Again with the Rage

[shatter]

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.

 

Hehe, that's pretty funny.

 

I'm pretty sure a unit's movement isn't finished until the controlling player is finished with it. With lash, that aint you.

 

You'd be justified in wanting to stop the player, but doing it isn't legal.

 

edit: silly adverb usage.

[Spacefrisian]

You could say none other than me touches these models (if we do go by bad sportmanship).

[Grey Mage]

You could say none other than me touches these models (if we do go by bad sportmanship).

Wich has nothing to do with the rules- sportsmanship or otherwise.

 

I dont like other people handling my models without permission, and I ask my opponents not to do so- if Im lashed my friends will usually tell me where they want the models placed and Ill do so- even if they say *Id like the unit about five inches to the left and as much in BtB contact as possible so I can hit them with a vindicator from over there, no cover* Ill do that to the best of my ability- nothing poor about the sportsmanship, just a personal superstition.

 

So when I get back after the graveyard shift theres not going to be any name calling, 'yelling' or personal attacks, right? Right.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Shatter gave a solid response to the Lash situation. For all intents and purposes, the Chaos player has full ownage of the moved unit. Then when the Oblits start firing, he has full pwnage of them :)

 

You could say none other than me touches these models (if we do go by bad sportmanship).

 

No.

LoS pg 88 C:CSM

"If the test is successful, the target is moved 2d6" by the Chaos player."

 

People who move your models might very well just trying to upset you or are in a bad mood and wanting your guys of the table immediately, assuming they are not just trying to actually help.

 

However, Lash movement is done by the Chaos player. He can move your men with his sweaty hands, just like he could his own. Even though, for example, Grey Mage might ask Chaos dude not to move his Wolves, he really has no right to do so and has no 'lawful' grounds to get uptight over this [not saying that Grey Mage does or does not get uptight about this].

 

Is it okay for Grey Mage [or whomever] to feel like this? Sure. That doesn't mean that his feelings have any jurisdiction over game play, and the Chaos dude shouldn't have to put up with dirty looks or tutting, etc.

 

+++

 

When I rolled the Deldar player last weekend, I had been putting dice on my vehicles [bless their flat tops] to indicate damage and had been putting dice on his flight bases for his vehicles. Well he didn't like that and after a while moved the dice away, saying they clutter the table or something similar to that and he'd remember what had gone on. Cool.

The thing is, I am be quite sure that no-one would always remember what had happened with regards to damage from previous turns, all the time. This dude kept pivoting his immobilised Ravager around, for example. I hopped a squad out, who could not shoot due to the rhino being stunned, and shot with them. It was only because I remembered that stunned also affects the passengers that the damage was 'nulled'. He certainly didn't remember.

 

Dudes get offended by you doing stuff. I think it is more that they feel the 'toucher' or 'dice adder' is invading their personal space and trying to 'get one over them' than any real threat or sly move is being undertaken. Sure watch them closely, but be chilled at the same time.

 

On a slightly off-beat note [or is it?], my brother used to show his Bullmastiffs. Being a reasonable sized dog, the boys weigh up to 60 kg [140 lbs] and so them having a good temperament is important, if you realise that a German Shepherd of 40 kg [90 lbs] is thought to have a decent chance of killing a man. To that end, the show judges actually put their hands around the dogs nether regions and hold the dog's testicles. This becomes normalised behaviour to the dog and he thinks nothing of it. Do that to a dog who has never been touched like that and you will get a response!

 

Likewise, when taken to obedience training, the trainers have all the dogs lie on the ground [next to their owners] and then take one dog around with them. Weaving in and around shows the insecure dogs up. They hate it. After awhile [because learning takes time] they become okay with this. Then they get the dog to walk over the top of the lying down dogs. To stand over something in the animal kingdom is read as a sign of dominance. This also freaks out the insecure dogs. Again, slowly but steadily, this too becomes normalised to them.

 

Check out Caeser Milan ~ Dog Whisperer, for this kind of stuff being fleshed out. A+

 

Anyway, my point is, gamers think the other guy is trying to dupe them. He could be, but maybe not. You can see that people become defensive "don't touch my men" when the chips are down. Chill out. If your dudes are getting taken of the table, does it really matter if the other guy relishes doing so?

I know we are all, to varying degrees, nerds and can have degrees of social ineptness beyond what the normals have I think it is time that we behave like the normalised dogs and don't even care or get flustered when another gamer is being a stooge towards us. I also realise that this learning will take time.

 

Divergent rambling done :D

[spartan249]

Rage: In the Movement Phase, Units subject to rage must always move as fast as possible towards the closest visible enemy [unit].

The actual rule only says enemy, but seeing as how the unit is the only type of enemy that exists in 40k, I'm clarifying that in the rule with the brackets.

 

Definition of Unit: "A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group..."

So, reading the rules, we can agree that a unit is the aggregate squad of models in that group and any action that the unit takes applies to all the models in said unit, as shown aptly by Bigdunc. He provided all the examples I was going to use, so I won't waste space and repost them.

 

Step 1: Discern which enemy [unit] is closest to the Unit.

Reference 1: pg. 3 of the BRB - "When Measuring distances between two units, use the closest models as your reference points... So for example, if any model in a unit is within 2" of an enemy unit/model, the unit is said to be within 2" of that enemy unit/model".

 

Step 2: Move that unit as fast as possible toward the closest enemy [unit].

This clause in the rule states two things in particular.

1: The unit, by definition the models that make up that unit, move as quickly as possible towards the target. Geometrically, the fastest way towards anything is a straight line. As is the precedent in every other example of unit behavior, the entire unit moves because the unit MUST move.

2: This is handled by using Reference 1; you measure which enemy unit is the closest, then move the entire unit towards that closest unit. Not each model towards the closest enemy model, as it is specifically said that the unit moves towards the closest enemy. Usually a unit because it's very rare to find anything else on the board.

Another example not covered by Bigdunc was Assault moves. While making the assault move was voluntary, the assault move itself requires all the models in that unit to move as close as possible, with no holding back. While this is not specified in the Rage USR, it is specified that they MUST move as fast as possible. Which to me sounds like Compulsory movement, as in NO CHOICE, just like the assault move.

 

While it isn't much of a stretch, and dare I say Logical, to say that a unit subject to rage must have the entire unit move as quickly as possible towards the closest enemy unit, it is quite a huge stretch to say that one model representing the unit can move as quickly as possible and allow the other models in the unit IGNORE the MANDATORY movement of Rage to go in a completely different direction.

 

Just my take on how this thing should happen and my reactions to the arguments back and forth about rage.

[shatter]

Assault moves have their own rules and are fairly well laid out. Cross phase referencing isn't a good idea if you ask me.

 

Assault moves =/= movement as relates to movement within movement phase rules. The rules are different and self contained in both.

 

Reference 1: pg. 3 of the BRB - "When Measuring distances between two units, use the closest models as your reference points... So for example, if any model in a unit is within 2" of an enemy unit/model, the unit is said to be within 2" of that enemy unit/model".

 

So, any model (note singular) satisfies a unit [move]? That's the main point in the counterargument to your position.

 

So, one model moving as fast as possible with coherency maintained satisfies [unit] Rage.

 

Please notice that the rage rule does not state 'whole unit' nor 'all the models', nor simply models. The only reference to individuals is when the word 'warriors' is used.

 

The sole downside to Rage is that the owning player cannot ignore the closest target with respect to movement. This target must be moved towards without attempt to minimize the distance. The rule does not specify the entirety of the unit as in all models. Which means regular movement rules for Rage units merely include the disadvantage.

 

Regular movement rules and freedoms are not suspended, only added to via the specificness of the constraint itself.

To refute this, you refute a lot of the BRB.

 

The argument against your position refutes nothing.

[spartan249]

So, one model moving as fast as possible with coherency maintained satisfies [unit] Rage.

 

Please notice that the rage rule does not state 'whole unit' nor 'all the models', nor simply models. The only reference to individuals is when the word 'warriors' is used.

The unit must move as fast as possible towards the closest enemy unit. Moving any of the models in that unit in any direction other than in a straight line towards the closest unit is not moving as fast as possible towards the closest enemy unit, thus not satisfying rage. What you did is the direct opposite of what rage says, which is an immediate reason to pack up when done.

 

So the word "unit" refers to all the models in that squad, as a whole, until it is mentioned in Rage. Selective reading, anyone?

 

The argument against your position refutes nothing.

So you saying that I'm right?

[Captain Malachi]

Bigdunc, I'm just going to go through your points on each rule you mentioned in your post on the last page. Start with 4E fall back.

 

Ok, I don't have the fourth ed book to check how the other rules in it would work, but that's irrelevant anyway. If the fall back rule was still written like that, then yes, it would work as only one model having to move to the table edge and the others stay in coherency. Fair? Logical? No. RAW? Yes. I don't think anyone's arguing what is fair or logical here, but this is an official rules forum, RAW is God here. Nothing else matters. We're not saying you have to play like that in friendly games, but we are saying 'this is what the rules say' and 'docking sportsmanship points because someone doesn't agree with your opinion on how the game should be played is unfair'.

 

RZ is essentially pointless in this discussion. How it works has no bearing on how rage works by RAW, and it's ruling in an FAQ has even less bearing.

 

Lash: As others have said, the controlling is done by the chaos player. Now, I understand your point, but you're missing something important: Lash is NOT obligatory movement. It's optional, just the options are given to your opponent instead. Therefore, the chaos player can do whatever he wants with them in the same way you can do whatever you want with them normally.

 

Lurk and pinning (they're basically the same point anyway): Ok, this is a little harder to explain and I just woke up, so bear with me. You say, if one model doesn't move, the whole unit hasn't moved. Except, that clearly doesn't work, because the models that do move have made the unit move. The rules don't say 'pick a model in the unit and that affects whether the other models are considered to have moved/shot' it says 'if one model has moved/shot, the whole unit is considered to have done so'.

 

Prevented movement does not follow the same logic as forced movement.

 

 

Now, normally I'd have left a discussion before it got to this point, but Bigdunc, docking sportmanship points for using the generally accepted interpretation of a rule, wrong or not, is ridiculously unfair. Your opponent is simply playing the game the way he was taught, and you're penalising him for it and accusing him of, essentially, cheating. Make your point, ask a judge if it gets to that point, but don't dock points when he believes he's right just as much as you do. You claim you'd only do it when presented logical arguments and still arguing, but you're doing that right now, that's what makes a debate.

 

I'm not meaning to attack you or anything here, just trying to make a point.

[BigDunc]

Regular movement rules and freedoms are not suspended, only added to via the specificness of the constraint itself.

To refute this, you refute a lot of the BRB.

The movement phase rules tell us three important things:

1. Movement itself is optional. A unit doesn't have to move.

2. Distance is optional. A unit can move up to the maximum allowed.

3. Direction is optional. A unit can move in any direction (with limitations on impassible terrain, enemy models, etc).

 

Those three are the core movement rules, but additionally the movement phase rules add Unit Coherency to the mix.

 

Rage has three requirements.

1. Movement. The unit must move.

2. A distance. The unit must go as fast as possible.

3. A direction. The unit must move towards the nearest enemy unit.

 

The only aspect of the movement phase rules that Rage does not override is Unit Coherency. Rage 'adds' nothing to the movement rules, it supersedes almost all of them. We are not refuting the BRB, Rage itself is refuting the BRB movement rules.

 

The interpretative trouble we as a thread are having is determining what 'unit' means. IMO, that's the big issue, and for some reason that interpretation changes when movement goes from being optional (like regular movement) to obligatory (like Rage).

 

The argument against your position refutes nothing.

(Just to verify, this argument you speak of is "one model moving as fast as possible with coherency maintained satisfies [unit] Rage".)

 

You are correct. This argument refutes nothing because it is an interpretation of RAW. However, consistent use in similar situations (obligatory actions) of that interpretation leads to the Lash, Pinning, Fall Back, and Lurk examples I mentioned above. Does anyone consider those examples correct interpretation of RAW? If not, why?

 

I'm pretty sure a unit's movement isn't finished until the controlling player is finished with it. With lash, that aint you.

You'd be justified in wanting to stop the player, but doing it isn't legal.

While I think you're correct (that this wouldn't be legal), I'm also not the one taking a hardcore RAW stance towards any of these rulings, you guys are. So, it's only fair to ask, where is it written that this is illegal?

[BigDunc]

@Captain Malachi- I have upset people in this thread with my position on sportsmanship. In reality, I wouldn't be so hardcore. There's more to a sportsmanship score than a single rule dispute. I realize this is the popular interpretation and will expect it at tournaments. My approach would be to challenge the rule and hopefully argue well enough (and quickly enough) to earn a roll off, after which I would accept the results and continue playing. When I got a chance I would try to find the TO and player and further elaborate on my position, and hear theirs. I would likely not dock someone just for a rules dispute like this because it does boil down to interpretation.

 

While there's more to sportsmanship (like being courteous and respectful), there's also playing fair. Acknowledging a rule is unfair yet continuing to play it unfairly because it's RAW is, to me, a textbook example of being unsportsmanlike. I'm not calling anybody here, or anyone else, a cheater because they play a rule as RAW. Also, docking someone's sportsmanship score is not the same as calling them a cheat. Cheating is a beast all its own and sportsmanship score encompass a lot more than that.

 

All that being said, it frustrates me when people say things like you have: "Fair? Logical? No. RAW? Yes. I don't think anyone's arguing what is fair or logical here, but this is an official rules forum, RAW is God here." Aren't we setting the bar a little low here? In my opinion, a pure RAW approach to the rules is flawed. Despite this being 'official rules', part of my motivation here is to make people think and hold them to a higher standard. The popularity of a ruling has a lot of power, more so than the power RAW wields. Changing the popular interpretation to something that is fair and logical (which is possibly not RAW) isn't impossible, it just takes a effort and open mindedness. After that, RAW becomes irrelevant (like I have arguably shown with Lash/Pinning/etc). During a game isn't the place to do that, but forums and post game discussions are exactly where we should be challenging rules that have unfair and illogical RAW interpretations.

 

 

RZ is essentially pointless in this discussion. How it works has no bearing on how rage works by RAW, and it's ruling in an FAQ has even less bearing.

In a RAW sense discussing RZ in the context of Rage is pointless, I agree. However I, and others, don't take the purely RAW approach, so that's why I include it.

 

Lash: As others have said, the controlling is done by the chaos player. Now, I understand your point, but you're missing something important: Lash is NOT obligatory movement. It's optional, just the options are given to your opponent instead. Therefore, the chaos player can do whatever he wants with them in the same way you can do whatever you want with them normally.

From my position of being a BT player fighting Chaos, Lash is indeed obligatory movement. By obligatory movement I mean the owning player's models/units are moved without the owning player deciding if, where, and/or how far they move. Me, the owning player, does not get to decide any of those things against Lash, or Rage.

 

Lurk and pinning (they're basically the same point anyway): Ok, this is a little harder to explain and I just woke up, so bear with me. You say, if one model doesn't move, the whole unit hasn't moved. Except, that clearly doesn't work, because the models that do move have made the unit move. The rules don't say 'pick a model in the unit and that affects whether the other models are considered to have moved/shot' it says 'if one model has moved/shot, the whole unit is considered to have done so'.

 

Prevented movement does not follow the same logic as forced movement.

Its hard to argue for a rule that is completely wrong and that I don't agree with, which is what I'm trying to do here with Lurk and Pinning (and Lash for that matter). Basically I'm trying to take a purely RAW approach.

 

The whole RAW argument here in this thread revolves around one model fulfilling the obligation of the unit. If a unit is obligated to stand still, then one model can fulfill that obligation by standing still. Using RAW, the unit can actually move while still fulfilling it's obligation not to move. It doesn't work logically but it's RAW, which is why I think the RAW argument in this thread is flawed. Which is the point of these examples. In order to be consistent with RAW, which is fair to ask for, every obligatory situation must be handled the same. Lurk, Pinning, Lash... they're all not played the way I've RAWyer'd and yet Rage/RZ is, and I think that's inconsistent.

[Dan VK]

I'm pretty sure a unit's movement isn't finished until the controlling player is finished with it. With lash, that aint you.

You'd be justified in wanting to stop the player, but doing it isn't legal.

While I think you're correct (that this wouldn't be legal), I'm also not the one taking a hardcore RAW stance towards any of these rulings, you guys are. So, it's only fair to ask, where is it written that this is illegal?

All that being said, it frustrates me when people say things like you have: "Fair? Logical? No. RAW? Yes. I don't think anyone's arguing what is fair or logical here, but this is an official rules forum, RAW is God here." Aren't we setting the bar a little low here? In my opinion, a pure RAW approach to the rules is flawed. Despite this being 'official rules', part of my motivation here is to make people think and hold them to a higher standard. The popularity of a ruling has a lot of power, more so than the power RAW wields. Changing the popular interpretation to something that is fair and logical (which is possibly not RAW) isn't impossible, it just takes a effort and open mindedness. After that, RAW becomes irrelevant (like I have arguably shown with Lash/Pinning/etc). During a game isn't the place to do that, but forums and post game discussions are exactly where we should be challenging rules that have unfair and illogical RAW interpretations.

If the players are in a basement they can play using whatever rules they want. If the players are in a store they can play however both players consent to play while abiding by the rules of the store (if there are any). The only place RAW matters is competitive play, such as tournaments, where, in the absence of a TO to lay down the law, evidence is key to any rules argument. Intention may lend support to an argument, but the rules, as they are written, are the strongest support for a rules argument. It does not matter if Player A insists that World Eaters use Drop Pods in their assault and backs his argument with fairness. If Player B flips through Codex: Chaos Space Marines and there is no profile or option for Drop Pods then Player A may not use them, even if they are transporting his World Eater Khorne Berzerkers. More importantly, we are not currently playing anywhere; we are participating in the Official Rules forum, where a Rules As Written stance is the only defensible kind of stance. Official Rules means the Rules As they are Written, whether they are written in the BRB, a codex, or an errata/FAQ article.

 

The whole RAW argument here in this thread revolves around one model fulfilling the obligation of the unit. If a unit is obligated to stand still, then one model can fulfill that obligation by standing still. Using RAW, the unit can actually move while still fulfilling it's obligation not to move. It doesn't work logically but it's RAW, which is why I think the RAW argument in this thread is flawed. Which is the point of these examples. In order to be consistent with RAW, which is fair to ask for, every obligatory situation must be handled the same. Lurk, Pinning, Lash... they're all not played the way I've RAWyer'd and yet Rage/RZ is, and I think that's inconsistent.

 

The RAW argument revolves around one model fulfilling a specific obligation of the unit because of the wording for measuring distances between units, which only takes into account the nearest models of the units. A single model may determine the status of all models within that unit (post #94). The BRB clearly refutes "the unit can actually move while still fulfilling it's obligation not to move" with the whole unit counts as moving if any of its models moved in the Movement phase (BRB page 17).

 

 

[Edit: Added additional responses; bigdunc ninja'd my post ]

[shatter]

So, one model moving as fast as possible with coherency maintained satisfies [unit] Rage.

 

Please notice that the rage rule does not state 'whole unit' nor 'all the models', nor simply models. The only reference to individuals is when the word 'warriors' is used.

The unit must move as fast as possible towards the closest enemy unit. Moving any of the models in that unit in any direction other than in a straight line towards the closest unit is not moving as fast as possible towards the closest enemy unit, thus not satisfying rage. What you did is the direct opposite of what rage says, which is an immediate reason to pack up when done.

 

So the word "unit" refers to all the models in that squad, as a whole, until it is mentioned in Rage. Selective reading, anyone?

 

The argument against your position refutes nothing.

So you saying that I'm right?

 

As fast as possible does not mean all models are forced to move as your idea of rage requires. It's a restriction on distance managed by the unit overall. The BRB says distance is affected by change in the unit's footprint.

 

And this continual use of: the word "unit" refers to all the models in that squad is simply wrong. Nothing is referred. The unit IS the models. There's no compulsion stated anywhere in the rules to apply unit affects to models unless a specific rule or rule method or procedure requires it. The rules for managing such things are separate and covered where applicable.

 

Folks want to apply a unit movement constraint to models where the rule doesn't tell them to do so. That's it. That is all. The end.

 

Selective reading? Yeah, it's true. I selected the rage rule and read it. =p

 

Please guys, just identify the fact that you want rage to mean all models despite the fact that only the unit footprint model closest to the enemy needs to move full distance possible at it.

 

I don't have to want anything. I only have to read and follow the BRB.

 

In my opinion, the RAWyering done here is not from my side of the fence. I'm not trying to bend anything or seek odd precedence. The Rage rule simply isn't the all encompassing demon so many people think it is.

 

 

 

Regular movement rules and freedoms are not suspended, only added to via the specificness of the constraint itself.

To refute this, you refute a lot of the BRB.

The movement phase rules tell us three important things:

1. Movement itself is optional. A unit doesn't have to move.

2. Distance is optional. A unit can move up to the maximum allowed.

3. Direction is optional. A unit can move in any direction (with limitations on impassible terrain, enemy models, etc).

 

Those three are the core movement rules, but additionally the movement phase rules add Unit Coherency to the mix.

 

Rage has three requirements.

1. Movement. The unit must move.

2. A distance. The unit must go as fast as possible.

3. A direction. The unit must move towards the nearest enemy unit.

 

The only aspect of the movement phase rules that Rage does not override is Unit Coherency. Rage 'adds' nothing to the movement rules, it supersedes almost all of them. We are not refuting the BRB, Rage itself is refuting the BRB movement rules.

 

The interpretative trouble we as a thread are having is determining what 'unit' means. IMO, that's the big issue, and for some reason that interpretation changes when movement goes from being optional (like regular movement) to obligatory (like Rage).

 

The argument against your position refutes nothing.

(Just to verify, this argument you speak of is "one model moving as fast as possible with coherency maintained satisfies [unit] Rage".)

 

You are correct. This argument refutes nothing because it is an interpretation of RAW. However, consistent use in similar situations (obligatory actions) of that interpretation leads to the Lash, Pinning, Fall Back, and Lurk examples I mentioned above. Does anyone consider those examples correct interpretation of RAW? If not, why?

 

The rules quoted immediately above (pinning, fall back blahblah) have their own instructions that are quite specific. They don't help at all.

 

Your core movement rules are missing massive chunks. From being able to use measuring devices, how close to a unit another may move to IC attachment and terrain and lots more. Sadly, they're scattered everywhere in the BRB.

 

Your rage rule broken down to 3 components is ok. A little past that you admit to not knowing what unit means with respect to Rage. However, you've decided that in the case of rage, the obligatory movement is all-encompassing and includes a model-by-model method despite the rule not stating it. (Unlike turbo-boosting* for cover save)

 

Don't get me wrong here though, dude. I do see your point. I just think it's way weaker than simply following the rage rule with regard to movement and measuring distances (between units).

[spartan249]

The unit IS the models.

I think I'll just stop arguing at this point, as we're in agreement. The unit IS the models, hence all the models must move as quickly as possible towards the closest enemy unit because models = unit!

 

Glad we're in agreement.

[Brother-Captain Devlonir]

The unit IS the models.

I think I'll just stop arguing at this point, as we're in agreement. The unit IS the models, hence all the models must move as quickly as possible towards the closest enemy unit because models = unit!

 

Glad we're in agreement.

 

Gotta love people who don't read..

 

The unit is the models, so what the unit as a whole does defines what the models themselves have done as well.

So if the unit moved AFAP towards the enemy, all models in the unit have regardless of what specific models have!

 

I'm sorry bigdunc and spartan, but I simply cannot accept your opinion as an intepretation of RAW as it adds an extra relation. The BRB states a unit is a collection of models, it does not say that a collection of models defines what a unit is. Your reasoning goes the wrong way when it comes to the unit-model relationship.

[Mezkh]

The unit IS the models.

I think I'll just stop arguing at this point, as we're in agreement. The unit IS the models, hence all the models must move as quickly as possible towards the closest enemy unit because models = unit!

 

Glad we're in agreement.

 

Goodness gracious.

 

Let me introduce you to Fallacy of Division.

[shatter]

Yeah, what they said.

 

 

I tend to avoid discussing sophistry as it makes people resentful.

 

[Grey Mage]

I am opening this thread for the last time.

 

Any personal attacks, cussing, or other general stupidity will get this permanently locked and the subject banned from discussion in this subforum for a month. It will likely result in a few warnings too.

 

Keep it civil.

[BigDunc]

Hey Mezkh, I'm curious how you would apply the Fallacy of Division in terms of Rage.

 

Please guys, just identify the fact that you want rage to mean all models despite the fact that only the unit footprint model closest to the enemy needs to move full distance possible at it.

'Want' has nothing to do with it. I'm not wanting Rage to be this way to handicap my opponent because interpreting Rage my way actually handicaps myself as well. I play BT with RZ which also says a 'unit' must do something. My interpretation of RZ/Rage (every model in the unit must Rage/RZ) is a handicap (a relative concept) to myself. With the popular interpretation of 'unit' in regards to Rage and RZ, I could do some gnarly tricks in my opponents shooting phase. However, I don't think the popular interpretation is correct.

 

More importantly, we are not currently playing anywhere; we are participating in the Official Rules forum, where a Rules As Written stance is the only defensible kind of stance. Official Rules means the Rules As they are Written, whether they are written in the BRB, a codex, or an errata/FAQ article.

Several of you guys have made this 'official rules' point, to include that "RAW is God here", so I want to touch real quick on 'official rules' and RAW.

 

From a RAW perspective, it's only fair that if "RAW is God" that it be written somewhere. That'll be difficult though considering GW has never written that RAW is the 'only defensible' method for interpreting rules. RAW has become generally accepted by the gaming community as the better approach to unclear rules because it creates a sharper line than RAI does. However, 'generally accepted by the gaming community' is far different than the method as defined by GW.

 

To quote the rulebook, pg 2, The Most Important Rule:

"... so it is important to remember that the rules are just a framework to create an enjoyable game"

"You could even decide to change the rules to suit you better..."

"The most important rule is that the rules aren't all that important!"

 

And from the GW website:

"The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'."

"In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation."

 

'Official Rules' means nothing other than 'the rules released by GW'. 'Official Rules' does not mean 'these are the rules everyone has to follow'. These 'rules' are actually 'guidelines' and as supported by the rulebook NO-ONE has to follow them. Players, FLGS, and Tournaments. None of these collective bodies have to follow abide by the GW rules and FAQs. Tournament Organizers (the good ones) understand this and therefore state which rulebooks and FAQs will be the 'official' rules for that event. When a player signs up for a tournament he accepts the stated rules to be official. If a TO so wished, he could create his own FAQ (even his own rulebook). That power is granted by the BRB. These homegrown rules themselves actually become 'official' as soon as a player willingly signs up for a tournament, thereby accepting those homegrown rules to be official. 'Official' is merely an adjective added to 'rules' to signify the rules that are agreed upon.

 

B&C is a collective body just like an FLGS or tournament. They have the power to create rules or FAQs just like any group (even a single player). They also have the power to say "RAW is the only acceptable method of interpretation". However, they haven't done that, and until then, the position that "RAW is God in the Official Rules sub-forum" means absolutely nothing.

[thade]

This was a long thread to read through; made me feel bad for skipping out on you all for the week or two that I did, especially since I posted a shenanigan related to RAGE (a massive DC congo line) back in May or June. I don't use DC, but I did once because I have a lot of tac marines and thought it'd be funny to try.

 

RAW Grey Mage and shatter have it right. A unit's range is in fact determined by measuring the closest model in it to the target. There's one half-exception to this; I say "half-exception" because it only works for one side of it, and only with regards to shooting. When you measure range for shooting, one squad at another, you measure each model of the firing squad at whatever model is closest in the target squad. If all the firing squad can read is one model of the target squad, that target squad still takes fire: all models are at risk. Otherwise, whatever model is closest counts for the entire unit. This has a lot of precedent, as people have pointed out, from Sanguine Priests to Force Dome to Null Zone...if one of your models is within range of it, then the unit containing that model is affected by it. No surprise there.

 

So, per RAW, if one model in fact moved closer during the movement phase, Rage is satisfied. Per RAW, the unit has a whole has to consolidate towards the closest enemy unit; that's the only affect Rage has on Assault. Multi-assaults are perfectly legal; in fact, fluff-wise I'd give any player crap who didn't multi-assault with his rabid drool marines. :)

 

Any inference or interpretation of the Rage rule - which includes the cases where any of you may assert that "rage = bonkers, uncontrollable, whatever" - is RAI. It's unnecessary RAI, given how clear the Rage rule is. As long as the player also abides by the rules for Assault movement (which is not Movement in the Movement phase, mind you) and multi-assault rules, everything described in the OP is legal.

 

And, is it really so bad? The answer is no. It is not that bad. Just pump more bolter rounds into them; that's all the Emperor asks of you.

[Dan VK]

I believe we may be getting off-topic. I will cease my participation in this particular discussion if that is the case and return to discussing Rage.

 

From a RAW perspective, it's only fair that if "RAW is God" that it be written somewhere. That'll be difficult though considering GW has never written that RAW is the 'only defensible' method for interpreting rules. RAW has become generally accepted by the gaming community as the better approach to unclear rules because it creates a sharper line than RAI does. However, 'generally accepted by the gaming community' is far different than the method as defined by GW.

No. Quotes from the main rulebook, codices, and errata are examples of direct evidence. Inferences made using the choice of words in the main rulebooks, codices, and errata, as well as inferences made by applying the conclusion of one argument to a different argument are examples of circumstantial evidence.

 

To quote the rulebook, pg 2, The Most Important Rule:

"... so it is important to remember that the rules are just a framework to create an enjoyable game"

"You could even decide to change the rules to suit you better..."

"The most important rule is that the rules aren't all that important!"

As I stated previously, and state regularly in other threads, I completely agree with this in my own games and support players keeping this the most important rule in all games. I believe mutual consent on all rules is the best way to play. However, just because a rule may be changed does not mean the rule actually says what a person wants it to say. As far as I know, the purpose of the +OR+ is to discuss what the rules say, not what they should say. For example:

 

A pair of players decide they do not like the Consolidate rule. The rule reads a unit making a Consolidate move rolls a d6 and may move that distance in inches. The players instead play that a unit making a Consolidate move must move 6" in any direction. How the players play the rule does not change what the rule says in the book, and in no way affects the validity of how anyone else plays the rule.

 

And from the GW website:

"The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'."

"In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation."

Quotes from FAQs are also examples of circumstantial evidence, but because they are directly from Games Workshop they carry more weight than the same evidence presented by others.

 

'Official Rules' means nothing other than 'the rules released by GW'. 'Official Rules' does not mean 'these are the rules everyone has to follow'. These 'rules' are actually 'guidelines' and as supported by the rulebook NO-ONE has to follow them. Players, FLGS, and Tournaments. None of these collective bodies have to follow abide by the GW rules and FAQs. Tournament Organizers (the good ones) understand this and therefore state which rulebooks and FAQs will be the 'official' rules for that event. When a player signs up for a tournament he accepts the stated rules to be official. If a TO so wished, he could create his own FAQ (even his own rulebook). That power is granted by the BRB. These homegrown rules themselves actually become 'official' as soon as a player willingly signs up for a tournament, thereby accepting those homegrown rules to be official. 'Official' is merely an adjective added to 'rules' to signify the rules that are agreed upon.

Continuing to argue because I missed the point someone tried to convey is unfortunately not a rare event for me, so please correct me if I am currently missing your point, bigdunc. Are you suggesting that the +OR+ begin discussing the fairest and most enjoyable way to play the game rather than how the rules state the game is played?

 

B&C is a collective body just like an FLGS or tournament. They have the power to create rules or FAQs just like any group (even a single player). They also have the power to say "RAW is the only acceptable method of interpretation". However, they haven't done that, and until then, the position that "RAW is God in the Official Rules sub-forum" means absolutely nothing.

I believe the +OR+ subforum and its (sub?)subforums are rules answers by the B&C community equivalent to a community FAQ, and however the community chooses to achieve those answers is up to them. I believe evidence is the only way to determine the validity of statements and direct evidence is the strongest support for an argument. As long as I am part of the community this is the only method I will support for determining what to tell people when they ask how to achieve their desired course of action by the rules.

 

 

[Edit: Using all of the words necessary to complete a statement is generally advisable. :teehee:]

[Isiah]

OK I think this one has run its course. If anyone has anything to add to this topic from a rules perspective, please PM Grey Mage or myself and we'll consider reopening it.

 

For the record, the +OR+ rules discussions are based on RAW as what else is there that is a constant? I don't see the issue on this. Anyway it certainly isn't up for discussion in this topic.

 

 

Cheers

I