Rage... and do I understand it...

[TrentL]

I want to make sure my understanding of Rage is good for when I use my DC against my wife...

 

Since I'm the go to person of the two of us for the rules I don't want to cheat her.

 

- DC must move at maximum movement towards closest VISIBLE enemy

- During the Shooting phase they can decide to run. But it doesn't say that the DC must shoot at the closest VISIBLE enemy.

- If DC decide to Run they must run towards closest VISIBLE enemy.

- During the Assault Phase the DC must consolidate towards the closest VISIBLE enemy. Though it does not state you have to CHARGE the closest VISIBLE enemy

 

So I have 2 enemy units,

 

Boyz mob of 30 - 13 inches away

10 Lootas - 14 inches away

 

I could move 6 inches towards the boyz, then fire at the Lootas (assuming LOS) or

I could move 12 inches with my JP towards the boyz, then shoot and assault the lootas (assuming LOS and that there was a clear path)

 

The other thing I'm wondering is the Visible part of what I read on page 76 of the BRB...

 

I choose what units I want to move first 2nd third etc, lets say that my wife decides to use a Trukk to try and lure of my DC off to a corner of the board, I could then use my fast rhino to move between the two units, blocking line of site from the trukk, allowing me to move towards the next closest visible enemy? What if the Rhino blocks line of site from all Enemies am I free to move them at my own choice??

[JamesI]

You have to move as close as you can, so if the DC have packs, you must go 12 inches towards the closest.

 

If you end up in shooting/assault range of another unit, sure you can do that.

[Race Bannon]

Let your wife win ;)

 

JamesI has it: you must move toward the closest unit. That's all Rage requires.

[bystrom]

You have to move as fast as possible towards the closest unit, hence with jump packs you're forced to use them and move 12".

[Vanor]

What if the Rhino blocks line of site from all Enemies am I free to move them at my own choice??

 

I would say yes. If you can't see any enemy unit then you're free to move as you see fit.

[ShinyRhino]

What if the Rhino blocks line of site from all Enemies am I free to move them at my own choice??

 

I would say yes. If you can't see any enemy unit then you're free to move as you see fit.

 

Just remember that if even one model in the DC has even a sliver of LOS to an Ork's toenail, they must move toward the Orks.

[Reglor]

One thing about it not saying that you have to charge the closest visible enemy is that if one enemy is 1" away and another is 5" away you can charge the one 5" away.

[Grey Mage]

Yeah, but with death company... theres not much of a reason not to... if you cant hurt it, itll just charge you next turn with extra attacks, if you can hurt it you might as well get extra attacks and furious charge while you can.

[Reglor]

Not if its a rhino or drop pod or something like that that was put there to get the DCs attention you.

[chapter master 454]

What if the Rhino blocks line of site from all Enemies am I free to move them at my own choice??

 

I would say yes. If you can't see any enemy unit then you're free to move as you see fit.

 

Just remember that if even one model in the DC has even a sliver of LOS to an Ork's toenail, they must move toward the Orks.

 

"RAWR YOUR DISGUSTING TOENAILS OFFEND THE GOD EMPEROR, YOU FILL ME WITH RAGE OF THE BEAUTIFUL KIND. FACE MY POWDER WEAPON AND BLOT PISTOL!"

[Race Bannon]

@ Reglor: debatable. With Krak grenades, Marines CAN assault a Rhino and Drop Pod and do damage to them.

 

But, since Rage does not require a charge then the point is moot. Although the DC would still have to move toward the Rhino if it were the closest enemy unit.

[Reglor]

@ Reglor: debatable. With Krak grenades, Marines CAN assault a Rhino and Drop Pod and do damage to them.

 

But, since Rage does not require a charge then the point is moot. Although the DC would still have to move toward the Rhino if it were the closest enemy unit.

 

Never said they couldn't hurt it. But what would you rather charge, an Empty rhino 1" away or a scoring unit 5" away that is on a objective.

[Race Bannon]

The choice is clear ... but it's still a choice :cuss

[hmk17]

Now what is the LOS for a Rage induced move, though?

 

I have 180 degree front arc thing stuck in my head (thinking maybe based on dreadnoughts or another game system) and can't seem to find the stuff in the BRB right now. I have played it that is was based off shooting LOS for visibility and that has been reasonable until yesterday.

 

Teammate was playing DC (no jump packs) and was 8" away from a Sorcerer locked in combat with another unit, all DC models were directly facing him. One of the Chaos players took a Rhino and moved it 12", getting it 7.99" away from the DC. However, it was directly to their backs (No possible LOS for shooting, and readily visible to that unit).

 

When it came time for the DC's movement phase, the Chaos players argued that Awareness LOS was different from LOS for Shooting and that the DC would move to the Rhino because it was closer despite being behind them. They stated that Awareness was 360 degrees of the model, but models can only shoot at things they are aiming at (which they agreed would be the 180 front arc of a round base model).

 

I argued that if Awareness for purposes of Rage was 360, then it completely negates the moonwalking DC tactics that have been everywhere in order to bend the system since day 1. I also pointed out that their logic is flawed in that they are bypassing the idea of what Rage is. A rage filled DC is not going to stop, turn circles, use the auspex to judge distance, and when done then turn completely around to walk toward a vehicle when in their original LOS is an arch-enemy killing 4 of their battle brothers. To drive it home, I stood behind one asking if I was visible to him.

 

Any help clearing this up would be appreciated.

[stinkenheim]

only vehicles have facing requirments for LOS, units are assumed to have a 360% LOS that is only blocked by terrain and vehicles etc.

[Mordekiem]

You don't have 'arcs' for vision. You have firing arcs that define where a weapon can shoot and arcs that determine a vehicles armor value. But vision is all around. Besides, trying to ignore something by turning your back to it is just silly.

 

Remember, this is the far future and you have more than your basic eyes to detect bad guys.

[avatar8481]

And yet there are sections of the rule book that suggest that (paraphrasing), "in order to see if you have line of sight, get down behind your model and look out its eyes." There is a general implication, both from 'true line of sight' and the actual words in the rulebook that your model is supposed to be able to see what it can logically see out its 'eyes'. This position is bolstered by the complete lack of any discussion of 360 LoS, if you were supposed to have it, they would say, instead the book presents the 'model's-eye-view' approach.

 

Though I'd expect you'd get into a fight if you tried it, I think the rules are badly written enough to at least allow the argument that turning your models around after movement prevents them from making the compulsory moves towards 'visible enemies'.

 

See also:

YTTH

 

The comments is where it gets good.

[Mordekiem]

And the rules also readily admit that the models are static, but little guys running across the battlefield are not. They admit it in the cover area and the whole concept of cover is that they can 'duck'. Also the going to ground rule is another good example of static models 'hitting the deck'.

 

So would it not then seem to reason that a marine could turn his head and waist to look behind him?

[stinkenheim]

so does that mean that Wraithguard/Wraithlords cannot shoot at all?? Only asking because the last time i looked they didn't have eyes...

 

most units are assumed to have some means of detecting enemies out of sight otherwise you wouldn't be abl to charge through terrain) be it auspex like sensors, psychic divination or enhanced senses. to argue that a model can only shoot at what its head is facing is ridiculous. the term 'models eye view' is much like birds eye view or worms eye view. it isn't discussing an actual bird but rather taking into account the position of something with regards to what its perspective would be.

the reason we need to see what is visible to a model is because perspective lies. whilst something may seem perfectly visible to us standing 3 feet over the table, the models vision may be blocked by pieces of terrain or even the incline of a hill. getting down to the 'models eye view' just gives us a better indication as to what is actually within the models field of vision and as sch what can be targetted. i'm faily certain a marine would be able to hear a Rhino trying to sneak up bhind him, even if he could see a unit of chaos marines hiding in a hedge.

 

+EDIT+ that link to YTTHs... um i may be wrong but i didn't think Rage gave you a bonus to your movement, rather it forced you to move as quickly as possible towards the nearest visible unit, and if you decided to rune then you had to do so towards the nearest unit... because he seems to be der the impression that you gai an additional 6" to your move whilst subjected to Rage. Might be a Tyranid special rule, or it might be him being wrong...

[hmk17]

So what I'm being told is: "Its just an assumption, with no specific rule that can be pointed to at all."

 

Sorry, but I'm not buying. Page 16 describes 40k as using "true line of sight" and describes it as seeing through the "see what they see". This is the only time that anything remotely relevant comes up in the rule book.

 

 

While the the static models do represent fully articulated futuristic humanoids, your counter arguments are edging toward the ridiculous.

 

By the counter arguments:

 

I can shoot backward from my models. (Turning at the waist and neck)

I can shoot through walls and other LOS blocking obstacles. (as I have more than just eyes to find my enemies)

 

 

While granted I opened the "realism door" by pointing out that DC or ANY model with the Rage rule are little more than frothing beasts hell bent on killing the enemy they look at. Almost anything can be validated in with such statements. Each of of us can "prove" our positions based on what "should be" if the models were real. But this is why there are rules to govern those areas.

 

While I'm all in for exploiting any advantage to shaft the DC blender, I want the rules back up the advantage.

 

The hard facts...

 

There is no rule saying that a model has 360 degree LOS for visibility.

There is a rule for Shooting that defines LOS for visibility.

 

GW needs to realize that loose rules seem cool and all, but there are certain things that need to be clearly defined.

 

 

 

Edit:

 

Figured out where I got the front arc thing, Privateer Press. They clearly lay out how LOS works for all purposes. (180 degree front arc, based on the positioning of the direction the model's head is looking at. [which includes blind models who use magic!])

[stinkenheim]

so can you answer my question about whether Wraithguard can shoot as they have no eyes and therefore it is impossible for them to see anything.

 

nothing i the rules state that a model can only see in a limited arc, unlike vehicles for instance where it is clearly stated that certan weapon mounts have a certain arc of fire (eg 90% for pintle mounted weapons, 360% for turrets). without anything in the rules stating clearly that models have a 180% los based on their facing you cannot say for certain that they are unable to perform any action against someone who is behind or to the side of them.

 

tere is nothing in the rules about being able to charge people out of sight, yet you assume it is perfectly reasonable for me to turn around and run at some one andengage them in combat, and yet it is unreasonable for me to simply turn around and shoot them.

 

there are several models with no eyes, many of these have weapons that they are able to fire. i would be very interested if you could tell me why I am now unable to fire these weapons as i cannot gauge what the model can see.

 

this arguement is completely flawed, from both sides i will admit. nothing in the rules states models have a limited arc of fire, and nothing stipulates that they have complete freedom in which direction the shoot. however i would say that without a limitation being directly writtenin the rules it is wrong to assume one exists.

[Grey Mage]

Indeed, Im quite interested in seeing how you explain eyeless units shooting if we go by your definition.

 

There is simply no evidence that we must look out the actual eye of the model as opposed to simply looking from the position of the model with our own eye. In fact, the BRB is kind enough to remind those without common sense that our models are not alive, and thus cannot in fact see anything or tell us what it was they might have been seeing.

 

An infantry model can shoot any target in range that can draw a virtual line segment between the model and a point on the enemy model. Exceptions of course being if you can only trace this ls to a banner, cloak, or ramp, etc.