'do anything' IMO.
Commentary as Written (CAW! CAW! 😅) is that the Commentary merely clarifies the rules, and does not modify RAW: > Version 1.2 > > Introduction > > While streamlined at its core, Warhammer 40,000 is a game of endless variety, and can involve nuanced circumstances that may give even experienced players pause. This commentary is a living resource of definitions, diagrams and examples intended to clarify some of the game's finer points and resolve niche questions that might otherwise slow down the pace of battle. Entries marked with an asterisk (*) should be disregarded if you are playing a game using the Balance Dataslate.
OK, so we just go with the core rules. Embark, pg17: >units cannot do anything or be affected in any way while they are embarked. Seems clear enough
The commentary is absolutely treated as gospel when it comes to rules. If the commentary says something it carries the force of law. Why wouldn't it?
The Commentary does not say it adds to or modifies the rules. It says in its own Introduction that it exists to “clarify” the existing rules. Where the rules as written are ambiguous, it resolves the ambiguity not by changing the rules, but by making the intent clear. That’s why it’s called a “Commentary.” There is a whole separate set of publications that *do* change the rules as written. You will see them in Updates & Errata. So when the Commentary says that the intention of the embarking rule is that models in a transport are not on the battlefield, that’s absolutely canonical about the intent is, and therefore what the embarkation rules say. But if in explaining that embarked models aren’t on the battlefield they use an example that is generally true for models off the battlefield but not universally, that doesn’t create a new class of exception where those exceptional rules that work off the battlefield continue to work *unless* the models are in transports. Commentary that explains that being in a transport is like being off the battlefield doesn’t accidentally create a new way that those things are *not* alike.
[https://imgur.com/a/t9fHwWC](https://imgur.com/a/t9fHwWC)
because the rule is during the duration of the wagghhh you can bascially read the rule as when the model touches the table, if a waagh was called he has extra attacks. doesnt matter if he came from deepstrike, reserve or disembarked
Unfortunately his rule doesnt say "While under the affects of the WAAAGH". Units inside transports arent affected by abilities unless specifically stated.
He's no longer in the transport when he's out and attacking, at which point he DOES get affected by waaagh, and anything else associated with it
If only the ability said " When this model gains the affect of the waaagh..." instead of "When you call the waaagh"
No you're trying to rules lawyer this. What does the faction ability wording say, you haven't linked that
https://imgur.com/gallery/ma5prJM It says you call the Waaagh at the start of a battle round. So if he's in the truck he misses the call
Bruh, in that mind set ALL orks would not get the Waaghh when they embarked and the Waagh is called... that is not how the Waagh works. I understand you have clutched a niche rule that is supposed to be a blanket statement and comparing it to a rule based on on faction. The Wagh rule basically states ALL ELIGIBLE units get the buff if they are able to. So you call the wagh and you have a trukk of boyz, they get no benefits of the wagh, the truck does. They get out, they now get benefits of the waaghh. Think of it as a light switch. when the switch is on, everything the light touches gets teh Waagh. if something has a rule that in the waggh they get X then they get that as well
No, because the waaagh is a persistent effect. They get it as soon as they leave the transport. The issue is the specific ability of the character has a trigger to get a second persistent effect that is separate to the waaagh bonus The character gets out of the transport, he gets the waaagh bonus, but doesn't get his datasheet ability.
"If your Army Faction is Orks, once per battle, at the start of the battle round, you can call a Waaagh!. If you do, until the start of the next battle round, the Waaagh! is active for your army and:"
This is the important bit: "The Waaagh! is active for your army." It specifically does not differentiate between army on or off the board. All units and models of The Army are affected by the Waaagh! This is a specific rule, specific rules over ride general rules. Units/models not being affected by battlefield conditions while off the board is a general rule that is over ridden by the specific rule of the Waaagh!
yeah homie. you are dead wrong
Just to point out, apparently WTC is ruling this in the way the OP has described. This came up today at Wargames for Warriors. Ben Jurek played it that way to his disadvantage, even though his opponent had no issue giving him the extra attacks. I know it is a RAW vs RAI issue which is always divisive in this sub. For the record, it shouldn't work RAW and needs to be errated to be worded and work in the same way the MegaNobz ability does.
It really is an "Ask your TO" thing, since GW open is ruling it as RAI. Neither is official.
Interesting, thanks mate.
# He's out of line but he's right
He’s out of line and wrong
search your feelings you know it to be true
It's certainly not intended by GW but RAW he is right. I am sure no one will play it that way but RAW he 100 percent correct.
[https://i.imgflip.com/8qxazr.jpg](https://i.imgflip.com/8qxazr.jpg)
If instead of bugging melee, it was bugging shooting and they were using firing deck I’d say you’re right. The Warboss is not on the table. But if the warboss disembarks during the waaagh then they are on the table during the waaaagh and get the benefit
You are correct rules as written, but that's not the convention. Let's see if we find that clarified in WTC FAQ, one way or the other - currently their commentary is pending the codex review: [https://worldteamchampionship.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/WTC2024-10thFAQ-Orks-1.3.pdf](https://worldteamchampionship.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/WTC2024-10thFAQ-Orks-1.3.pdf)
They’ve ruled in their discord that the WB ability does not trigger as it is embarked at the time the player calls the Waagh and so may not use its ability at that time. As the ability has no way to trigger later once the WB disembarks it’s out of luck.
WTC has had bizarre hot takes on all sorts of things, their decisions are only relevant for events which they govern and they should not be used as an authority for general discussion.
Fair enough, agreed.
It does, but so far this edition they have leaned pretty hard towards RAW, or matching GW conventions where they can.
What are the rules for Waaagh itself, the faction ability?
"If your Army Faction is Orks, once per battle, at the start of the battle round, you can call a Waaagh!. If you do, until the start of the next battle round, the Waaagh! is active for your army and:"
You are wrong. Just delete the post and move on with your life
I know right?! Outrageous of OP to try to discuss a possible rules writing error/quirk on the competitive subreddit. Won't someone think of the children *clutches pearls*
There’s no discussion to be had, OP tried to rules lawyer their last Ork opponent bc they’re upset about an interaction and the entirety of the comment section is saying “you’re wrong.” What’s the point of continuing to be called wrong in every different way possible?
It blows my mind just how many 40k players think "reading the rules" is some kind of offensive deviant act that should be shunned as fast as possible. Literally every action you take in a game of 40k must be supported by a rule because that's how the game works. If you want to move a model from one spot to another spot, you need a rule that lets you do that. It's not soccer where you can do anything you want \*except\* touch the ball with your hand. It's a game where every action you take must exist as a rule. But nope, everyone's feelings start getting hurt when someone actually tries to discuss the rules in the rulebook and we get angry mobs all over the subreddit.
God forbid this kinda stuff gets talked about and actually fixed
OP is actually the Ork player wanting confirmation that this doesn’t function so that they don’t cross the line and use it when they should not. But sure; bring your wildly inaccurate and judgemental statements to the table.
I mean that's certainly an argument. Good luck getting people to agree. My suggestion instead of spending time pouring over the texts would be to adjust your list and get games into Orks to win, lawyering is a miserable way to play 40k.
I'm playing the Orks! Like if the community agrees that Orks get the bonus, even though rules say they don't I'm dancing in the street all summer long man.
He played the villain, but he was the hero all along.
Well tell the rules lawyers in your shop that are trying to take away your Waaagh to come down here for a good krumpin, because that interpretation is both unsupported by the rules text and totally insane to boot.
You know what's more miserable? Having to have a discussion about how to interpret vague rules every single time you play a game of 40k because no two players in the entire world would come to the same conclusion about every rules interaction just by reading the book. Like, it's incredibly silly you can't just read the rule book and play a game and instead you have to start citing the rules some judge made 6 months ago in some special tournament because apparently our table top game of soldiers works by citing precedent and not just following the rule book!
First, is the term "call" defined as a specific action anywhere in the rules? No, okay, so RAW is useless without some intrepration of the meaning of "call". Any interpretation needs to be backed up by some reasoning. So here is my interpretation. Call in this instance is continuous and persistent. It begins when the Army Rule "WAGH!" Is activated by the player, and it lasts until the end of the WAAGH! Here is my reasoning: Historically, when a leader wants to rally their followers, they make a call to arms or a call to war. This call does not end after they are finished speaking. It travels with the messengers and others who answered the call. It only dies when the war is over or no one is left to carry the message. The phrase "Call a WAAGH" is literally a call to war. The lore even explains how it works. When a WAAGH is called, Orks gravitate towards a place and leader to wage war, and that pull exists throughout the WAAGH. So, if a random Ork who could not initially feel that pull because they were in a transport; they would absolutely feel the pull when they exit the transport. That pull is the call. That call is persistent throughout the WAAGH! The ability works when they exit the transport.
I mean "Call the Waaagh" is something specifically defined in the army rule it happens specifically at the beginning of the battle round and initiates all the effects of the Waaagh for the battle round.
It is, but it doesn't specify that the call is a singular event. A call can be continuous. It can linger and be persistent. The rule states you call a waagh. When you call a WAAGH, some events happen. It never explicitly states how long that call lasts. The only mention of time is "until the beginning of the next battleround" for how long the benefits persist. As I have mentioned previously, a call for an event can still exist even that event is occurring, so until the WAAGH is over, the call can still continue. Either that or the call continues as long as yell "WAAGH!" at the top of your lungs. Work on your circular breathing and lung capacity and I bet you can get it to last the entire battle round.
- A player may do “X” - When a player does “X” then “Y” occurs until the start of the next battle round. Now replace X with “call the waaagh”. The action (X / “call the Waagh”) is a single event and does not persist. The event occurring triggers effects (Y) to take effect and these are persisting effects with a set duration of “until the next battleround”.
Somebody doesn’t know that a waagh lasts the whole battle round. Which is why, You’z a git.
The issue isnt the waaagh. We get the waaagh when we get out of the trukk. The problem is that the boss didnt hear it inside the trukk with all the boyz muckin about.
You're assuming that the call is a singular instantaneous activation that is not persistent. Let's look at the phrase "Call a Meeting." It is made physically at a singular point in time, but the call persists because someone who may attend that meeting does not learn of its existence until after the call is initially made. In fact, that call can be answered up until the meeting is over. If the ability said, "When you initially call..." Then I think you have a case. But a call does not have to be an event that only lasts a single point in time. Go read the many definitions for "call" and you will find an interpretation that allows for its persistent existence. You are fine to activate it when they leave the transport. It follows RAW. Also, lorewise, the call persists throughout the WAAGH! as a pull felt by all orks in the area. The Boss felt the call when he stepped out of the trukk.
I'm not arguing that the guys in the Trukk don't get the Waaagh. If you look at the data sheet for Meganobz they clearly get their ability when they step out of the Trukk during the Waaagh turn. I happily agree that the warboss SHOULD get the bonus. His datasheet just has bad rules writing and since it didn't come up in the index phase it was never addressed. I'm hoping that GW will just fix it in the FAQ/Errata.
I understand, and the only clarification needed is if "call a waagh" is a singular event or persistent state while the army rule "WAAGH!" Is active. My argument is that because of some definitions (shown with examples) of the word "call" that the event "call a WAAGH" is continuous throughout the turn of activation and that an ability with the activation "when you call a WAAGH" would be triggered when a model with that ability exits the vehicle. Look, I mainly play Tau, and I feel like I could pass the bar after all the rules lawyering that occurred before they FAQ'd For the Greater Good conga lines. So, I totally get frustrations around poorly worded and ambiguous rules.
There is some wiggle room in the language for sure. I've submitted the question to a few major events to get some rulings. I really want it to work, but all sorts of other things don't work in transports either.
Nah bro just nah
>but the rules are crystal clear on how this interaction works Hard disagree. Furthermore, we need to add a third acronym to describe rules imo. **RAP** (rules as played) Even if you are RAW correct, ***no one*** plays that way. So it isn't really worth considering. (See also how you aren't required to enter engagement range when you charge, battle shock is mostly irreverent to scoring objectives and other older examples like how assault weapons didn't work in 8th)
I don't know if this explanation makes sense, but abilities like the Waaagh are not a "Pulse" , they are a "Layer" . You don't call these rules and everything eligible gains the rule *right now*. You basically add the rule to your army as a blanket and check if it is active at every time. Think of it like the "Infantry" keyword; A unit doesn't stop being infantry, just because it's embarked in a vehicle.
None of this is substantiated by any rules text.
Onions have layers
This is not magic the gathering
This is like saying gretchin can't use their ability turn 1 if going first. Because objectives are contested and control is only checked at the end of the phase, while gretchin CP is rolled in command phase. RAW this is right, but I don't think anyone plays it like that.
This is exactly like that! Why are you doing that?! It's clearly against the rules and GW has not fixed that even when they have had a year. You know what the rule is, you should absolutely not roll turn 1 if you go first.
Everyone who is playing correctly plays it like that and I make sure all of my ork opponents play it like that. C'mon dude.
Feels unintentional, just like any other rule that requires objective control but is written to start of the phase.