Again with the Rage

[BigDunc]

Shooting- only one model has to be in range for the unit to successfully declare the target of its shooting. Assault- only one model has to be in range to successfully launch an assault. Pinning- only one model has to be wounded to cause a pinning test. Blood Chalice/etc- only one model has to be in range to grant the benefit to the squad.

Grey Mage, you seem to be talking about a model-->unit relationship while I'm talking about a unit-->models relationship. And I think the situation with Rage is a unit-->model situation.

 

Sorry, this I dont get at all. I must have missed when a poster mentioned that units were blobs. I disagree with this statement- their not blobs, their simply linked at the second complexity level of the rules- the unit level.

The blob is a way to visualize the unit at the unit level because at that level you don't really see individual models.

 

Much like a sports team that is punished with extra work because they lost *at the team level* or taken out for food for winning *at the team level* yet they score, block, pass, or whatnot on the individual level *say attacks in CC, shooting off BS, and taking armor saves*. If any one person incurs a penalty the entire team suffers. If any one person on the team is playing on the field the team is considered engaged in play. Individuals have their own concerns, teams have there's too.

Let's say coach told the team to go run laps (an obligatory situation like Rage). Instead of the whole team doing as the coach said, the team captain made the rookie go run while the rest of the team went for a beer. Yes, technically you can say the 'team' is running laps, but is that what the coach told them to do? Of course not. That's what you guys are doing with Rage (ie, not what coach said).

 

You don't measure after movement, in 40k your not allowed to premeasure in most cases....

If you can't measure after you move, how are you using a Measuring Distances rule to justify that Rage has been satisfied?

 

And in my opinion having to measure from every single model in the raging unit for its own purposes is horribly over complicating it. Not only that, but were we to follow your interpretation fully we would end up with this...

Yea this is definitely not what I'm trying to say. I'm not trying to circumvent the entire unit idea. All the models in the group still have to fight as a unit. The situation would go like this:

 

Using your DC unit, you use the Measuring Distances (MD) rule on pg 3 to determine which enemy unit is closest to the DC unit. The purpose of the MD rule is to clarify how you measure from unit to unit (closest model to closest model). Without this clarification, there wouldn't be a standard way and players would measure from the squad's leader, or maybe the furthest model to avoid something. It would be different every time.

 

The MD rule requires multiple measurements, and in this situation that would be 2 measurements. Tac4 is 23" away from DC1, Rhino1 is 24" away from DC6&7. The closer enemy unit to the DC unit is Tac4, therefore that is the unit the DC models must Rage towards. Since the DC models must act as a unit, and yet each individual model is effected by Rage, each DC model Rages towards Tac4. Despite Rhino1 being closer for DC6&7, because of the MD and coherency rules, they move with their brethren toward Tac4. A post-movement MD 'measurement' (even an imaginary one) isn't necessary and is not the designed use of the rule anyway.

 

I see. Yet the key part of the FAQ your linking doesn't mention the wording of units, it mentions an edition change:

I guess I should have quoted the FAQ rule. The last sentence of #93 says:

"It is not necessary to move the full d6” but as the move is compulsory, providing it is physically possible to do so, every model in the unit must end this move closer to the nearest visible enemy unit than it did at the start of the move."

 

Also, bigdunc, remember 2 important facts.

1) A similar ruling in one codex FAQ does not necessarily carry over to another.

2) Throne of Skulls FAQ is not official anyway.

You are technically correct, James. A FAQ from another codex can't carry over and the ToS FAQ isn't official and in a tournament setting, they would have little weight.

 

However, statements like these only reinforce my opinion that some players are out to purposefully take advantage of any poorly written rule in an attempt to WAAC, no matter what logical explanations might come their way. In that way, I think I would be justified for docking someone on their sportsmanship score. IMO, they're not a very good sport no matter how nice and smiley they are.

[BigDunc]

I think you use this as a license and way too far. You use it to hang your whole argument upon.

I think I'm supported by the rulebook and what it says units are on pg 3. I also think the rulebook uses this inherent meaning of 'unit' through out it's pages.

[Grey Mage]

Shooting- only one model has to be in range for the unit to successfully declare the target of its shooting. Assault- only one model has to be in range to successfully launch an assault. Pinning- only one model has to be wounded to cause a pinning test. Blood Chalice/etc- only one model has to be in range to grant the benefit to the squad.

Grey Mage, you seem to be talking about a model-->unit relationship while I'm talking about a unit-->models relationship. And I think the situation with Rage is a unit-->model situation.

Its the only relationship I see between the two terms- works both ways, and consistently.

 

Sorry, this I dont get at all. I must have missed when a poster mentioned that units were blobs. I disagree with this statement- their not blobs, their simply linked at the second complexity level of the rules- the unit level.

The blob is a way to visualize the unit at the unit level because at that level you don't really see individual models.

I think its entirely misleading, and its not what I use to visualise this level of interaction.

 

Much like a sports team that is punished with extra work because they lost *at the team level* or taken out for food for winning *at the team level* yet they score, block, pass, or whatnot on the individual level *say attacks in CC, shooting off BS, and taking armor saves*. If any one person incurs a penalty the entire team suffers. If any one person on the team is playing on the field the team is considered engaged in play. Individuals have their own concerns, teams have there's too.

Let's say coach told the team to go run laps (an obligatory situation like Rage). Instead of the whole team doing as the coach said, the team captain made the rookie go run while the rest of the team went for a beer. Yes, technically you can say the 'team' is running laps, but is that what the coach told them to do? Of course not. That's what you guys are doing with Rage (ie, not what coach said).

Actually rage is more like 'tackle them!'. Once one player takes down the opposing runningback then theyve done as commanded.

 

 

You don't measure after movement, in 40k your not allowed to premeasure in most cases....

If you can't measure after you move, how are you using a Measuring Distances rule to justify that Rage has been satisfied?

Very simply- its the only criteria for distance that I see for units. We measure the distance between units using the closest units. We then move the closest model directly at the closest part of the enemy unit- wich satisfies the our unit, must move, and directly restrictions. We dont have to measure afterwords because we did so beforehand.

 

And in my opinion having to measure from every single model in the raging unit for its own purposes is horribly over complicating it. Not only that, but were we to follow your interpretation fully we would end up with this...

Yea this is definitely not what I'm trying to say. I'm not trying to circumvent the entire unit idea. All the models in the group still have to fight as a unit. The situation would go like this:

 

Using your DC unit, you use the Measuring Distances (MD) rule on pg 3 to determine which enemy unit is closest to the DC unit. The purpose of the MD rule is to clarify how you measure from unit to unit (closest model to closest model). Without this clarification, there wouldn't be a standard way and players would measure from the squad's leader, or maybe the furthest model to avoid something. It would be different every time.

 

The MD rule requires multiple measurements, and in this situation that would be 2 measurements. Tac4 is 23" away from DC1, Rhino1 is 24" away from DC6&7. The closer enemy unit to the DC unit is Tac4, therefore that is the unit the DC models must Rage towards. Since the DC models must act as a unit, and yet each individual model is effected by Rage, each DC model Rages towards Tac4. Despite Rhino1 being closer for DC6&7, because of the MD and coherency rules, they move with their brethren toward Tac4. A post-movement MD 'measurement' (even an imaginary one) isn't necessary and is not the designed use of the rule anyway.

But, if we take your ruling- that it affects EACH model because the units is affect- then it is exactly what has to happen. We must move each model towards the closest enemy unit for EACH model.

 

You cant have it both ways here. Either we apply it to the unit individually or as a whole, because nothing in the rules allows for an in between that youve yet shown.

 

As for the definition of units on pg. 3? Thats 3 paragraphs of rambling- and all it tells us is a unit is anything from one model to a hundred models that are described as a unit. Period. I dont see how that supports your argument more than mine.

[Chapter Master Ignis Domus]

For heavy weapons, when one model moves, the whole unit counts as moving. Would the same not apply to rage?

[BigDunc]

I acknowledge your responses but don't really have anything to say. We could go round and round if we wanted but that's two new episodes of Psych are up on Hulu, so....

 

I will say though:

Actually rage is more like 'tackle them!'. Once one player takes down the opposing runningback then theyve done as commanded.

Good visual example, apart from the DC never actually tackling the running back. :D

 

But, if we take your ruling- that it affects EACH model because the units is affect- then it is exactly what has to happen. We must move each model towards the closest enemy unit for EACH model.

You cant have it both ways here. Either we apply it to the unit individually or as a whole, because nothing in the rules allows for an in between that you've yet shown.

And yet I think both ways is exactly what's needed. You need to remember there is interpretation in EVERY single rule in the rulebook and all the codices. Just because everyone agrees on a rule doesn't mean that interpretation isn't taking place (it's just so clear there isn't any disagreement). I say that because according to your interpretation, there's nothing in the rulebook to support my interpretation, but according to my interpretation, there is. That goes for supporting rules as well. And for both of us, Rage is crystal clear.

 

I don't necessarily have anything more to say. I finally got my argument in order and presented it the best way I could, and that's all I can do. I don't expect to change your mind, Grey Mage , but hopefully you've seen the rule from a different perspective. The same for everyone else. That's all I can hope for. While I don't agree with the popular interpretation of Rage (or RZ for that matter) I understand that that interpretations are likely what I will run into. But that doesn't mean that I won't continue to fight for what I think is the right interpretation both at the LGS and here on B&C.

 

Since we got into sports analogies at the end it's only fitting to smack each of you on your virtual :P and say 'good game!'

[shatter]

I think you use this as a license and way too far. You use it to hang your whole argument upon.

I think I'm supported by the rulebook and what it says units are on pg 3. I also think the rulebook uses this inherent meaning of 'unit' through out it's pages.

 

I don't think so. It's also pretty bad form to quote without the rebuttals explanation. They're re-quoted below.

 

*snip*

The key to my position is that 'unit' inherently refers to every model in that group. It logically follows that if something effects a unit then every model is effected in turn.

*snip*

 

I think you use this as a license and way too far. You use it to hang your whole argument upon. 'Inherently refers to' is, I think, wrong. A unit IS the models. It doesn't mean all rules affecting units can and should where possibly interpretable be forcibly applied ('referred') to individual models. Additional rules specifically state when exceptions occur.

 

I think page 3 supports my argument, not yours. The difference may be subtle, but it's all encompassing and far reaching... and simple.

 

"A unit will usually consist of several models that fight together as a group."

 

That's it. It doesn't say a single thing more about the unit/model relationship. You're requiring this to mean more than it, the rules, state. You require that unit affecting rules are forced on individual models where you see fit.

The other side of the argument says the rules themselves tell you what to do in each and every case and phase and how we feel about it or desire is not relevant when rules state the steps required. Our argument is simple, straightforward and requires only regurgitating rules. Yours is, as far as I've seen, based on interpreted (and in at least my opinion flawed) premises and your personally (and somewhat popular) assumed RAI.

[Grey Mage]

While I don't agree with the popular interpretation of Rage (or RZ for that matter) I understand that that interpretations are likely what I will run into. But that doesn't mean that I won't continue to fight for what I think is the right interpretation both at the LGS and here on B&C.

 

Since we got into sports analogies at the end it's only fitting to smack each of you on your virtual censored.gif and say 'good game!'

And at this point I dont expect to change yours. Im fine with that- the chances of us being accross a board and having this come up are incredibly minimal, and an in person conversation might have me just shrug and ok "alright, its not worth arguing about today" or 4+ it for expediancy. I still think your wrong, and still would, but I hope youve enjoyed the debate as much as I have.

[Brother-Captain Devlonir]

For me.. it is still very clear because of the following reasoning:

 

When I take my closest model of a unit and move it as fast as possible, taking difficult terrain roles into account, towards the closest model of the closest enemy unit I have fulfilled Rage. Because the entity unit, as a whole, has filled the gap between the units as defined on page 3 of the BRB as much as possible with the movement he was allowed to take.

Reducing the distance as much as possible is, in my book, synonym to moving towards as fast as possible.

And you do not have to measure it out after the movement, but if an opponent asked to be allowed to I will let them. And because I called out the distance I used to define the closest enemy unit before, my maximum allowed movement minus that distance is what the new distance will be and it will proove that my movement was legal and followed the Rage rules.

 

And yes, I am the kind of person that would call it out and note down the distance I measured before doing movement just to ensure that there is no debate afterwards, as I feel being clear in these key measurements is the fairest and most sportsman way to play.

 

Is that way to rule it and play it really bad reasoning? Is that not logical? That is why I cannot see the point that forces each model of the Raging unit to do the same. And that does not even take into account the mess that can happen if you bring it to a Model level that both myself and Grey have tried to point out.

 

So bigdunc, I understand where your intepretation comes from. But, in my own honest opinion, I feel it is a flawed reasoning that leads to the interpretation and it does not take into account the rule that defines the distance between units as the possible 'judge' for if after movement the rule has been fulfilled or not. I know Grey and me disagree on this point, but I do feel that we should use the rule as the judge after the fact if so requested by the opponent.

[Spacefrisian]

Just been thinking this whole "unit has the rule but model aint" over and figured out that this is kind of nonsense.

 

Example:

Berzerkers have the Furious Charge rule as a unit but each model gains the benefit, if we would go by the weird logic you could say only Zerker bob can use it but the rest not.

 

And thats just 1 of them

[Grey Mage]

Just been thinking this whole "unit has the rule but model aint" over and figured out that this is kind of nonsense.

 

Example:

Berzerkers have the Furious Charge rule as a unit but each model gains the benefit, if we would go by the weird logic you could say only Zerker bob can use it but the rest not.

 

And thats just 1 of them

Nope, your dead wrong. Furious Charge states 'models' not units. Its an entirely different case.

[Spacefrisian]

Missed the "example"part?

[Dan VK]

Just been thinking this whole "unit has the rule but model aint" over and figured out that this is kind of nonsense.

 

Example:

Berzerkers have the Furious Charge rule as a unit but each model gains the benefit, if we would go by the weird logic you could say only Zerker bob can use it but the rest not.

 

And thats just 1 of them

The main issue I have seen regarding "model vs unit" revolves around how to determine movement, not whether every model in the unit has the special rule. As part of the unit, every model is subject to the special rule, but Rage only addresses movement by the unit as a whole, which is determined by the model in the unit that is closest to the nearest enemy.

 

Missed the "example"part?

Your example does not apply because the wording makes your point irrelevant in that particular situation. If we were to take "the unit has the rule but the model does not" as correct, it would not change how a unit with Furious Charge is played because the rule itself references 'models' and not 'units'.

 

 

[Edit: Added additional response.]

[Grey Mage]

Missed the "example"part?

If your going to try to make a point with an example it should be one capable of making that point.

 

Saying "no ripe apples are green" because "no ripe oranges are green" is of absolutely no value despite both being fruits.

[Spacefrisian]

I wasnt making a point of an example, is it that hard....

 

Sigh

 

Fire on my target than its says unit X forces Unit Y to re-roll cover saves thats the whole unit not a singlemodel that has to abide by it.

[Grey Mage]

I wasnt making a point of an example, is it that hard....

 

Sigh

 

Fire on my target than its says unit X forces Unit Y to re-roll cover saves thats the whole unit not a singlemodel that has to abide by it.

Yet, as previously noted, saves are a per-model thing, not a per-unit thing. Also, that rule mentions neither models nor units- just saves. Its not even close to the same wording.

 

Try again?

[JamesI]

Also, bigdunc, remember 2 important facts.

1) A similar ruling in one codex FAQ does not necessarily carry over to another.

2) Throne of Skulls FAQ is not official anyway.

You are technically correct, James. A FAQ from another codex can't carry over and the ToS FAQ isn't official and in a tournament setting, they would have little weight.

 

However, statements like these only reinforce my opinion that some players are out to purposefully take advantage of any poorly written rule in an attempt to WAAC, no matter what logical explanations might come their way. In that way, I think I would be justified for docking someone on their sportsmanship score. IMO, they're not a very good sport no matter how nice and smiley they are.

So, if someone disagrees with your assessment of a rule, that is an acceptable reason to dock them sportsmanship points? Because that's all we're doing, discussing different interpretations of the same rule.

 

I also do not like being called a WAAC player by someone I have never met. I am discussing the RAW of a rule, that is all.

 

Personally, I can't see any logic in your argument anyway. Either the 1 model moving closer the rest keeping coherent is correct, or every model must move towards the closest enemy for that model (which often will be different units) forcing a breaking of coherency rules.

 

Now, the rule should be worded something like this. "Determine the closest unit to the unit with rage. The closest model must move as fast as possible towards that unit, the rest must move towards that unit and maintain coherency (but allowing some ability to spread out to avoid being plasma cannoned off the table)"

[BigDunc]

Damn, I just can't stay away.

 

I've argued that 'unit' inherently means 'every model', and without further explanation that leads to visualizing a scenario like Grey Mage presented (models heading off in different directions). And rightfully so. So, let me work through this by replacing the word 'unit' with the phrase 'every model in the group' for a couple rules.

 

Rage, "..., every model in the group that is subject to rage must always move as fast as possible towards the closest visible enemy."

Lash of Submission, "If the test is successful, the[n] every model in the group is moved 2D6" by the Chaos player." I have replaced 'target' instead of 'unit' here because the unit is stated as the target.

 

Now, in each of these situations, as per RAW, individual models would act of their own accord and the unit would become scattered. That interpretation makes sense. You'd measure for each DC and he would head off in the appropriate direction. For Lash, you would roll 2D6" for each model and move it in any direction. That's apparently an issue. However, moving units in such a fashion is not allowed by the rules. One such rule is Unit Coherency which says, "When you are moving a unit... units have to stick together." Furthermore, pg 3 under Units says "A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group... all of these things are referred to as 'units'." These rules resolve the issue at hand.

 

However, from a RAW standpoint, the issue still exists. The unit can't stick together and have each model do as it's being told to. This is where I think a purely RAW approach is insufficient and flawed. RAW only takes into account what the book says and does not take into account logical explanation for what the rules mean. The logical explanation for this conflict regarding Rage is, since units are supposed to fight as a group and unit coherency can't be broken when moving a unit, you determine one enemy unit to be the closest using Measuring Distances (pg3) and all models fulfill their obligation in that direction. For Lash the logical explanation is that you roll 2D6" once for the unit and move every model that distance in any direction while maintaining unit coherency.

 

Now, let me reiterate what I understand the popular interpretation of Rage to be. Since Rage says 'unit' instead of 'every model', and because a single model is part of a unit, that single model can fulfill obligations on the unit's behalf.

 

Now I'm going to apply this RAW approach to some other obligatory rules. Though some of these are similar arguments that I've given before, please read what I'm saying. The rules I'll be covering are:

Fall Back

Lash of Submission

Tyranid Lurk

Pinning

 

Fall Back has been 'fixed' in 5E. I realize in a RAW sense 4E have no validity in 5E. None the less, I'm going to use 4E Fall Back as my example because it's a logical argument. Throughout the 4E FB rule, 'unit' is used. Never does it specify that every model must fulfill the obligatory Fall Back move. That means, according the popular RAW in our context, a single model can fulfill the fall back obligation. That single model moves the distance rolled. To maintain unit coherency a few other models might have to move, but some models may be able to stay still. In fact, some models could move towards the enemy. Why would someone do this? Because a successful rally could mean you might still be in range for some action, an assault for example. Now in 5E, that RAW has been fixed. While 5E FB refers to 'units', it also specifies that "each model in the unit falls back directly towards..." No longer can one model fulfill the fall back obligation. I think the change between 4E and 5E is significant. It shows how units under the influence of obligatory moves are supposed to be executed.

 

RZ is a 4E rule, but has been 'fixed' as well per the ToS FAQ. Official or not, that FAQ is evidence of the way RZ is intended to be interpreted and executed. Why wasn't Rage fixed in 5E? Because Rage didn't exist in 4E and GW has yet to run into the same interpretive problems as they have with RZ or Fall Back.

 

Lash of Submission. In this situation, as supported by RAW, we are allowed stop our opponent's Lash movement right after he moves the first model. According to popular RAW regarding 'unit', that single model has fulfilled the unit's obligatory movement. Remember, Lash never states that every model is effected. Unit coherency becomes an issue here, but since you're following the RAW of Lash it's arguably acceptable to ignore. Besides, you didn't move out of coherency of your own volition, right?

 

Lurk does not specify the obligation of each model. It says, "A unit that Lurks may not move in the movement phase..." As per RAW, the Lurking unit need only keep one model stationary in order to fulfill the obligation of not moving. The remainder of the models may move as normal keeping coherency in mind.

 

In this context, Pinning works much the same way as Lurk. Pinned units are actually Gone to Ground which states, "Whilst it has gone to ground the unit may do nothing of it's own volition...." As per RAW, one model from the unit can fulfill the GtG obligation and the remainder of the models may shoot in the shooting phase, for example.

 

The approach I've taken with the above examples is the exact same approach you guys are taking to Rage. All of these examples, however, are not played the same way you guys would consistently interpret them. Why is that? Because those interpretations are wrong and at some point the logical approach to the interpretation of the rule has become the popular interpretation.

 

You guys quote the rulebook to support your RAW interpretation, but I don't think the interpretation of your supporting rules is correct. Measuring Distances helps determine which unit is closest but does not apply to the actual movement of models in the case of Rage. "...the whole unit counts as moving if any of it's models moved..." is also used to support your RAW. However, one can argue that this rule, considering it's part of the shooting rules and is found in its own little Moving & Shooting box, does not apply to Rage either. In both these cases, the logical context of what the rule is referring to is ignored. RAW is based on interpretation. Like I said previously, just because people agree on a rule doesn't mean interpretation isn't taking place.

 

So, if someone disagrees with your assessment of a rule, that is an acceptable reason to dock them sportsmanship points? Because that's all we're doing, discussing different interpretations of the same rule.

If someone simply disagrees? No.

 

However, if someone holds so tightly to their RAW interpretation even after logical evidence has been given that their interpretation isn't correct, then yes. That is not a sporting approach to this game, that is a WAAC approach, and justifies a lower sportsmanship score.

[JamesI]

bigdunc, do you understand that since fallback was changed to each model, clearly GW considered this. Since they did not make the same change to Rage, is that not evidence that GW thinks we're right?

 

Based on your own sportsmanship rules, someone arguing our side would be in equal position to knock you off as you are sticking to your interpretation. AS I see it and others see it, you are holding to your own interpretation after logical evidence has shown you are wrong.

 

Personally, I think this thread should be closed as it is clear that neither side will change until GW issues a FAQ

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Some Unit versus Model separation:

 

Moving through difficult terrain pg 14

"If any models in a unit start their move inside difficult terrain, the unit is affected...."

 

Check range pg 17

"When checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit. Any models found to be out of range of all the models he can see in the target unit misses automatically...."

 

Moving and shooting pg 17

"The most important thing to remember is that the whole unit counts as moving if any of its models moved in the Movement phase"

 

Units partially in cover pg 23

case A, the majority of Marines 3/5 have a clear shot on the majority of Orks 3/5. No cover save.

case B, only the minority of Marines 2/5 have a clear shot to the majority. Cover save.

case C, perhaps the majority of Marines have shot on the majority of the Orks. Lesser cover save.

 

Grey Hunters assault a line of kroot. Only one Grey manages to successfully assault one kroot, by 1mm. Yet all of the Wolves and all of the Kroot are now in combat.

The Grey hunter that made the contact has done the deed for all of the unit.

That one kroot has condemned all of his unit to close combat.

 

Assaulting through cover pg 36

"If, following the rules for moving assaulting models [page 34], any model in an assaulting unit has to go through difficult or dangerous terrain as part of its assault move, the unit must take the relevant terrain test before moving."

 

The actions and positioning of individuals within a group determines the destiny of the group, even if not individuals performed or achieved these actions or positioning.

 

I am not sure what GW intended. Perhaps they did mean for the rule to have a massive negative effect. Yet did they actually realise, once moving from text to table-top, just how hard to play it would be?

When you look at the things I have referenced, moving Rage units with one model satisfying the requirements for the unit actually is consistent with how the rest of the rules are used.

Is it consistent with what GW intended? Perhaps not. However, we only have the BBB as our guide. Using anything but the BBB as our guide is trouble as we all differ and have differing thoughts on things.

 

I cannot see other rules that state something like 'every single individual in the group is obliged to follow a rule, as the general rule' unless GW actually specify it.

 

Fall back pg 45

"Each model in the unit falls back directly towards their own table edge...."

It is very clear that one model cannot satisfy the requirement for the unit. Yet Rage, nor Righteous Zeal, makes that clarity a priority.

[BigDunc]

Since they did not make the same change to Rage, is that not evidence that GW thinks we're right?

Rage is new to 5E and therefore hasn't had the opportunity to be changed.

 

Based on your own sportsmanship rules, someone arguing our side would be in equal position to knock you off as you are sticking to your interpretation. AS I see it and others see it, you are holding to your own interpretation after logical evidence has shown you are wrong.

And they would be justified in doing so. I don't think that you're evidence has shown me to be wrong however.

[BigDunc]

When you look at the things I have referenced, moving Rage units with one model satisfying the requirements for the unit actually is consistent with how the rest of the rules are used.

The obligatory nature of Rage (and the other examples I gave) is important context for this argument. Very few obligatory rules exist and it's valid to compare those rules to each other. In terms of other obligatory rules, Rage is not interpreted consistently.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Rage, "..., every model in the group that is subject to rage must always move as fast as possible towards the closest visible enemy."

Lash of Submission, "If the test is successful, the[n] every model in the group is moved 2D6" by the Chaos player." I have replaced 'target' instead of 'unit' here because the unit is stated as the target.

 

Now, in each of these situations, as per RAW, individual models would act of their own accord and the unit would become scattered. That interpretation makes sense. You'd measure for each DC and he would head off in the appropriate direction. For Lash, you would roll 2D6" for each model and move it in any direction. That's apparently an issue. However, moving units in such a fashion is not allowed by the rules. One such rule is Unit Coherency which says, "When you are moving a unit... units have to stick together." Furthermore, pg 3 under Units says "A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group... all of these things are referred to as 'units'." These rules resolve the issue at hand.

 

Fall Back has been 'fixed' in 5E. I realize in a RAW sense 4E have no validity in 5E. None the less, I'm going to use 4E Fall Back as my example because it's a logical argument. Throughout the 4E FB rule, 'unit' is used. Never does it specify that every model must fulfill the obligatory Fall Back move. That means, according the popular RAW in our context, a single model can fulfill the fall back obligation. That single model moves the distance rolled. To maintain unit coherency a few other models might have to move, but some models may be able to stay still. In fact, some models could move towards the enemy. Why would someone do this? Because a successful rally could mean you might still be in range for some action, an assault for example. Now in 5E, that RAW has been fixed. While 5E FB refers to 'units', it also specifies that "each model in the unit falls back directly towards..." No longer can one model fulfill the fall back obligation. I think the change between 4E and 5E is significant. It shows how units under the influence of obligatory moves are supposed to be executed.

 

RZ is a 4E rule, but has been 'fixed' as well per the ToS FAQ. Official or not, that FAQ is evidence of the way RZ is intended to be interpreted and executed. Why wasn't Rage fixed in 5E? Because Rage didn't exist in 4E and GW has yet to run into the same interpretive problems as they have with RZ or Fall Back.

 

Lash of Submission. In this situation, as supported by RAW, we are allowed stop our opponent's Lash movement right after he moves the first model. According to popular RAW regarding 'unit', that single model has fulfilled the unit's obligatory movement. Remember, Lash never states that every model is effected. Unit coherency becomes an issue here, but since you're following the RAW of Lash it's arguably acceptable to ignore. Besides, you didn't move out of coherency of your own volition, right?

 

Lurk does not specify the obligation of each model. It says, "A unit that Lurks may not move in the movement phase..." As per RAW, the Lurking unit need only keep one model stationary in order to fulfill the obligation of not moving. The remainder of the models may move as normal keeping coherency in mind.

 

Lash is movement by the Chaos Player. He would never chose to move just one model unless it benefitted him so. The owner has no rights over the moving of the lashed squad.

 

5th ed Fall back wonderfully satisfies the requirements of having to move every model, as it explicitly says so.

[JamesI]

How about we all agree to email GW with a link to this thread and beg them to put an answer in the official FAQ. That can be the only solution to this.

[shatter]

Got the appropriate name/link/addy?

[BigDunc]

Lash is movement by the Chaos Player. He would never chose to move just one model unless it benefited him so. The owner has no rights over the moving of the lashed squad.

As a BT player playing against Chaos, I would be justified to stop the execution of my opponent moving my unit after the first model was moved because that first model has fulfilled the obligated movement as per RAW.

 

5th ed Fall back wonderfully satisfies the requirements of having to move every model, as it explicitly says so.

It does. And hopefully GW will do the same for Rage and RZ.

 

 

Regarding shooting rules. The shooting phase section of the rulebook does not specifically state that all models in the target unit are effected. Read it carefully. It is only assumed to be so because one unit is effecting another unit. However, in the Remove Casualties section it states that "any model in the target unit can be hit...". This however does not have the same meaning as is effected. A savvy RAWyer would be able to take advantage of this.

 

Now in the Complex Unit section it says, "The player must allocate one wound to each model in the target unit before..." Now that's pretty clear that every model is effected. However, again a savvy RAWyer would say that 'my unit of Necron Warriors is not a complex unit and therefore these rules don't apply' and he would be right, because that's RAW.

 

 

How about we all agree to email GW with a link to this thread and beg them to put an answer in the official FAQ. That can be the only solution to this.

That would be great.