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.

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*