Chairman_woo Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 Ok so I think the idea of using vehicles to block los and thus rage on death co has been discussed before. But my friend and I had an idea and I'm curious to see what people thaught of it. Theres a point of contention with the rules in particular I'm looking for some alternative views on. anyway... Take a unit of death co (foot or jump), sprinkle with Death co dreads to taste, and surround them with the rest of your army (also on foot or with JP's) around the side and rear so the units at the side overlap a bit at the front a bit like a big horseshoe made of metal/ceramite/plasteel/adamantine men. Now this isent likeley to completeley block los, but what if you make it so the "fastest move possible" towards the nearest enemy unit can only be forwards. The big question or us was wether a sneaky enemy unit behind this bunch (and the closest thing to death co) would mean A: Death Co. do not move or even worse bunch up trying to run backwards through the inpenatrable mass of friendly moddels. or B: Death Co. make a full move forwards as this would represent the fastest path to the enemy unit (much like being behind inpassible terrain where the fastest and only route would be around the object even if it means ending your move further away. Thaughts? If it works i figure it'd work well with a tactical and dread heavy foot slogger army or something like that, even if its a flawed concept strict RAW wize my play group seems to think this is ok given you have to build your whole army around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 You would do A. You move as best you can towards the enemy, if that means run into the wall of your own guys behind you, you do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairman_woo Posted July 9, 2010 Author Share Posted July 9, 2010 You would do A. You move as best you can towards the enemy, if that means run into the wall of your own guys behind you, you do that. So does that then mean Death Co. Can potentially get stuck running into a wall or simmilar inpassible terrain that dosent completeley block their los to a unit? And without wishing to get too rules lawyery "Fastest possible move" seems to suggest the route thats quickest not necessarily the most direct. Not saying I'm right or anything but was looking for a more fleshed out explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother-Captain Devlonir Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 Why that James? They would indeed just keep hitting the wall otherwise. If they can move around something to get to the closest enemy, they will.. as it is the fastest possible move to the target, fastest =/= shortest always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 Moving forwards would be moving away from the closest visiable enemy, therefore illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarnak Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 The rule only dictates that you have to take the fastest route to the closest visible enemy. If you have to run around a house, impassible ruins or half the map to get there does not matter as long as it is the fastest route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairman_woo Posted July 10, 2010 Author Share Posted July 10, 2010 Moving forwards would be moving away from the closest visiable enemy, therefore illegal. Thing is I cant recall the Rage rule saying anything about not moving away from the nearest visible enemy unit, only that you must make the "fastest possible move" towards them, by my logic that may well involve ending the move further away if that was the fastest way to trace a line to the enemy unit taking into account impassible terrain etc. is not a straight line. Do you have a different interpretation of the Rage rule? I'm totally ready to be proved completeley wrong was just hoping for more than "no its against the rules". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 a unit with Rage has no control of themselves to decide to travel in a different direction. They see the enemy, they go towards it. If something blocks their way, too bad, they try to go through it. The death company do not have the control of their own minds to try to circle (or far worse to turn away from the enemy they see and go somewhere else). They try to move towards them running into the wall of marines behind them. I'm sorry, but if I was watching/playing in this game I would call the action of moving away illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairman_woo Posted July 10, 2010 Author Share Posted July 10, 2010 a unit with Rage has no control of themselves to decide to travel in a different direction. They see the enemy, they go towards it. If something blocks their way, too bad, they try to go through it. The death company do not have the control of their own minds to try to circle (or far worse to turn away from the enemy they see and go somewhere else). They try to move towards them running into the wall of marines behind them. I'm sorry, but if I was watching/playing in this game I would call the action of moving away illegal. Thing is the rage rule dosent say "do not have the control of their own minds" or even "end the move closer than you started", it says "fastest possible move" suggesting that the unit trys to get to the enemy unit by the fastest route possible (not necessarily the most direct). They arnt necessarily stupid, just very very eager to bash the nearest baddies, the black rage dosent turn them into animals (thats the red thirst which Death Company are specifically being sent to die, inorder to avoid!!!) it just twists their sense of reality out of all proportion, so they are essentially living out a fantasy/memory (I imagine it'd be alot like they had taken a epic dose of DMT/LSD or simmilar, i.e. real things being expereinced in a dreamlike/fantastical way). Death Co. see nearest enemy unit and then moves "as fast as possible" which I think can genuineley be argued will often involve going around things and not just running in a straight line towards the enemy especially if that means running up against a wall like something out of a bad comedy sketch. Do you belive I'm misreading or miss-interpreting the rage rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 I believe you are trying to eliminate the downside of Rage. Make it so they can't go towards the target they can see and you can move them however you want and say that was the best route. In my mind that is cheating. If you can see an enemy, and your move puts you farther away from them than where you started, how can that follow the rules for rage? I guess in my mind the important word is "towards". Under no circumstances does moving away from an enemy qualify as "towards". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairman_woo Posted July 10, 2010 Author Share Posted July 10, 2010 I believe you are trying to eliminate the downside of Rage. Make it so they can't go towards the target they can see and you can move them however you want and say that was the best route. In my mind that is cheating. If you can see an enemy, and your move puts you farther away from them than where you started, how can that follow the rules for rage? I guess in my mind the important word is "towards". Under no circumstances does moving away from an enemy qualify as "towards". Well for a kick of, yes of cource I am trying to find a potential counter to the rage rule that was essentially the point of the post/idea. I am not however trying to cheat quite the reverse I'm looking for informed rules based reasons for why this might or might not be considered cheating. You may be correct but it feels like you have a assumption about how said rule works (which may be correct) but you do not appear to have really explained this with reference to the rules as worded. As I stated before I dont recall the rage rule actually saying you have to end closer than when you started, it says "fastest possible move" towards the nearest enemy unit which dosent necessarily seem to mean a straight line, it would be "faster" to go around something inpassible than to run innefectually against it would it not? Are you saying units with rage always move in a straight line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairman_woo Posted July 10, 2010 Author Share Posted July 10, 2010 Sorry for double post but this seemed too long to justify as an edit. I agree "Towards" is probbably the pivotal word here but wouldent it also be valid (in general english usage) to describe reducing the distance one would need to move to reach something, e.g. I could be travelling towards glasgow but may find myself actually increacing the distance between us in places inorder to do this (twisty roads or whatever). Could I not still assert that I was moving "towards" glasgow during the moments when the "fastest" route involves increacing the distance between me and glasgow? Might the very reason the rule is worded "fastest possible move" rather than "end your move as close as possible" be inorder to allow Rage units to manouver around things and maintain their own coherency rather than getting stuck on a rock or becuase one guy clips a tank? (Am I fundamentally misremebering the wording of that rule? I dont have BRB to hand right now) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanguinarian Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 @JamesI - Sounds as if our DC are mindless zombies that have forgotten all of their training and would just pen themselves up in impassable terrain just because they can see the enemy??? SOLUTION: DON'T WALK THEM ACROSS THE BOARD!!! Put them in a transport, send them and a Baal ripping around a flank or the rear of the enemy, and let them loose. They are uncontrollable once on foot, so don't accentuate that weakness, turn it into a strength by positioning them to do what they are meant to do - rip the heart out of the enemy. How can you do that if they can see you walking across the board? Oooohhhh, scary! NOT!!! Deep Strike them in a Land Raider or just park them in deep cover in their black Rhino for a turn or 2 and let them be a major distraction to your opponent while the rest of your army pounds them to dust. Then "Release the hounds!!!" I prefer an LR so they can assault immediately, but if they're going around a flank they might be able to move flatout once or twice, disembark, shoot, sit one round and then assault. Use them they way they were designed. They are shock troops. Shock troops don't cause fear marching straight up the gut. They cause the most fear when they roll up a flank or hit from the rear. When they're not even on the board on Turn 1 will keep your opponent on edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 Sanguinarian, this thread is not about DC tactics, its is if this particular method is a legal way to escape the problems of Rage. As a strategy (even if it were legal which I am convinced it is not) it is a problem as to be so tightly packed that the DC can no pass through the other units is just setting you up to be blasted with Vindicator shells or other giant pie plates. Now, I've seen nothing that makes me think DC can move away from the closest visible enemy in Chairman_woo's argument. But, I'm going to send this discussion to the official rules forum to get a broader view than just mine arguing against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 I believe you are trying to eliminate the downside of Rage. Make it so they can't go towards the target they can see and you can move them however you want and say that was the best route. In my mind that is cheating. If you can see an enemy, and your move puts you farther away from them than where you started, how can that follow the rules for rage? I guess in my mind the important word is "towards". Under no circumstances does moving away from an enemy qualify as "towards". Well for a kick of, yes of cource I am trying to find a potential counter to the rage rule that was essentially the point of the post/idea. I am not however trying to cheat quite the reverse I'm looking for informed rules based reasons for why this might or might not be considered cheating. You may be correct but it feels like you have a assumption about how said rule works (which may be correct) but you do not appear to have really explained this with reference to the rules as worded. As I stated before I dont recall the rage rule actually saying you have to end closer than when you started, it says "fastest possible move" towards the nearest enemy unit which dosent necessarily seem to mean a straight line, it would be "faster" to go around something inpassible than to run innefectually against it would it not? Are you saying units with rage always move in a straight line? By definition, the shortest route between two points is a straight line. Deviation from that line is not the fastest possible move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellios Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 By definition, the shortest route between two points is a straight line. Deviation from that line is not the fastest possible move. But if the straight line isn't possible it is not the fastest possible move... isn't this what it all comes down to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 a unit with Rage has no control of themselves to decide to travel in a different direction. They see the enemy, they go towards it. If something blocks their way, too bad, they try to go through it. The death company do not have the control of their own minds to try to circle (or far worse to turn away from the enemy they see and go somewhere else). They try to move towards them running into the wall of marines behind them. I'm sorry, but if I was watching/playing in this game I would call the action of moving away illegal. This is correct. Moreover it stops ALOT of potential abuse- well, if I rolled poorly on my difficult/dangerous terrain tests it might take me 30 some turns to get there! So Ill go over this way and kill them.... or going out of LOS by trying to go around the terrain in question. Go to the enemy. Go directly to the enemy. Do not pass go, do not collect skulls for the skull throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer mather Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 im with grey mage on this one, when i deep strike my jump pack dc i treat the rage rule as the crow flys i.e straight line between them and the nearest enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarnak Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 *ahem* ...In the Movement phase, units subject to rage must always move as fast as possible towards the closest visible enemy. ...-Pg. 76, Warhammer 40.000 Official Rulebook, 5th edition. (Topic: Rage) In other words, the unit MUST move as fast as possible towards the closest visible enemy. Walking into a wall and staying put unable to move further is NOT the fastest possible way to reach a destination, the problem as mentioned lies in the wording of the rule that they must move TOWARDS the closest visible enemy. It's up for each person self-interpretation. I would never claim that they would get stuck in a wall however because of the above mentioned reason. Nor have a heard of anyone 'cept for JamesI who has claimed that "ragers" do. ADDENDUM : GW has not commented about this wording in their latest FAQ (Feb, 2010) so it really is up to the gaming group to decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 *ahem* ...In the Movement phase, units subject to rage must always move as fast as possible towards the closest visible enemy. ...-Pg. 76, Warhammer 40.000 Official Rulebook, 5th edition. (Topic: Rage) In other words, the unit MUST move as fast as possible towards the closest visible enemy. Walking into a wall and staying put unable to move further is NOT the fastest possible way to reach a destination, the problem as mentioned lies in the wording of the rule that they must move TOWARDS the closest visible enemy. It's up for each person self-interpretation. I would never claim that they would get stuck in a wall however because of the above mentioned reason. Nor have a heard of anyone 'cept for JamesI who has claimed that "ragers" do. ADDENDUM : GW has not commented about this wording in their latest FAQ (Feb, 2010) so it really is up to the gaming group to decide. I never claimed they would move into a wall (wouldn't the wall block LOS?). I say they would move into other friendly units and not circle around them. Maybe its just because I have never played on a table that has impassible terrain that does not block LOS. Any wall they can see through they can move through on tables I've been on, so are no issue here. I do think moving away would not count as moving towards. Maybe its the physicist in me being too specific, but I can't accept if the closest visible enemy is 8 inches behind me, that moving 6 inches forward is moving towards them. A player could move his other stuff out of the way and allow the DC to pass. Someone using this trick is trying to circumvent Rage and I feel no sympathy having their models run into their own units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drachnon Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 I think people misunderstand the wording the "as fast as possible" is not referring to the fastest route but they must move at the max of their movement speed. In other words this means you can't decide to move less then 6 inch or 12 inch in case of jumppackers. Then it continues that it moves towards the enemy meaning that if something blocks your movement (which might even be things such as friendly skimmers not sure on the rules on that) the Death company will just stand there picking their noses. If the rule had been referring to the fastest route it would mean the rule book would have neglected to say you must move at your maximum movement distance which we can all agree on would be odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarnak Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 Walls don't have to be actual walls. I just used it as a term. It might as well be two Rhinos standing back to back with enemies on one side and DC on the other. I don't say that you are wrong I just don't think it is that way the rule is meant to be used. Maybe this is a topic for the grey rules area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 Walls don't have to be actual walls. I just used it as a term. It might as well be two Rhinos standing back to back with enemies on one side and DC on the other.I don't say that you are wrong I just don't think it is that way the rule is meant to be used. Maybe this is a topic for the grey rules area. Just move the rhinos (or other models) out of the way. I think this is only an issue because someone is trying to block movement avenues without blocking LOS. So, someone doing this is trying to manipulate Rage in a way it was not intended to be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Wilhelm Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 Although JamesI and Grey Mage have intent down to a t, and I agree with them, the writing for RAGE is not very concise. What does fastest mean? What does towards mean? fast 1 |fast| adjective 1 moving or capable of moving at high speed : a fast and powerful car. • performed or taking place at high speed; taking only a short time : the journey was fast and enjoyable. toward |tôrd; t(ə)ˈwôrd| preposition (also towards |tôrdz; t(ə)ˈwôrdz|) 1 in the direction of : I walked toward the front door. • getting closer to achieving (a goal) : an irresistible move toward freedom. • close or closer to (a particular time) : toward the end of April. Neither of those literally mean take a route as the crow flies (or close to it) Fast just means don't hold back from maximum potential movement *cool, use all 6 or 12"* Towards means forwards but also anything up to 89° left or right of that ~ you are moving towards, after all *this would need to have a reason for taking a near sideways movement to get there* Just say you were on a street that ended in a cul-de-sac *dead end* and you needed to get to the next block. You can't drive passed the cul-de-sac because there is a ravine. So do you camp at the end of the street because you are intoxicated with RAGE or do you back track and go round because RAGE has driven you to make a way to find your foe? I think this is something that the owner of the RAGE unit needs to be thinking ~ if I am not going route 1 to bring myself to attack something, am I doing it so I don't have to fight it or don't get kited. If the RAGE owner is not doing this, he can take a less direct route, providing there is no other choice. It is very hard to pin it down, and I think GW made it like that because it is too hard to write out a procedure for RAGE movement. * Has anyone else noticed that RAGE does not say you must assault when possible? I had assumed this was the case.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 Negatory- if your moving at an off angle from the unit your not moving as fast as possible towards the unit. Your moving as fast as you can, yes. Your moving towards the unit, yes. You are not however moving towards the unit as quickly as you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.