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.

I did a quck search and didn't find what I was after, so I'm just going to ask.

Recently I have seen some posts here on Dakka claiming that only the first model needs to move closer to the nearest enemy unit when using the Rage USR. I would appreciate an explanation for this interpretation of the rules, as I can find nothing in the BRB, the codices, or the FAQs that would indicate that this is how the rule is to be applied.

Thanks in advance!

/myunderstanding

Your closest model moves towards the closest visible enemy unit. The rest of that unit simply needs to stay in coherency of that model. Otherwise, they would always just bunch up in nice little pockets and stay that way every single time they moved. Hope that made sense.

/myunderstanding

Yes, I understand that part. I just don't understand how you interpret the rule that way.

The RAGE USR says nothing about "move the closest model towards the closest visible enemy unit". The rule states that you are supposed to move the unit closer to the nearest enemy. It gives no explanation as to how to do that, and I would interpret that as meaning the whole unit must move closer. Moving one model closer would not be moving the whole unit closer.

The distance between units is the distance between the two closest models.

The argument is that by moving the first guy, the unit has now moved as fast as possible to the closest unit, and you've satisfied the conditions for the rage rule.

Valdrad wrote:I did a quck search and didn't find what I was after

As I understand it, the Search function is a little wonky right now, because this was at the top of page 2:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/351171.page

That post even links to another post.

I posted twice in that thread I believe. There are many things I used to support my argument, but the most important per the rules is that, according to page 3, distances between units are measure between the closest models. Any other models in the unit have no bearing on whether the unit got closer (the requirement of the Rage USR) - all that matters is that the closest model gets closer.

As was mentioned, any stricter interpretation would lead to Rage units being clumped together in blast formation.

Page three basically outlines how it works. Rage only requires the unit, not the individual models, to make the required movement.

Lemartes loves it.

And loves the lack of assault restrictions.

I points this out (again) because folks try to say they must.

kirsanth wrote:And loves the lack of assault restrictions.

I points this out (again) because folks try to say they must.

This is very important. The Rage rule does not require you to assault at all if you don't want to.

There's actually quite a bit that it doesn't specify. Disembarking, Hit & Run (yay Dante!), Pile-ins...

There are a lot of tricks you can pull with Rage units to take away a little of the downside.

Yep, Rage only has requirements for normal movement, running (should you choose to do so), and consolidation movements. Everything else can be done to the controlling player's disgression. It's not nearly as bad as some people think it to be if you know what you're doing.

Fafnir wrote: Everything else can be done to the controlling player's disgression.

He can wander off the subject?

[/spelling&word choice nazi]

Discretion. I guess I deserved that one.

Nah. I'm just a jerk.

Since that other thread seems to have more of the arguments spelled out, I'll go ahead and lock this one to keep the discussion in one place.