Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

OK everyone, this is my first post, so get all of the newbie jokes out of the way...  I've heard that you guys are the best RAW guys out there, so here's the deal:

I played against a BT opponent yesterday in a friendly game. We play all of the time against each other, so we've gotten to know each other's styles well, and can normally settle debates quickly and painlessly, or we just sit down with our rulebooks after the game and figure it out.  We are trying to play by tournament rules/RAW, so we traded codexes and I borrowed the BT codex afterwards (I play tau), and I was very interested in what I found regarding RZ movement.

Without going too deep into copyrighted material (not 100% sure on the rules there), the RZ rule normally makes a BT player move towards the nearest visible enemy unit if they take any casualties & pass a leadership check after the opponent's shooting phase. I get that, and there are no problems there.  Here is a problem, however:  if a chaplain is joined to the unit, then "they may move towards any enemy unit, not just the closest as is normally the case" (see page 32 of the BT codex under "unmatched zeal" .

Question 1: Does the target enemy unit have to be visible if a chaplain is joined with the unit and they make a RZ move? We are trying to use GWs new love for RAW, and are having a tough time with it here.  If you can reference page numbers that we should look at, I'd appreciate your answer even more.

Question 2: Must a unit move the full distance rolled on the D6 if they pass a leadership test and move in RZ? Furthermore, do they even have to move at all? The BT codex says "if they pass a moral check, the unit must move towards the nearest visible enemy unit... this is identicle to a Consolidate move that has been achieved through a massacre result" (page 23 BT rulebook). Under consolidation (Page 44 BRB) it says "a unit may consolidate up to 3 inches" (they don't have to move at all though, other than to get into coherency), and with a massacre result, this rule is ammended to "may move up to D6".

Overall, in summary (and how we have decided to play it unless anyone can help us), it seems that BTs have to move towards (end up closer) to the target unit (at least a little via the "must" above), and can move up to the total rolled on the D6, but can move less via the "may" above.

Do these questions make sense? Just wondering if anyone can shed light on our dilemma.

Thanks so much.

These questions are great, allow me to answer em for you.

EDIT:  Proper response is below for question one

Question 2: I would say you have to move the full movement. RAW you simply have to move closer, you don't necessarily have to move the full movement, as long as you get closer. That is RAW. HOWEVER, I would say that the spirit of the BT's is that they get pissed when a brother falls, and when they pass their leadership test and in their fervor move towards the closest enemy to bring them righteous destruction. So my belief is that you must move the full movement.

However, with what you have given me, RAW, I believe that you don't necessarily need to move the full movement but if you and your friend are okay with each other, I would say go with the my justification above for why you should move full movement to better align with the spirit of the rules. (of course, moving close could put you into range of nasty weapons or too far out into the open, so.....)

I don't mean to apply this to you, but my general rule is that if you are looking for loopholes to break the game to your advantage, then you are not playing to have fun, or at least, not playing so that you and your opponent can have fun.

Question one is simple: Since the chaplain removes the limiter on closest enemy unit, then the chaplain can decide which unit to get closer to. Line of Sight, doesn't seem to be a problem here. here is my argument for this conclusion: If the BT's normally ahve to move to the closest enemy regardless of visibility (which is the case) then the same should be true when a chaplain is involved, they can move to any unit, regardless of whether or not they can or cannot see the enemy.

I'm new, so I don't think I understand you that well...

how do the BTs have to move to the closest enemy unit "regardless of visibility".  They have to move towards the nearest visible unit (so LOS does matter).  Using that logic, doesn't it make sense that they have to move towards any visible enemy unit?  I think I just misunderstood you.  Care to clarify?

Also, we aren't looking for a loophole (I don't even play BT), but we are looking for the correct, RAW way to move the BT when the RZ.  It seems GWs fluff & rules don't line up. 

First, It doesn't sound like you are looking for a loophole, and its good that you aren't it wasn't a caution directed at you, more of a general problem with some rules discrepancies.

Second I misunderstood your first point. I though that the rule you referenced did not necessitate visibility was pointed out. Instead, the rule you pointed out stated a NEED for visibility to closest target. Even though the chaplain allows you to choose which target you want to move towards, you still have to be able to see the unit. This is referenced in the evidence you cited in Question 2 "When a BT makes a RZ move they must move towards the closest visible unit", All the chaplain does is remove the closest part and allows you to pick the visibile unit you want to go after.

Hope that mathces properly with rules.

Yes it does, and I appreciate your answer!  We will play it as such, and I will call it the "ATI" ruling, in honor of you.