I had this in a recent games and would like some rule justifications:

A unit of 10-man Death Company (with Rage) gets out of a Stormraven that has not moved. They are placed around the Stormraven so that they are a bit more than 1" from a Land speeder and a bit more than 1" from a librarian.

Because of Rage, I asks that every single model of DC be moved either at the Land Speeder OR at the Librarian a full 6". However, my opponent quotes that Rage rules only asks the "units subject to rage must always move as fast as possible towards the closest visible enemy" (BRB pg76). Thus, he chose the target as the librarian. He then moved one model in his unit to exactly 1" leaving everybody else staying where they were (2" in coherency).

Then, in the assault phase, he multi-assault both targets since Rage only limit that his unit "always consolidate towards the closest visible enemy".

I see his point of view and would like a clarification from the rule experts.

They get to make their disembark move as per normal and since that put them 1" away from a model they had done enough to ensure that the rules were observed.
The unit had moved towards the nearest enemy model... the models in the unit can move however they like just so long as the rules of rage have been observed.

He was correct in what he did. As long as the unit "Moved towards the closest enemy" then his is fine. He can choose to charge the DC at whatever unit he wishes.

The unit needs to move as fast as possible towards the nearest enemy unit.

We know that we measure between units by measuring between their closest models.

So once you move the closest model as close to the enemy as possible, the rest just need to keep coherency.

IMO you need to move every model as close as possible to the nearest enemy unit, and that's how I play my Death Company.

Yakface covers it well here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/351171.page#2527569

I see what Yak is getting at, but I do not agree 100%.

If you ask the required question "Has the unit moved as fast as possible towards the closest enemy unit?"

And If the model that started as the closest model has moved as fast as possible towards the closest enemy unit, then the requirements have been fulfilled and the answer is yes.

I get what Yakface is talking about there, but he is talking about people obviously breaking with the spirit of the rule completely.

I think this is more a case of using the DC cleverly, I get around rage by using a SR to hawl them into place.

True I understand what he wants, however once you're that 1" away you've fully obligated the rule. Definite case of RaW versus RAI possibly

I think that's a misapplication of the rule on measuring between units.

I don't believe moving a single model as close as possible honestly fulfills the requirements of Rage.

Well if you surround the model in question with the unit of dc, then you have moved some of them too far for raw so what do you do?

Move them all as close as they can get.

Mannahnin wrote:I think that's a misapplication of the rule on measuring between units.

I don't believe moving a single model as close as possible honestly fulfills the requirements of Rage.

In other words, I understand that moving one model counts the whole unit moving, however "the unit" consists of many models. Moving one model is not moving "the unit" as fast as possible. What is the fastest way "the unit" can get across the board? By moving all models.

Rage is one of those rules if you try to break it down into little RAW elements it doesn't quite work. Problems come up like how do you move if you're 1" away already from an enemy and how do you know which enemy is the closest unless you pre-measure to every unit that could be the closest?

It has to be played in the spirit of the rule. You have to move every model.

Well when it comes to any question over which is closer call over someone else and get them to measure and tell you which is closest.

Spirit of the rule dies on it's feet with a transport. When you move around or through cover you bunch up the models, when you pass that obstical then you can't spread your men back out in that reading of the rules.

This is like deploying vehicles sideways to gain movement, or making sure each Nob contains unique equipment, or spamming a million Razorbacks, or anything like that. You're technically obeying the rules. But, you're definitely exploiting them to gain an advantage.

In some environments, that's perfectly acceptable and somewhat expected. In other environments, people will accuse you of being TFG or WAAC.

Unfortunately "fastest" is an undefined term in the rules. By RAW the most sensible determinant for "fastest" would appear to be that if the distance between closest models is decreased by the maximum amount possible moving the closet model directly towards the target, the unit has moved has moved as fast as possible. (Because you measure distance between units by measuring the distance between closest models.) Or we can get really stupid and go with the fact that the measurement of "how fast" is distance over time, which means that "fastest" must be by the longest distance and not the most direct distance. (Because every unit is moving for the same unspecified amount of time, therefore the unit that has moved the most distance in that unspecified length of time has moved the fastest.)

But the RAI is so absolutely clear that playing the RAW is going to make you TFG to nine out ten gamers. Move all the models towards the closest visible enemy. It's just a game of toy soldiers.

Mannahnin wrote:IMO you need to move every model as close as possible to the nearest enemy unit, and that's how I play my Death Company.

Yakface covers it well here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/351171.page#2527569

This sums up how my group has always read the rule. Anything less is rules lawyering in a pretty blatant fashion against what is possibly the easiest rule to determine the original intent of.


EDIT: To the OP: your oppponent was TFG.

azazel the cat wrote:
This sums up how my group has always read the rule. Anything less is rules lawyering in a pretty blatant fashion against what is possibly the easiest rule to determine the original intent of.


EDIT: To the OP: your oppponent was TFG.

I disagree with you here. I would say if that model that moved 1" moved as closley to the enemy model as he could then the requirement has been fuffiled as when one model in the unit moves the unit has moved. If this was not the case you would be able to move some guys in a squad and then not move a heavy weapon and then use him to shoot in you shooting phase. But we all kniw this is not that case and if one model in the unit moves it counts as the unit having moved.

So going by the OP's description I would say the reuirments for rage had been fuffiled and that what he did was legal.

So I would say its perfectly acceptable if someone did it against me I would just think to my self that it was a smart tactic. I would definatly not say he is a TFG just smart.

How did you manage to quote my entire post and yet miss every point?

Go back and re-read what I said about rules lawyering against the most obvious of intentions behind a rule.

redkeyboard wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:
This sums up how my group has always read the rule. Anything less is rules lawyering in a pretty blatant fashion against what is possibly the easiest rule to determine the original intent of.


EDIT: To the OP: your oppponent was TFG.

I disagree with you here. I would say if that model that moved 1" moved as closley to the enemy model as he could then the requirement has been fuffiled as when one model in the unit moves the unit has moved. If this was not the case you would be able to move some guys in a squad and then not move a heavy weapon and then use him to shoot in you shooting phase. But we all kniw this is not that case and if one model in the unit moves it counts as the unit having moved.

So going by the OP's description I would say the reuirments for rage had been fuffiled and that what he did was legal.

So I would say its perfectly acceptable if someone did it against me I would just think to my self that it was a smart tactic. I would definatly not say he is a TFG just smart.

The rule does not just say to move the unit towards the nearest enemy.

It says to move the unit towards the nearest enemy as fast as possible. How fast can your unit move if you just move 1 guy?

1) Moving just 1 guy.
Slow
2) Moving all models.
Faster

You see?

Except we know that the unit has moved as fast as possible if the closest model moves the full 6" (Or whatever highest number you roll for your difficult terrain test) towards the nearest visible enemy unit. by the most direct route.

This is because measuring between units measures from the closest models.

So the rest of the unit simply needs to maintain coherency.

The instance in question looks correct. He moved as fast as possible to the nearest visible enemy. If as fast as possible is an inch then all that needs to be done to validate the rule is to move the unit that far, as in any part of the unit. It doesn't say each model affectect by rage needs to move as fast as possible towards the nearest visible enemy does it? It doesn't mean he is being TFG to follow RAW.

Yeah, I think I agree with Mannahnin here. It says that the UNIT moves as close as it possibly can, implying the entire unit. If any part of the unit can continue moving, it's got to continue moving.

After all, rage doesnt' say that you move the unit until it gets one model close enough, it says that you move the unit as much as you can move it, assuming "as fast as possible" means "as many inches as possible".

"When measuring distances between two units, use the closest models as your reference points...".P.3

So if the closest model has moved as fast as possible towards the nearest enemy unit, then the unit has moved as fast as possible towards the nearest enemy unit.

The rest simply need to maintain coherency.

DeathReaper wrote:"When measuring distances between two units, use the closest models as your reference points...".P.3

So if the closest model has moved as fast as possible towards the nearest enemy unit, then the unit has moved as fast as possible towards the nearest enemy unit.

The rest simply need to maintain coherency.

Yes, indeed. In your example:

1) The unit counts has having moved.
2) One model from that unit moved as fast as possible.
3) The distance between the two units, measured between the closest models may be 1".

However...

3) The unit consists of many models. The individual models that make up the unit did not actually in fact move.
"The unit" (all the models in it) could be closer and move "faster"..

You've satisfied the meaning of each part of the rule as it's broken down pieces relate to other game rules. As a whole, you have not satisfied the meaning of the rule. The unit consists of all models in the unit. To break it down even further. If you move 1 model, did the other models in the unit move?
In some game terms they all "count as having moved". In common understanding of the unit consisting of all of its models, no the other models did not move at all and so not as fast as possible.

We've all heard of Legal Loopholes being used by people to do some pretty unscrupulous things. This honestly sounds like one of those moments. Personally I think the spirit of the game (and the spirit of the rules) should play some part, not abandoned because applying a strict interpretation of the rules would give a small advantage.

Is this a legal move?
Yes, sounds like it.

Is this move right?
No, it goes against what Rage is all about.

But I'm aware this is YMDC can we all debate the RAW. As mention yes I think this is a legal move, just don't expect praise for using it.

I think it's illegal. If you move one element of a unit, the entire unit is considered to have moved. If it is possible to continue moving elements of the unit toward the nearest enemy model, then you legally have to, as they are required to go the maximum distance toward that enemy. 0 inches is not the maximum distance if the element can go 4 inches, thus you have to move the model 4 inches. Moving 1 model in the unit doesn't satisfy the rule requirement if other models are able to move closer.

I hate poorly written rules with seemingly obvious intentions.......so many TFG's out there.

It's actually faster to only move one model because it takes less time than moving several.

-666- wrote:It's actually faster to only move one model because it takes less time than moving several.

I had not even though of this. I concede to your irrefutable reason and logic.

I see now, playing slowly is explicitly forbidden in RAW while moving models with rage.

Which is why debating the RAW technicalities of an undefined term like "fastest" is pointless.

The RAI of the rule is clear. If winning a game of toy soldiers is so important to someone that they don't want to play the RAI, there's not much to say.

You can't blame a player for an inappropriately term chosen by a game developer.

DeathReaper wrote:"When measuring distances between two units, use the closest models as your reference points...".P.3

This is indeed the rule for determining distance between two units. I disagree that it is the controlling factor in determining whether the entire unit has moved as fast as possible. By your interpretation every other model could stand still, or even move AWAY from the enemy unit. This interpretation does not seem to meet the description given in the Rage rule.

Mannahnin wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:"When measuring distances between two units, use the closest models as your reference points...".P.3

This is indeed the rule for determining distance between two units. I disagree that it is the controlling factor in determining whether the entire unit has moved as fast as possible. By your interpretation every other model could stand still, or even move AWAY from the enemy unit. This interpretation does not seem to meet the description given in the Rage rule.

I agree that it " does not seem to meet the description given in the Rage rule"

The problem with rage is that RAW is almost impossible to determine. So we must discuss RaI.

I would have no problem with my opponent maintaining coherency while moving the closest model 6" (Or possibly less depending on a DT roll) and moving the other models in that unit to keep coherency, as long as they are all going in the same general direction.

to say every model, that starts the game at max 2" coherency distance from each other, must move so they become one big lump of guys does not seem like the sporting way (RaI) to play it.

Moving every model towards the enemy without clumping into one big lump, seems the better way to play it (RAI).

Moving the lead model towards the enemy and the rest of the models wherever you want as long as you remain within coherency seems like the wrong way to play it as far as RaI goes.

DeathReaper wrote:Moving every model towards the enemy without clumping into one big lump, seems the better way to play it (RAI).

Moving the lead model towards the enemy and the rest of the models wherever you want as long as you remain within coherency seems like the wrong way to play it as far as RaI goes.

This was exactly my point, several posts ago. the Rage USR is probably the easiest rule in all of 40k to determine what its intent is meant to be. And the example of rules lawyering that the OP has posted is so blatantly against the intent, that the culprit is therefore TFG.

Rage is supposed to turn the unit into a crazed horde. A crazed horde (think of the people infected by -coincidently- The Rage from 28 Days Later) cannot just have one person from a horde rush at someone while the rest go do their own thing; the entire horde rushes at people

To allow only moving 1 model toward the nearest enemy and allowing the rest not to move, would allow you to make long lines out of these units. You could string your models along so you could effectively move anywhere you want with them in some absurd long congo line.

Playing it so that you only move the closest model opens up ridiculous game play on a huge scale.

Given the nature of wargamers, GW could clearly straighten this out by adding the phrase "each model in a unit" to the Rage USR and there would be no question.

As the rules stand now, once you've determined the closest unit (an example of legal pre-measuring in 40K) and any model makes a full move towards said predetermined unit, the unit has officially met the requirements of the RAGE usr. Is it RAI if the rest of the squad conga-lines like they're at a bar mitzvah so a different unit can be assaulted? Not in the least - However it is legal by the rules and should be watched out for. Either because your opponent is playing Death Company (which are amazing in close combat) or his hormagaunts failed their IB check, just know that the conga line can and does happen.

tetrisphreak wrote:Given the nature of wargamers, GW could clearly straighten this out by adding the phrase "each model in a unit" to the Rage USR and there would be no question.

The problem with this solution is that it would mean the models must move out of coherency with each other. It's pretty much impossible to do a better job than they've done without becoming overly pedantic and stating every step. Perhaps something like "move the model closest to an enemy, then move all models in the unit within coherency toward the same unit, but not through impassible terrain..." - it becomes burdensome.

tetrisphreak wrote:Given the nature of wargamers, GW could clearly straighten this out by adding the phrase "each model in a unit" to the Rage USR and there would be no question.

Just a word of warning, this will make it practically impossible to maintain any sort of separation between the models in the Raging unit and it will be trivial for enemy to manouver unit so that the Raging unit will clump up and after turn or 2 of movement you should be able to get between 4-7 hits with small blasts and cover the whole Raging unit with large one.
So there is a very good reason why it was not written this way.

Personally, I think the RAI is somewhat like "Unit (and all models in it) should move as fast as possible towards the closest enemy unit, but it should be possible to still maintain coherency separation". Perhaps something adding something like "every model in the unit must end their move closer to the target unit" would be sufficient to help fullfil the RAI.

-666- wrote:You can't blame a player for an inappropriately term chosen by a game developer.

If the intent on the rule wasn't so clear then I would agree. Considering it's a pretty clear cut idea I think that this is so ridiculous to argue in favor of moving one model one inch.

Red Corsair wrote:

-666- wrote:You can't blame a player for an inappropriately term chosen by a game developer.

If the intent on the rule wasn't so clear then I would agree. Considering it's a pretty clear cut idea I think that this is so ridiculous to argue in favor of moving one model one inch.

If that one inch brings the unit to a distance of one inch away from the closest enemy... why does the rest of the unit have to move?

What would happen at a tournement if someone tried this? I can't imagine many TOs agreeing with the OP's opponent on this. Frankly I'd regard it as a piss-take.

I disagree, I think you'd be told to stop whining. I think the guy in the OP could still have charged the skimmer as part of a multi-assault even if he had moved to the nearest unit. Rendering the whole thing moot.

Testify wrote:What would happen at a tournement if someone tried this? I can't imagine many TOs agreeing with the OP's opponent on this. Frankly I'd regard it as a piss-take.

I think that's amusing - most TOs go for RAW rather than RAI because the latter is so subjective.

Iirc, I learned it from a TO.

It's RAW if you make a concious effort to interprit the rules in that way, yes.
You could equally be interpreted in another way.
There is no definition of what "as fast as possible" means, therefore there are multiple interpritations.
It's incorrect to say that your interpretation is RAW because it isn't.

Except it is. By definition, if a unit is 3" away and the Raging unit ends its movement phase 1" away, you've moved as fast as possible toward the enemy unit. We know this because of how you measure between units.

There is nothing in the rule restricting how individual models move - just the unit as a whole.

(posting after rigeId2, but not responding to rigeId2)

There is no real argument about the RAW here. By RAW there are many many ways to diminish the effect of rage, and moving just one model to claim the unit has moved as fast as possible is just one of them.

Accept that it's legal, if against the spirit. And either do it yourself or decide to play by the fluff. Either way don't bitch about it. I think choosing to play silly buggers with the rage movement in this way is edging into basement dweller territory. (Who exactly is that desperate to win a game of toy soldiers anyway?) But to each his own.

Can we all agree that we're referring to Death Company here, or is there another uber-killy unit with rage that isn't coming to mind?

tetrisphreak wrote:Can we all agree that we're referring to Death Company here, or is there another uber-killy unit with rage that isn't coming to mind?

There are a number of uber-killy units that can be subjected to rage.

The Tyranid codex is full of them. Raveners, Mawlock, Trygon, etc...

Probably been covered I haven't read the whole thread, but for my tuppence, I would have said that only moving one model out of 10 doesn't satisfy the "unit" moving "as fast as possible"

The unit is 10 not one. So if the enemy was 4" away from the nearest DC model that model would need to move 3" towards him, the next guy would move 4", the next 5", and the rest 6".

They must always move, they must always move as fast as possible and they must always move towards the nearest enemy.

Standing still in coherency satisfies none of those.

It would be interesting to see what other languages had for translations in thier books.

Well in Australian it reads the same as the American and original English

DeathReaper wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:Can we all agree that we're referring to Death Company here, or is there another uber-killy unit with rage that isn't coming to mind?

There are a number of uber-killy units that can be subjected to rage.

The Tyranid codex is full of them. Raveners, Mawlock, Trygon, etc...

Mawlocks and Trygons are single-model units and therefore moot to the discussion. Raveners and hormagaunts do fall into the Rage category but only upon being out of synapse and failing an IB check. It does happen, so i'll grant you that.

The point i was setting up is that if Raveners and hormagaunts (as an example) were the only prevalent units with rage this wouldn't be an issue - they don't kill enough to warrant 'cheese' of moving them (by the rules, mind you) one model closer to the rage target and fanning the rest out conga style. However, as Death Company are some of the baddest, killiest, best assault marines available, using them in any manner which makes them better than some people feel they should be is considered cheesy. Rage is a drawback to a very powerful unit in this case, and finding ways around it, or to mitigate for it, catch downward glances from those opponents which it is used against. I've been in the category myself, but upon reading the BRB i cannot refute what others have said here - Rage is circumvented as long as a single model makes a full advance towards the closest enemy, because at that point the unit's measurement from A to B has decreased by the greatest possible amount. Moving the other models in the unit, in any fashion shape or form, does not change the distance between the closest model from the two units, therefore it is irrelevant to the Rage USR. Disagree as people might, it's the way the rule reads in the book.

If you don't like the bishop going diagonally and the knight moving in an L shape, then don't play chess. If you don't like raging units fanning across the table like a wave of death (company), then don't play a Blood Angel player.

The Etc. refers to Carnifex which can have 3 models in the unit.

Also Penitent engines, from Sisters of battle, have rage, and the base unit in CC will kill anything way better than the base unit of Death Company can.

Magpie wrote:Standing still in coherency satisfies none of those.

How do you measure between units?
Using that measurement, did the range decrease by 6" (barring difficult terrain, etc) to a minimum of 1"?

How would it be possible to move faster?

Anything is faster than 0"

Magpie wrote:Anything is faster than 0"

The unit did not move 0". The unit closed the distance as much as the rules allow.

Having all the units but 1 not move isn't "as fast as possible"

Magpie wrote:Having all the units but 1 not move isn't "as fast as possible"

It's models, not units.

The range decreased 6". How is it possible to go faster than that?

rigeld2 wrote:

Magpie wrote:Having all the units but 1 not move isn't "as fast as possible"

It's models, not units.

The range decreased 6". How is it possible to go faster than that?

My car is at home but I bought the headlights to work, guess my car was going as fast as possible eh?
You're choosing to assume that when the rule says "the unit" it means "the closest model in the unit" for no reason other than you want to. You've decided that's how the rule is, and you're claiming it's an objective, RAW explanation. But it's not. Please stop saying it is.

Except it is. How do you measure between units?

Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Magpie wrote:Having all the units but 1 not move isn't "as fast as possible"

It's models, not units.

The range decreased 6". How is it possible to go faster than that?

My car is at home but I bought the headlights to work, guess my car was going as fast as possible eh?
You're choosing to assume that when the rule says "the unit" it means "the closest model in the unit" for no reason other than you want to. You've decided that's how the rule is, and you're claiming it's an objective, RAW explanation. But it's not. Please stop saying it is.

Except that by the rules, it is the correct interpretation. Here is a related example: I have a combat squad of marines with a single missile launcher and 4 Boltguns. 1 of my models with a boltgun (for whatever reason) moves to get a better line of sight. Suddenly, now my missile launcher model may not fire his weapon? Why? Because the 'unit' counts as having moved. it doesn't matter that the heavy weapon trooper stood stock-still, he cannot fire that turn. A model's movement can and does affect the unit's status as a whole.

As others and myself have pointed out, distances between units are measured from closest model to closest model. Page 3. There is no rule written that says each model in a raging unit must move full advance towards the enemy, but rather the "unit" must do so. Therefore congalines and fanning out are both valid, legal tactics to help mitigate rage.

Let's be objective here, however -- In the OP's description two units were very close to one another. Fanning the DC just made it easier to get the multi assault. Had the two not been placed near one another, a congaline would not have netted the BA player a double assault, but likely he would have gotten to pick which unit to attack. They disembarked from a Storm Raven, so he prettymuch had free reign that turn. Even when you're fanning out 5-10 infantrymen, in full coherency, they can only stretch out so far and once they take wounds you have to make sure they resume coherency in the following turn.

rigeld2 wrote:Except it is. How do you measure between units?

The rule doesn't say "measure the distance between two units, then move them and measure again". It says you move as fast as possible, which you are choosing to interpret that way. I choose to interprit it as meaning "move each model as far as possible".

tetrisphreak wrote:

Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Magpie wrote:Having all the units but 1 not move isn't "as fast as possible"

It's models, not units.

The range decreased 6". How is it possible to go faster than that?

My car is at home but I bought the headlights to work, guess my car was going as fast as possible eh?
You're choosing to assume that when the rule says "the unit" it means "the closest model in the unit" for no reason other than you want to. You've decided that's how the rule is, and you're claiming it's an objective, RAW explanation. But it's not. Please stop saying it is.

Except that by the rules, it is the correct interpretation. Here is a related example: I have a combat squad of marines with a single missile launcher and 4 Boltguns. 1 of my models with a boltgun (for whatever reason) moves to get a better line of sight. Suddenly, now my missile launcher model may not fire his weapon? Why? Because the 'unit' counts as having moved. it doesn't matter that the heavy weapon trooper stood stock-still, he cannot fire that turn. A model's movement can and does affect the unit's status as a whole.

In shooting, yes. Protip- the rage USR is not a shooting attack,and should not be treated as such.

rigeld2 wrote:
As others and myself have pointed out, distances between units are measured from closest model to closest model. Page 3. There is no rule written that says each model in a raging unit must move full advance towards the enemy, but rather the "unit" must do so. Therefore congalines and fanning out are both valid, legal tactics to help mitigate rage.

Distance between units is irrelevent. You move as fast as possible to the nearest unit, you do NOT move as little as possible. In fact I'd say that was the exact opposite of the RAW.

tetrisphreak wrote:

Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Magpie wrote:Having all the units but 1 not move isn't "as fast as possible"

It's models, not units.

The range decreased 6". How is it possible to go faster than that?

My car is at home but I bought the headlights to work, guess my car was going as fast as possible eh?
You're choosing to assume that when the rule says "the unit" it means "the closest model in the unit" for no reason other than you want to. You've decided that's how the rule is, and you're claiming it's an objective, RAW explanation. But it's not. Please stop saying it is.

Except that by the rules, it is the correct interpretation. Here is a related example: I have a combat squad of marines with a single missile launcher and 4 Boltguns. 1 of my models with a boltgun (for whatever reason) moves to get a better line of sight. Suddenly, now my missile launcher model may not fire his weapon? Why? Because the 'unit' counts as having moved. it doesn't matter that the heavy weapon trooper stood stock-still, he cannot fire that turn. A model's movement can and does affect the unit's status as a whole.

As others and myself have pointed out, distances between units are measured from closest model to closest model. Page 3. There is no rule written that says each model in a raging unit must move full advance towards the enemy, but rather the "unit" must do so. Therefore congalines and fanning out are both valid, legal tactics to help mitigate rage.

Let's be objective here, however -- In the OP's description two units were very close to one another. Fanning the DC just made it easier to get the multi assault. Had the two not been placed near one another, a congaline would not have netted the BA player a double assault, but likely he would have gotten to pick which unit to attack. They disembarked from a Storm Raven, so he prettymuch had free reign that turn. Even when you're fanning out 5-10 infantrymen, in full coherency, they can only stretch out so far and once they take wounds you have to make sure they resume coherency in the following turn.

This explanation wins the thread. The most complete and careful explanation of this side of the argument. Now when I play my BAs, tell me how I explain this to my group without sounding like TFG?

Nemesor Dave wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:

Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Magpie wrote:Having all the units but 1 not move isn't "as fast as possible"

It's models, not units.

The range decreased 6". How is it possible to go faster than that?

My car is at home but I bought the headlights to work, guess my car was going as fast as possible eh?
You're choosing to assume that when the rule says "the unit" it means "the closest model in the unit" for no reason other than you want to. You've decided that's how the rule is, and you're claiming it's an objective, RAW explanation. But it's not. Please stop saying it is.

Except that by the rules, it is the correct interpretation. Here is a related example: I have a combat squad of marines with a single missile launcher and 4 Boltguns. 1 of my models with a boltgun (for whatever reason) moves to get a better line of sight. Suddenly, now my missile launcher model may not fire his weapon? Why? Because the 'unit' counts as having moved. it doesn't matter that the heavy weapon trooper stood stock-still, he cannot fire that turn. A model's movement can and does affect the unit's status as a whole.

As others and myself have pointed out, distances between units are measured from closest model to closest model. Page 3. There is no rule written that says each model in a raging unit must move full advance towards the enemy, but rather the "unit" must do so. Therefore congalines and fanning out are both valid, legal tactics to help mitigate rage.

Let's be objective here, however -- In the OP's description two units were very close to one another. Fanning the DC just made it easier to get the multi assault. Had the two not been placed near one another, a congaline would not have netted the BA player a double assault, but likely he would have gotten to pick which unit to attack. They disembarked from a Storm Raven, so he prettymuch had free reign that turn. Even when you're fanning out 5-10 infantrymen, in full coherency, they can only stretch out so far and once they take wounds you have to make sure they resume coherency in the following turn.

This explanation wins the thread. The most complete and careful explanation of this side of the argument. Now when I play my BAs, tell me how I explain this to my group without sounding like TFG?

You can't, because you are. You are CHOOSING to interprit ambiguous rules in a way that is not RAI, nor RAW. I wouldn't play against someone who tried that gak with me.
Unless you'd like to point me to the part in the Rage USR that says "The unit must move as close as possible to the nearest enemy unit.

Nemesor Dave wrote:This explanation wins the thread. The most complete and careful explanation of this side of the argument. Now when I play my BAs, tell me how I explain this to my group without sounding like TFG?

This rule really is one of the most easy to interpret how it's meant to be played.

As mentioned before, I think the move described is perfectly legal, but completely goes against the spirit of the game/rule. As said above you can use it, but you will be TFG. This is the very definition of rules lawyering.

grendel083 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:This explanation wins the thread. The most complete and careful explanation of this side of the argument. Now when I play my BAs, tell me how I explain this to my group without sounding like TFG?

This rule really is one of the most easy to interpret how it's meant to be played.

As mentioned before, I think the move described is perfectly legal, but completely goes against the spirit of the game/rule. As said above you can use it, but you will be TFG. This is the very definition of rules lawyering.

Listen, I get it, I really do. It sucks to play against someone who doesn't have the same spirit of the game as yourself - that's why many of these rules debates crop up in the first place. The conga line tactic is admittedly beardy, and a tournament-style of play that isn't suited for casual games.

But, this is YMDC, where the rules are discussed and dissected. Nothing illegal is presented in the conga line move, but that doesn't make it necessarily the most accepted way to play a rule. Neither does the other interpretation, which requires the raging unit to clump into a nice pie-plate shaped unit ready to be taken out by the first demolisher cannon pointed their way.

The point is that if you are having a game with an opponent using models with rage, for the sake of the game and/or friendship both sides will have to offer leeway to the other to find a happy medium in how the rule operates. In a strict tournament environment, it will come down to the TO's ruling, but RAW has conga lines being a probable avenue.

But, would it be legal in the following situation...

Librarian 1" away - Landspeeder 2" away. The DC move to be as close as possible to the librarian, 1". Then through assault they manage to net both the libby and the speeder with a multiassault. The assault distance to the libby was 1", the assault to the speeder was 2". Doesn't that mean that the DC have not satisfied the requirement as moving towards the closest unit? They've moved towards a unit that was not the closest. Where as in the other example, both targets are about equidistant. Or by explanations in this thread, can I move a single model in the unit 6 inches towards my "closest", move for coherency, then assault a target up to 6" away from that target?

I do agree with the fact that this is probably not acceptable casual play.

Testify wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:
As others and myself have pointed out, distances between units are measured from closest model to closest model. Page 3. There is no rule written that says each model in a raging unit must move full advance towards the enemy, but rather the "unit" must do so. Therefore congalines and fanning out are both valid, legal tactics to help mitigate rage.

This explanation wins the thread. The most complete and careful explanation of this side of the argument. Now when I play my BAs, tell me how I explain this to my group without sounding like TFG?

You can't, because you are. You are CHOOSING to interprit ambiguous rules in a way that is not RAI, nor RAW. I wouldn't play against someone who tried that gak with me.
Unless you'd like to point me to the part in the Rage USR that says "The unit must move as close as possible to the nearest enemy unit.

Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Except it is. How do you measure between units?

The rule doesn't say "measure the distance between two units, then move them and measure again". It says you move as fast as possible, which you are choosing to interpret that way. I choose to interprit it as meaning "move each model as far as possible".

First you have to find the closest unit - this is done by measuring between units.
Then you move the unit. Moving one model is a perfectly legal move.
You then measure to see if your movement to the closest unit got as close as you could.
If not, it's an illegal move.

How is that not a valid interpretation?

rigeld2 wrote:
As others and myself have pointed out, distances between units are measured from closest model to closest model. Page 3. There is no rule written that says each model in a raging unit must move full advance towards the enemy, but rather the "unit" must do so. Therefore congalines and fanning out are both valid, legal tactics to help mitigate rage.

Distance between units is irrelevent. You move as fast as possible to the nearest unit, you do NOT move as little as possible. In fact I'd say that was the exact opposite of the RAW.

might want to double check - pretty sure that's not my quote.
Also, distance is absolutely not irrelevant - how do you tell if you've broken the rage rule? Just by judging intent? That's completely unworkable.

The counter-arguement is simply "Yes it says that in the rules, but I do not like it and would call you names and be rude if you followed them" so far as I can tell.

Why is measuring distance to the unit brought up?
This is NOT what the rule wants. At least not when the target is already determined.
Rage wants as fast not as close.

Macok wrote:Why is measuring distance to the unit brought up?
This is NOT what the rule wants. At least not when the target is already determined.
Rage wants as fast not as close.

So how do you determine speed?
The only quantifiable measurement is distance before and distance after.

Macok wrote:Why is measuring distance to the unit brought up?
This is NOT what the rule wants. At least not when the target is already determined.
Rage wants as fast not as close.

This.
Nowhere do the rules say "move as close as possible" therefore assuming that is required is not RAW since there is no RAW.
Some people just enjoy cheating other people.

Not sure, but I know I can move 1 model faster then say 10 models.

How are you measuring speed (to be faster) without measuring distance?

You do realize they are intrisically linked, right?

Editing in something useful, since rigeld2 beat me to it:

There is nothing wrong with not liking a rule and playing otherwise. I bet I can name a rule almost everyone breaks every game and would be upset if I did NOT.

Just be honest about it.

I say it is illigal, on the basis that the unit must move as fast as possible.

To me it is as simple as if you only move one model that is not as fast as possible. To me it is not a matter of being TFG, or RAW, or rules lawyering, it is just plain against the rules.

The rules that refer to one model moving are all to do with the minimum amount of movment required, this is about the oposite end of that spectrum, the maximum amount of movement possible. To me the whole unit must move as close as it legaly can to the unit that is closest, in a strait line.

I can see why people are arguing the oposite, but to me that is just wilfully abusing the fact that 40k rules are not written like a law book inorder to keep them from getting too complex. Its like the people who try and point the whole squad away from the closest unit and abuse the "in view" element of the rule, saying "for LoS you need to be facing"

If someone tryed that on me I would smile, nod, politly dissagree, finish the game and never play them again. I mean, people are arguing the interpritation of the word "fastest" to justify this.

Electro wrote:I say it is illigal, on the basis that the unit must move as fast as possible.

Define fast. You don't even need to use the rulebook to do so. Go ahead, I'll wait.

The rules that refer to one model moving are all to do with the minimum amount of movment required, this is about the oposite end of that spectrum, the maximum amount of movement possible. To me the whole unit must move as close as it legaly can to the unit that is closest, in a strait line.

And the unit does - look at the rules for measuring between units.

I mean, people are arguing the interpritation of the word "fastest" to justify this.

It's not an interpretation - it's the definition.

the unit must move as fast as possible.

We know what a unit is.

Q: What is as fast as possible?

A: Covering the most distance in the shortest amount of time.

well the time is 1 movement phase, this we know.

So the most distance one unit can cover is 6" (Less if in DT depending on your roll of 2D6)

So the unit must move 6", this 6" move must be towards the closest visible enemy.

If the unit ends up 6" closer to the enemy (Less if in DT depending on your roll of 2D6) then the unit has moved as fast as possible and we have satisfied the Rage USR.

Happyjew wrote:Not sure, but I know I can move 1 model faster then say 10 models.

A unit moves at a speed of a slowest model.
Can I move slowly Autarch on a jetbike and then move whole unit of banshees 12" if I make my hand go faster while moving other models? Awesome!

DeathReaper wrote:the unit must move as fast as possible.

We know what a unit is.

Q: What is as fast as possible?

A: Covering the most distance in the shortest amount of time.

well the time is 1 movement phase, this we know.

So the most distance one unit can cover is 6" (Less if in DT depending on your roll of 2D6)

So the unit must move 6", this 6" move must be towards the closest visible enemy.

If the unit ends up 6" closer to the enemy (Less if in DT depending on your roll of 2D6) then the unit has moved as fast as possible and we have satisfied the Rage USR.

Sorry, apparently you're not allowed to use distance when determining speed, according to the dissenters.

I love quotes out of context. That applies to mixed units of different types.

rigeld2 wrote:Sorry, apparently you're not allowed to use distance when determining speed, according to the dissenters.

And apparently to determine the speed one needs to measure only distance to one selected randomly reference point. Sure, sure..


I have another, bonus query about rage (not sure if connected):

3 models on the left rage towards the one on the right. The distance to the fence is 2" from the both units. The closest passable route from units is 12".
Does pink unit hug the fence and move 2" or try to go around the fence and move 6" (typical)?

Macok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Sorry, apparently you're not allowed to use distance when determining speed, according to the dissenters.

And apparently to determine the speed one needs to measure only distance to one selected randomly reference point. Sure, sure..

Based on the rules, that is correct.

BRB Page 3 wrote:When measuring distances between two units, use the
closest models as your reference points, as shown in
the diagram below. So, for example, if any model in
a unit is within 2" of an enemy unit/model, the unit is
said to be within 2" of that enemy unit/model.

rigeld2 wrote:

Macok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Sorry, apparently you're not allowed to use distance when determining speed, according to the dissenters.

And apparently to determine the speed one needs to measure only distance to one selected randomly reference point. Sure, sure..

Based on the rules, that is correct.

BRB Page 3 wrote:When measuring distances between two units, use the
closest models as your reference points, as shown in
the diagram below. So, for example, if any model in
a unit is within 2" of an enemy unit/model, the unit is
said to be within 2" of that enemy unit/model.

That has nothing to do with speed.

Macok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Macok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Sorry, apparently you're not allowed to use distance when determining speed, according to the dissenters.

And apparently to determine the speed one needs to measure only distance to one selected randomly reference point. Sure, sure..

Based on the rules, that is correct.

BRB Page 3 wrote:When measuring distances between two units, use the
closest models as your reference points, as shown in
the diagram below. So, for example, if any model in
a unit is within 2" of an enemy unit/model, the unit is
said to be within 2" of that enemy unit/model.

That has nothing to do with speed.

Really?


So if the unit went from 7" to 1" did it move as fast as possible?
How about if it went from 7" to 6"?

How can you tell?

Macok wrote:That has nothing to do with speed.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_determine_speed
Yeah, distance has nothing to do with speed.

edit: So if distance has nothing to do with the rule, how do you determine compliance Macok?
Remember, no measuring involved.

DeathReaper wrote:the unit must move as fast as possible.

We know what a unit is.

Q: What is as fast as possible?

A: Covering the most distance in the shortest amount of time.

Weird, I can't find this in the rulebook, what page does it specify that this is the definition of "fastest"?

rigeld2 wrote:

Macok wrote:That has nothing to do with speed.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_determine_speed
Yeah, distance has nothing to do with speed.

edit: So if distance has nothing to do with the rule, how do you determine compliance Macok?
Remember, no measuring involved.

I'm not saying that distance has nothing to do with speed. The rule he quoted has nothing to do with speed. THAT is what I wrote, please stop putting things in my "mouth".

What I am saying is why is rage target used to determine distance -> speed. And why is only that unit determined for that one purpose?
Could you also answer my bonus question...?

Testify wrote:Weird, I can't find this in the rulebook, what page does it specify that this is the definition of "fastest"?

There isn't one. So you have two options:

1) The word means nothing and is fluff. This makes Rage pointless, so this option should be discarded.
2) You go with the normal meaning of the word - highest speed. Speed is distance over a period of time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Macok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Macok wrote:That has nothing to do with speed.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_determine_speed
Yeah, distance has nothing to do with speed.

edit: So if distance has nothing to do with the rule, how do you determine compliance Macok?
Remember, no measuring involved.

I'm not saying that distance has nothing to do with speed. The rule he quoted has nothing to do with speed. THAT is what I wrote, please stop putting things in my "mouth".

Except it has *everything* to do with speed. Speed is defined as distance over time. Time is one movement phase. Distance is measured as I quoted.

What I am saying is why is rage target used to determine distance -> speed. And why is only that unit determined for that one purpose?

What? I'm not sure what you're asking here.
You measure to find the closest unit. Then you're required to move towards that unit. Measuring to another unit doesn't mean anything...

Could you also answer my bonus question...?

By your interpretation:
All 3 models in the Rage unit would move to the fence and stop, and be unable to move otherwise.

By a sane interpretation:
The unit moves to go around the fence while leaving one model as close as possible.

rigeld2 wrote:

Testify wrote:Weird, I can't find this in the rulebook, what page does it specify that this is the definition of "fastest"?

There isn't one. So you have two options:

1) The word means nothing and is fluff. This makes Rage pointless, so this option should be discarded.
2) You go with the normal meaning of the word - highest speed. Speed is distance over a period of time.

Or a third option:
3)GW want the player to move every model as close as possible to the nearest enemy but phrased it sloppily
RAW supports none of these options, so you preferring your own other the other is subjective and, once again, has nothing to do with RAW.

I have another, bonus query about rage (not sure if connected):

3 models on the left rage towards the one on the right. The distance to the fence is 2" from the both units. The closest passable route from units is 12".
Does pink unit hug the fence and move 2" or try to go around the fence and move 6" (typical)?

If the fence is impassible can the units draw los to one another, if not then the rage unit can move as it sees fit unless there is another enemy unit in los.
If the unit can draw los then you check if the other unit is the closest, if it is then move towards it as fast as possible towards the enemy unit, which is around the impassible terrain in the same way you would move around a squad or tank in the way.

If the fence is not impassible, then the following:
The unit moves as fast as possible, which in this case is D6" then a few different things can happen:
1 -if it gets beyond the wall on the difficult terrain move, it can shoot and assault normally.
2 -if it doesn't get beyond the wall you can shoot and try to assault D6" and use the frag grenades to strike at I5.
3 -if it doesn't get beyond the wall you can run D6" to get beyond the wall and assault normally.
4 -if it doesn't get beyond the wall on the difficult terrain move or during the run, it may still try to assault D6" and use the frag grenades to strike at I5.
5 -you get 3 rolls of double cry and hope for better luck next time.

Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Testify wrote:Weird, I can't find this in the rulebook, what page does it specify that this is the definition of "fastest"?

There isn't one. So you have two options:

1) The word means nothing and is fluff. This makes Rage pointless, so this option should be discarded.
2) You go with the normal meaning of the word - highest speed. Speed is distance over a period of time.

Or a third option:
3)GW want the player to move every model as close as possible to the nearest enemy but phrased it sloppily
RAW supports none of these options, so you preferring your own other the other is subjective and, once again, has nothing to do with RAW.

Your third option has no basis in any of the words in the rules. The second option does.
Therefore it's RAW.

You can disagree with it, you can dislike it, you can even get your area to play it your way.
But it has no basis in the rules. Rage uses the word unit and fastest.

I'm still waiting on an answer...

First you have to find the closest unit - this is done by measuring between units.
Then you move the unit. Moving one model is a perfectly legal move.
You then measure to see if your movement to the closest unit got as close as you could.
If not, it's an illegal move.

How is that not a valid interpretation?

I'm not making up or inserting words anywhere. Your interpretation does. Which one is more valid?

rigeld2 wrote:

Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Testify wrote:Weird, I can't find this in the rulebook, what page does it specify that this is the definition of "fastest"?

There isn't one. So you have two options:

1) The word means nothing and is fluff. This makes Rage pointless, so this option should be discarded.
2) You go with the normal meaning of the word - highest speed. Speed is distance over a period of time.

Or a third option:
3)GW want the player to move every model as close as possible to the nearest enemy but phrased it sloppily
RAW supports none of these options, so you preferring your own other the other is subjective and, once again, has nothing to do with RAW.

Your third option has no basis in any of the words in the rules. The second option does.
Therefore it's RAW.

You can disagree with it, you can dislike it, you can even get your area to play it your way.
But it has no basis in the rules. Rage uses the word unit and fastest.

Right, now tell me where the rulebook defines what "as fast as possible" means. You can't, because it doesn't. You are assuming your interpretation by default because GW didn't supply one.
If there was a bit in the rulebook that said "When the term 'as fast as possible' is used, it means move the unit as close as possible" then you'd be right. But it doesn't. So stop making up rules.

Testify wrote:
Right, now tell me where the rulebook defines what "as fast as possible" means. You can't, because it doesn't. You are assuming your interpretation by default because GW didn't supply one.
If there was a bit in the rulebook that said "When the term 'as fast as possible' is used, it means move the unit as close as possible" then you'd be right. But it doesn't. So stop making up rules.

Okay, so the rule does nothing then, awesome.

When there's no rule definition, you go to normal English definitions. Or, you decide that 40k is absolutely unplayable. Those are literally the only two options.

rigeld2 wrote:

Testify wrote:
Right, now tell me where the rulebook defines what "as fast as possible" means. You can't, because it doesn't. You are assuming your interpretation by default because GW didn't supply one.
If there was a bit in the rulebook that said "When the term 'as fast as possible' is used, it means move the unit as close as possible" then you'd be right. But it doesn't. So stop making up rules.

Okay, so the rule does nothing then, awesome.

No, the rule is interpreted by the gamers.
"The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choice is entirely yours."
Note that unlike anything you have come up with, this is in the rulebook. A rule is badly written, so players have to figure out what it means for themselves. Making up rules to get around a disadvantage is called "cheating" and I'd call it on anyone who tried this on me.

rigeld2 wrote: Or, you decide that 40k is absolutely unplayable.

By RAW, pretty much.

Arschbombe wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: Or, you decide that 40k is absolutely unplayable.

By RAW, pretty much.

Not in this case, oddly enough.

Look rage isn't absolute even with a strick RAW interpertation, no need to get bitter.

Using rage:
I can move into a transport instead of assaulting a unit 2" away.
I can run towards the nearest unit and charge another unit in the assault phase as I haven't shot I am not locked into assaulting anyone.

I think that the lax rule is there to try to get you out of situations where a player has two units 18" away from you and uses both to keep your units running back and forth between them.

Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Testify wrote:
Right, now tell me where the rulebook defines what "as fast as possible" means. You can't, because it doesn't. You are assuming your interpretation by default because GW didn't supply one.
If there was a bit in the rulebook that said "When the term 'as fast as possible' is used, it means move the unit as close as possible" then you'd be right. But it doesn't. So stop making up rules.

Okay, so the rule does nothing then, awesome.

No, the rule is interpreted by the gamers.
"The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choice is entirely yours."
Note that unlike anything you have come up with, this is in the rulebook. A rule is badly written, so players have to figure out what it means for themselves. Making up rules to get around a disadvantage is called "cheating" and I'd call it on anyone who tried this on me.

1) Citing TMIR in YMDC is against the tenets - you should check on that.
2) Everything I've cited is in the rulebook - unlike your assertion that the rule is model based.
3) I am a gamer. I'm reading the rule. There's no interpretation required.

rigeld2 wrote:

Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Testify wrote:
Right, now tell me where the rulebook defines what "as fast as possible" means. You can't, because it doesn't. You are assuming your interpretation by default because GW didn't supply one.
If there was a bit in the rulebook that said "When the term 'as fast as possible' is used, it means move the unit as close as possible" then you'd be right. But it doesn't. So stop making up rules.

Okay, so the rule does nothing then, awesome.

No, the rule is interpreted by the gamers.
"The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choice is entirely yours."
Note that unlike anything you have come up with, this is in the rulebook. A rule is badly written, so players have to figure out what it means for themselves. Making up rules to get around a disadvantage is called "cheating" and I'd call it on anyone who tried this on me.

1) Citing TMIR in YMDC is against the tenets - you should check on that.
2) Everything I've cited is in the rulebook - unlike your assertion that the rule is model based.
3) I am a gamer. I'm reading the rule. There's no interpretation required.

I am not making any assertions, just countering yours.
Your thought process seems to be:
This rule is ambiguous written -> therefore it means something completely unintuitive and obviously not was intended. This is called cheating.

I'm saying the rule is ambiguously written and is therefore open to interpretation.

Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Testify wrote:
Right, now tell me where the rulebook defines what "as fast as possible" means. You can't, because it doesn't. You are assuming your interpretation by default because GW didn't supply one.
If there was a bit in the rulebook that said "When the term 'as fast as possible' is used, it means move the unit as close as possible" then you'd be right. But it doesn't. So stop making up rules.

Okay, so the rule does nothing then, awesome.

No, the rule is interpreted by the gamers.
"The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choice is entirely yours."
Note that unlike anything you have come up with, this is in the rulebook. A rule is badly written, so players have to figure out what it means for themselves. Making up rules to get around a disadvantage is called "cheating" and I'd call it on anyone who tried this on me.

1) Citing TMIR in YMDC is against the tenets - you should check on that.
2) Everything I've cited is in the rulebook - unlike your assertion that the rule is model based.
3) I am a gamer. I'm reading the rule. There's no interpretation required.

I am not making any assertions, just countering yours.
Your thought process seems to be:
This rule is ambiguous written -> therefore it means something completely unintuitive and obviously not was intended. This is called cheating.

No. That's absolutely not what my thought process is.
The rule is not ambiguous. It says that the unit must move as fast as possible. We know how to move units, based on English we know how to define fastest.
Thanks for calling me a cheater though. I appreciate it.

I'm saying the rule is ambiguously written and is therefore open to interpretation.

You're inserting the ambiguity based on your unfounded assumption that the rule should be model based.

rigeld2 wrote:No. That's absolutely not what my thought process is.
The rule is not ambiguous. It says that the unit must move as fast as possible. We know how to move units, based on English we know how to define fastest.

Fast= doing something as quickly as possible. RAW you'd have to move the models as quick as was physically possible. Does that sound to you like a reasonable rule? Next time my opponent fails his instinctive behaivour test, I'll whip out a stopwatch and start timing him. Failure to do it "as fast as possible" as per the rules, will be a breach of the rules.
Protip - if the rule wanted to say "as close as possible", it would.

rigeld2 wrote:
You're inserting the ambiguity based on your unfounded assumption that the rule should be model based.

I'm not asserting anything. I'm saying common sense should go one way, but RAW is undefined.

Testify wrote:. I'm saying common sense should go one way, but RAW is undefined.

This is literally backwards.

RAW tells us how to measure the distances between units.
Reducing that distance in as few turns as possible is as fast as possible.

Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:No. That's absolutely not what my thought process is.
The rule is not ambiguous. It says that the unit must move as fast as possible. We know how to move units, based on English we know how to define fastest.

Fast= doing something as quickly as possible.

Whoah there cowboy. Yes, "fast" has multiple definitions. That one doesn't make any sense within the context of the rules.
Which one does... lemme see... oh, the one that describes speed.
And what is speed? We learned it in elementary school - it's measured in distance over time.

Protip - if the rule wanted to say "as close as possible", it would.

Protip - if you have to preface what you're saying with "Protip" it's usually not worth it.
Do you know why they didn't say that? Neither do I. You're assuming they didn't put it there because that's not what they meant.

rigeld2 wrote:
You're inserting the ambiguity based on your unfounded assumption that the rule should be model based.

I'm not asserting anything. I'm saying common sense should go one way, but RAW is undefined.

RAW is only undefined if you use definitions for words that don't make sense.
You are the one making the rule ambiguous in your reading. That doesn't mean the rule is actually ambiguous.

Testify wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:the unit must move as fast as possible.

We know what a unit is.

Q: What is as fast as possible?

A: Covering the most distance in the shortest amount of time.

Weird, I can't find this in the rulebook, what page does it specify that this is the definition of "fastest"?

What page is the definition of roll on?

We have to determine what "as fast as possible" means, as it is undefined in the BRB.

"as fast as possible" is covering the most distance over the shortest period of time, This we know from the common English definitions.

rigeld2 wrote:Speed is distance over a period of time.
[...]
Except it has *everything* to do with speed. Speed is defined as distance over time. Time is one movement phase. Distance is measured as I quoted.

Yes, it is a distance, but once again: it's not the distance to some random reference point - i.e. the target unit which you just picked out.
Just because distance to some object changed by X doesn't mean that speed in given time is X.
You try to apply physical model but apply not the distance covered but some strange change of distance to one reference point. It may be just my pet peeve but you are using the wrong distance, even if the outcome is the same.

Could you also answer my bonus question...?

By your interpretation:
All 3 models in the Rage unit would move to the fence and stop, and be unable to move otherwise.

By a sane interpretation:
The unit moves to go around the fence while leaving one model as close as possible.

And what exactly is "my interpretation"? How does it work and where did I explain it? You must be psychic or all-knowing because I didn't state how I think it should work.
It's actually your rule that is "insane" (first one given) because if only distance is taken under consideration the closest to the unit will be hugging the fence and not trying to go around it.

No that isn't moving towards the enemy. See my post above and read it clearly, I run through all the possible permutations of what a unit with rage can do in that situation.

Sitting at the fence isn't how the rule works and you would be some almighty rules lawyer and a complete TFG to rule that that is how rage works in this situation. You move towards the nearest enemy, as in around obsticles and the like to get into cc.

Macok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Speed is distance over a period of time.
[...]
Except it has *everything* to do with speed. Speed is defined as distance over time. Time is one movement phase. Distance is measured as I quoted.

Yes, it is a distance, but once again: it's not the distance to some random reference point - i.e. the target unit which you just picked out.
Just because distance to some object changed by X doesn't mean that speed in given time is X.
You try to apply physical model but apply not the distance covered but some strange change of distance to one reference point. It may be just my pet peeve but you are using the wrong distance, even if the outcome is the same.

Random reference point? You mean the other unit that Rage refers to?
There's two reference points. Distance from the target unit before you started moving (which you know from measuring to find the closest unit) and distance from the target after you're done moving (which you know because you have to measure to ensure compliance with Rage).
How is that wrong?

Could you also answer my bonus question...?

By your interpretation:
All 3 models in the Rage unit would move to the fence and stop, and be unable to move otherwise.

By a sane interpretation:
The unit moves to go around the fence while leaving one model as close as possible.

And what exactly is "my interpretation"? How does it work and where did I explain it? You must be psychic or all-knowing because I didn't state how I think it should work.
It's actually your rule that is "insane" (first one given) because if only distance is taken under consideration the closest to the unit will be hugging the fence and not trying to go around it.

... have you even read what I've said? One model moves and hugs the fence. The other two start to move around it.
This works because the rule is unit based. If it was model based, all 3 models would be hugging the fence and unable to move.
I figured that was your interpretation because you've been arguing with me and saying I'm wrong, and there's only been 2 points of view in this thread.

Time is relative, therefore speed is too.

So whether someone is moving fast depends entirely on the person observing it.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Time is relative, therefore speed is too.

So whether someone is moving fast depends entirely on the person observing it.

Time is defined as the movement phase, so that's not too subjective.

rigeld2 wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:Time is relative, therefore speed is too.

So whether someone is moving fast depends entirely on the person observing it.

Time is defined as the movement phase, so that's not too subjective.

Right, so the unit only moving 1" as opposed to 6" means that the unit has not moved as fast as possible as it hasn't moved as far in the same amount of time.

Therefore its speed, or more specifically velocity as it has direction (toward the nearest unit), will be lower.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:Time is relative, therefore speed is too.

So whether someone is moving fast depends entirely on the person observing it.

Time is defined as the movement phase, so that's not too subjective.

Right, so the unit only moving 1" as opposed to 6" means that the unit has not moved as fast as possible as it hasn't moved as far in the same amount of time.

Therefore its speed, or more specifically velocity as it has direction (toward the nearest unit), will be lower.

... right. I haven't said that moving 1" is okay - unless the target unit is only 2" away.
The closest model has to move as fast as possible (ie - use the most movement it can) towards the enemy unit. Everyone else can do whatever as long as they maintain coherency.

rigeld2 wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:Time is relative, therefore speed is too.

So whether someone is moving fast depends entirely on the person observing it.

Time is defined as the movement phase, so that's not too subjective.

Right, so the unit only moving 1" as opposed to 6" means that the unit has not moved as fast as possible as it hasn't moved as far in the same amount of time.

Therefore its speed, or more specifically velocity as it has direction (toward the nearest unit), will be lower.

... right. I haven't said that moving 1" is okay - unless the target unit is only 2" away.
The closest model has to move as fast as possible (ie - use the most movement it can) towards the enemy unit. Everyone else can do whatever as long as they maintain coherency.

No the unit has to move as fast as possible. So if someone in the unit can move 6" he should, otherwise the unit has only moved 1" in the same amount of time, resulting in a slower speed.

So if understanding correctly, people are claiming that if there is a piece of impassible Terrain (like a gorge) partially blocking a unit with rage they cannot go around because they are "going away" from the closest unit even though they ARE moving as fast as possible to get to the unit on the other side. In addition the rage unit must be "clumped up".

I agree with DeathReaper and Regled2. The unit is comprised of models. The unit has rage. As long as the closest model in the unit moves as far as possible to bring the unit as close as possible you have satisified the rule.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:Time is relative, therefore speed is too.

So whether someone is moving fast depends entirely on the person observing it.

Time is defined as the movement phase, so that's not too subjective.

Right, so the unit only moving 1" as opposed to 6" means that the unit has not moved as fast as possible as it hasn't moved as far in the same amount of time.

Therefore its speed, or more specifically velocity as it has direction (toward the nearest unit), will be lower.

... right. I haven't said that moving 1" is okay - unless the target unit is only 2" away.
The closest model has to move as fast as possible (ie - use the most movement it can) towards the enemy unit. Everyone else can do whatever as long as they maintain coherency.

No the unit has to move as fast as possible. So if someone in the unit can move 6" he should, otherwise the unit has only moved 1" in the same amount of time, resulting in a slower speed.

That's... what I'm saying. Okay?

rigeld2 wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:Time is relative, therefore speed is too.

So whether someone is moving fast depends entirely on the person observing it.

Time is defined as the movement phase, so that's not too subjective.

Right, so the unit only moving 1" as opposed to 6" means that the unit has not moved as fast as possible as it hasn't moved as far in the same amount of time.

Therefore its speed, or more specifically velocity as it has direction (toward the nearest unit), will be lower.

... right. I haven't said that moving 1" is okay - unless the target unit is only 2" away.
The closest model has to move as fast as possible (ie - use the most movement it can) towards the enemy unit. Everyone else can do whatever as long as they maintain coherency.

No the unit has to move as fast as possible. So if someone in the unit can move 6" he should, otherwise the unit has only moved 1" in the same amount of time, resulting in a slower speed.

That's... what I'm saying. Okay?

No I'm pointing out that moving only the closest model the shortest distance does not satisfy the requirement that they move as fast as possible. They have moved less distance in the same amount of time and therefore moved slower. For them to move as fast as possible (with fast meaning speed as in distance/time) you would need to move the model in the unit that is the furthest away from the closest unit its full movement towards that closest unit and repeat until all models have moved the maximum possible movement they can towards that unit.

If you have a unit whose target is 18" away from the closest model and that unit's furthest model is 25" away; moving its furthest model 6" towards it's target does not move the unit closer to the target in any way measurable.

If the closest model does the exact same thing instead, it has; as far/fast as the unit is permitted to.

editing in instead

A Town Called Malus wrote:
No I'm pointing out that moving only the closest model the shortest distance does not satisfy the requirement that they move as fast as possible. They have moved less distance in the same amount of time and therefore moved slower. For them to move as fast as possible (with fast meaning speed as in distance/time) you would need to move the model in the unit that is the furthest away from the closest unit its full movement towards that closest unit and repeat until all models have moved the maximum possible movement they can towards that unit.

Wrong. See the rules for measuring between units. Only the closest model matters.
So as long as the unit starts more than 6" away (out of terrain) and ends $beginning_distance - 6 inches away, that is as fast as possible.

Sorry if this is threadromancy, the age of the thread is kinda like milk that's been in the fridge for too long, so I'll risk a drink.

I'm all for the spirit of fun and the game, so I would personally play the Rage USR as having to move all the models closer.

On that same note, I have to agree that the OP's opponent's move was legal, as I think that the way that GW intended "As fast as possible" to be the shortest distance to an enemy. For example, a unit with rage would move through dangerous terrain instead of go around.

RAW is irrelevant really. 99% of players play Rage to mean that you move all the models as close as possible to the nearest enemy unit. Woe betide anyone who plays differently.

Joey wrote:RAW is irrelevant really. 99% of players play Rage to mean that you move all the models as close as possible to the nearest enemy unit. Woe betide anyone who plays differently.

The thing is that is basically makes units with rage totally useless and uncontrollable. To not be able to get back into a transport is madness, to have to clump up is also madness.

Hopefully the leaked 6th rules hold true in the respect that you only suffer from 'rage' if you fail a leadership test.

Which would render it useless on DC, of course.

lunarman wrote:

Joey wrote:RAW is irrelevant really. 99% of players play Rage to mean that you move all the models as close as possible to the nearest enemy unit. Woe betide anyone who plays differently.

The thing is that is basically makes units with rage totally useless and uncontrollable. To not be able to get back into a transport is madness, to have to clump up is also madness.

Hopefully the leaked 6th rules hold true in the respect that you only suffer from 'rage' if you fail a leadership test.

Units with rage are not restricted from embarking on a transport.

Though it would take some setup to get them to embark.

Joey wrote:RAW is irrelevant really. 99% of players play Rage to mean that you move all the models as close as possible to the nearest enemy unit. Woe betide anyone who plays differently.

RAW is irrelevant? Really??

I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and say that '99% of players' was you giving in to a bit of hyperbole and not actually a factual statement.

rigeld2 is right about this though. You simply can't ignore how the game rules determine distance between a unit. It all flows very nicely and presents no inherent contradictions. As much as you think the individuals model in a unit affected by Rage must all move, the rules don't support that view.

If 1 model in a unit has moved, the whole unit has moved. Rage requires the unit to move as fast as possible to closest enemy unit. Distance between units is measured closest to closest. If you move the closest model no closer than 1'' you have moved the unit. The unit, given the rules for measuring distances, is now as close as possible to the enemy unit and the entire unit is considered to have moved. You still have to maintain Coherency so you may be forced to move additional models.

-Yad

Yad wrote:

Joey wrote:RAW is irrelevant really. 99% of players play Rage to mean that you move all the models as close as possible to the nearest enemy unit. Woe betide anyone who plays differently.

RAW is irrelevant? Really??

Yes. When they're in direct contradiction to what is genuinely implied. Even to the point that nearly all people don't even realise how convoluted and stupid the RAW is.

Joey wrote:RAW is irrelevant really. 99% of players play Rage to mean that you move all the models as close as possible to the nearest enemy unit. Woe betide anyone who plays differently.

I sincerely doubt that 99% of players do this, considering that this will lead to the unit being extremely clumped up after turn or 2 of moving.
Instead, what people do is that they generally move the closest model as close as possible to the nearest enemy unit and then move rest of the models as close as they can, while maintaining some separation between the models in the Raging squad.

But RAW is of course 100% clear. Moving closest model from the Raging unit as close as possible to the nearest enemy unit is enough.

Luide wrote:

Joey wrote:RAW is irrelevant really. 99% of players play Rage to mean that you move all the models as close as possible to the nearest enemy unit. Woe betide anyone who plays differently.

I sincerely doubt that 99% of players do this, considering that this will lead to the unit being extremely clumped up after turn or 2 of moving.
Instead, what people do is that they generally move the closest model as close as possible to the nearest enemy unit and then move rest of the models as close as they can, while maintaining some separation between the models in the Raging squad.

But RAW is of course 100% clear. Moving closest model from the Raging unit as close as possible to the nearest enemy unit is enough.

Anything with Rage is a dedicated close combat unit and as such will be in combat anyway.

Apart from all those turns it's not in combat, those times it's transport gets popped and the unit has to foot slog, the turn after cc, etc etc

Just cos it is a cc unit doesn't mean it will be in cc all the time and how you move the unit is important. I have never had anyone complain about me moving dc as per Luide's description, either that or I move them and use my run movement to ensure they are not bunched.

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

Worst thread for this on the first page.

I don't understand the logical disconnect many have in regards to the definition and application of 'unit' in 40k when it comes to movement rules.

Consider the following.

Firing a Lascannon at a unit, no one plays that a to-wound roll is made against every model in that unit.

So why is it when we have forced movement applied to a unit, players insist that every model is affected by the forced movement? The text even spells out that distance between units is measured closest model to closest model.

The other interesting thing about this discussion when it pops up is that re-writing Rage to be 'every model must move as fast as possible towards the nearest unit', from a perspective of strategic value to your army, literally breaks the game by making units consisting of many models that are subject to rage utterly unviable. Given that, I would never agree that Games workshop 'intended it to be that way' or whatever the correct way to say 'how I want you to play it' is.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

Worst thread for this on the first page.

I don't understand the logical disconnect many have in regards to the definition and application of 'unit' in 40k when it comes to movement rules.

Consider the following.

Firing a Lascannon at a unit, no one plays that a to-wound roll is made against every model in that unit.

So why is it when we have forced movement applied to a unit, players insist that every model is affected by the forced movement? The text even spells out that distance between units is measured closest model to closest model.

You can interprit the rules however you like. But don't expect anyone to play against you if you pull tricks like that.

You keep saying that like repeating it will make it true.

Joey wrote:

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

Worst thread for this on the first page.

I don't understand the logical disconnect many have in regards to the definition and application of 'unit' in 40k when it comes to movement rules.

Consider the following.

Firing a Lascannon at a unit, no one plays that a to-wound roll is made against every model in that unit.

So why is it when we have forced movement applied to a unit, players insist that every model is affected by the forced movement? The text even spells out that distance between units is measured closest model to closest model.

You can interprit the rules however you like. But don't expect anyone to play against you if you pull tricks like that.

Wrong much?
Everyone at my LGS plays Rage by the correct reading of the rules.

If you pop over to Australia feel free to come in on Thursdays for a game and throw a tanty over it in person though.

Which they are welcome to do. If your opponents don't mind you essentially ignoring Rage, that's fine.
This is why your interpritation of Rage renders it useless: unless you have only 2 or 3 members in the squad, it doesn't do jack.
There are two units near to your Rage squad - one is closer than the other, so you have to move towards it. Except, you don't. You just move one model, and move another couple of models to retain coherancy. The models near to the unit you actually want to assault don't move at all. This allows you to then assault that unit instead of the closer unit. Well done, you've just cheated.

Joey wrote:Which they are welcome to do. If your opponents don't mind you essentially ignoring Rage, that's fine.

Except you're not.

Joey wrote:Which they are welcome to do. If your opponents don't mind you essentially ignoring Rage, that's fine.

Considering

1) My opponents sometimes use Rage USR units, and
2) My opponents like to play by the rules when the rules are clearly written, and
3) My opponents like a fair game, as do I,

it IS fine for us.

Quoted from above since I edited:
This is why your interpritation of Rage renders it useless: unless you have only 2 or 3 members in the squad, it doesn't do jack.
There are two units near to your Rage squad - one is closer than the other, so you have to move towards it. Except, you don't. You just move one model, and move another couple of models to retain coherancy. The models near to the unit you actually want to assault don't move at all. This allows you to then assault that unit instead of the closer unit. Well done, you've just cheated.

The rage unit can move model A towards those rubbish conscripts, unit B can stay still and safely charge that juicy CCS.

Joey wrote:Quoted from above since I edited:
This is why your interpritation of Rage renders it useless: unless you have only 2 or 3 members in the squad, it doesn't do jack.
There are two units near to your Rage squad - one is closer than the other, so you have to move towards it. Except, you don't. You just move one model, and move another couple of models to retain coherancy. The models near to the unit you actually want to assault don't move at all. This allows you to then assault that unit instead of the closer unit. Well done, you've just cheated.

So to put in proper perspective.

Two units near a Rage unit. The unit subject to Rage moves towards the closest unit per the USR. The unit subject to Rage must then declare an assault on ANY enemy unit of it's choice provided it's in within assault range of the unit subject to Rage.

Well done me, I can read and apply rules correctly!

No you're right. The only downside of the Rage USR is that it forces your unit armed with bolt pistols and ccw to run towards the enemy. Damn, what a nerf.

Joey wrote:No you're right. The only downside of the Rage USR is that it forces your unit armed with bolt pistols and ccw to run towards the enemy. Damn, what a nerf.

Actually rage doesn't require that a model runs. It only specifies that if the UNIT runs, then the UNIT must move towards the closest visible enemy. Emphasis is mine, to point out that once the single closest model has moved, consolidated, or run towards the nearest visible unit you have followed the rules. Explicitly. That is not cheating.

Now what you need to do is understand that the rules are a framework with which we play this game. If you don't comprehend the rules in their full capacity, then you may feel at a disadvantage in a game when someone out thinks you and wins. Do not then call those people cheaters because they figured something out that you refuse to understand. Rather you should be aware of how the rules function and move your own models accordingly to prevent the opponent from doing this. Play smarter, don't cry "TFG" when you lose.

Bad form, Joey.

BTw, since you (rigeld and Halfpast) are never going to find people to play against, how about a friendly game? I'll bring my almost all Hormagaunt army and Rage like there is no tomorrow.

If you ever come down to Texas, I'm down.

For the sake of the thread, I totally agree with regeld2. But I just wanted to say that I've been reading this thread since the first post and it is, without a doubt, THE most entertaining discussion of RAW/RAI that i've ever seen on Dakka. Keep it up. *get's more popcorn*