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.

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?