Death Company Sandwich

[Marshal Wilhelm]

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.

 

I did say a reason would be needed for this, as in, you can't just go all but sideways because it is convenient. Some kind of obstruction needs to restrict movement but not sight.

 

+++

 

Is it faster to try to go through difficult terrain or around it? (of course this depends on the size of the terrain, etc)

 

Just for a little perverseness :lol: ; as fast as possible (maximum movement used) towards (all but sideways) enemy unit. Satisfies RAW with a dirty interpretation of English.... ;)

 

EDIT: to use more scientific/legalistic terms, the rule does not say 'reduce displacement between you and target by maximum possible amount'. That is what I am drawing attention to. I agree with what its intent is. And that would be how I'd play it.

[Grey Mage]

Sorry, I somehow missed your closing comments.

[dswanick]

I think this is a poster-child example of when Rules Lawyering runs smack into the face of Games Workshop Game Design Method.

 

Yes, there is the argument to be made about the meaning of the rule saying "you must move as fast as possible towards the target unit". So does that mean that you must (move as fast as possible) AND (towards the target), allowing players to abuse the rule by "herding" their Rage units as per the question posed by OP? Or does the rule mean that you must (move as fast as possible towards the target), meaning Rage units are too stupid to realize that if they move around that lava-filled crater that they can see over they will actually be able to engage their taget?

 

I suggest a third option. GW wrote a rule to describe a general function of the game, expecting the players to use their (gasp) common sense. Reason indicates that a Raging unit has to move towards a target without holding back. If that is a straight line directly towards a unit then you must do so. If that means a slightly off course approach to go around said lava-filled crater - I think that too is within the reasonable scope of the rules. I think the crux of the problem is that a reasonable, fair, spirited player should know that positioning his own troops to gain a similar advantage (per the OP description of the "horseshoe maneuver") is not the intent/spirit of the rule. (ZOM#&!~G a R.A.I. argument :D ). Simply put, stop gaming the rules and start playing the game. Just my two cents.

 

The objevtive of playing Warhammer 40,000 is to win, the point of playing Warhammer 40,000 is to have fun - never confuse the two.

[Chairman_woo]

I think this is a poster-child example of when Rules Lawyering runs smack into the face of Games Workshop Game Design Method.

 

Yes, there is the argument to be made about the meaning of the rule saying "you must move as fast as possible towards the target unit". So does that mean that you must (move as fast as possible) AND (towards the target), allowing players to abuse the rule by "herding" their Rage units as per the question posed by OP? Or does the rule mean that you must (move as fast as possible towards the target), meaning Rage units are too stupid to realize that if they move around that lava-filled crater that they can see over they will actually be able to engage their taget?

 

I suggest a third option. GW wrote a rule to describe a general function of the game, expecting the players to use their (gasp) common sense. Reason indicates that a Raging unit has to move towards a target without holding back. If that is a straight line directly towards a unit then you must do so. If that means a slightly off course approach to go around said lava-filled crater - I think that too is within the reasonable scope of the rules. I think the crux of the problem is that a reasonable, fair, spirited player should know that positioning his own troops to gain a similar advantage (per the OP description of the "horseshoe maneuver") is not the intent/spirit of the rule. (ZOM#&!~G a R.A.I. argument ;) ). Simply put, stop gaming the rules and start playing the game. Just my two cents.

 

The objevtive of playing Warhammer 40,000 is to win, the point of playing Warhammer 40,000 is to have fun - never confuse the two.

 

 

Seems fair enough, perhaps a non starter for competitive play it seems, tho by my understanding of english the ambiguity is somewhat stronger than it appears to many others, certainly to me it seems to come down to how Death Co. behave when it commes to "awkward" terrain, which then it seems would shurley apply to the location of friendly moddels counting as impassible terrain within 1" as they do. However myself and every player I know (personally) feel its a perfectly reasonable and fluffy way to run Death Co. in a vehicle-less army regardless, it requires one to have built the army and designed ones tactics specifically to do so, and in game effect terms means simply that Death Co. can be delivered forwards for a turn or 2 before they go back to behaving normally (the "escorts" are never intended (or going) to do anything more than prevent someone breaking the army by questionable use of kiteing on that first turn or 2.

 

Given we live in the age of wound allocation etc. and I am one of the "game for fun/story" crowd more than I am playing for competition I cant really see having any big prob with using it, but I do apreciate many of you play in more open or larger groups where a comprimise is not so easy to reach or the atmosphere is more orentated towards playing to win.

[JamesI]

The problem, woo, is that while impassible terrain may provide issues, friendly models can move out of the way. You are creating a situation to try to circumvent the rule that make DC balanced (rage and the risk of being kited).

[Hellios]

The problem, woo, is that while impassible terrain may provide issues, friendly models can move out of the way. You are creating a situation to try to circumvent the rule that make DC balanced (rage and the risk of being kited).

 

Well if you had berzerk creature in your army... would you let in do its own thing causing bedlam or would you position it using 'handlers' to release it into the enemy? So in some way it makes sense as well... The DC can still be kited but it will take more of the enemies resources to deal with the additional resources you have put in place to prevent them from being kited easily...

[Chairman_woo]

The problem, woo, is that while impassible terrain may provide issues, friendly models can move out of the way. You are creating a situation to try to circumvent the rule that make DC balanced (rage and the risk of being kited).

 

Well if you had berzerk creature in your army... would you let in do its own thing causing bedlam or would you position it using 'handlers' to release it into the enemy? So in some way it makes sense as well... The DC can still be kited but it will take more of the enemies resources to deal with the additional resources you have put in place to prevent them from being kited easily...

 

 

Precisely! Their brothers know what the deal is with Death Company and would presumably take whatever steps they could to ensure they die with the honour they deserve, fighting something worthwhile. The whole army is advancing on foot in a glorious charge and it seems entireley reasonable (atleast fluff wize) for Death Company to be swept away by the moment and the sight of their brothers barreling in alongside them (and might I add massiveley obscuring any enemys to the flanks and rear) untill a turn or 2 later they get close enough for the formation to break to attack and "the hounds" are released.

 

Also I really cant see how this would cause an inballance, as others have suggested there are far more competitive ways of building an army, this was never intended to be the basis of a ball buster list I just wanted a way to justify taking foot death co in a footslogger army without massivley penalising myself. Naturaly I was also curious as to how this would sit with the more serious crowd and I think you guy's have fleshed the argument out pretty well, seems like you wouldent want to push the issue too much when your opponent is steadfastly against the idea but if I figure if even one person can get a fulfilling game out of it with a likeminded opponent then it was worth me shairing.

 

Thanks guy's I love how civil this forum seems compared to some others I could mention...

 

If you have any further input please feel free naturally (not that you need my permition to do anything mind :D )

[Sanguinarian]

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.

 

To answer the question directly, I agree with A. And I'd add that since the OP included DC Dreads in the example, a wall of Marines would not block their LOS, so they would and should toast anything within 24" (6" move + 12" MeltaGun + 6" Charge).

 

Strategically, it makes no sense to walk your DC across the board. But that's a different topic. ;)

[Jakobus]

OK so what instead of a wall, the example was a piece of terrian that has been defined as impassible? i.e. Lava flow some kind of chasm that does not block line of sight?

[ArmouredWing]

OK so what instead of a wall, the example was a piece of terrian that has been defined as impassible? i.e. Lava flow some kind of chasm that does not block line of sight?

I think this is the most interesting issue to come out of this thread by a long way. When it comes to walls or other 'difficult' terrain the answer is easy, direct movement, straight line towards the enemy. The older ruling for PE's/Repentia (holy rage) is a lot clearer on this making the statement where it actually says "must move maximum movement rate...", however (and before any clever dick buts in saying it's not the same ruling) when 5th ed was first released the WH FAQ/Errata stated that 'holy rage' should be classed as 'rage', plain and simple. So the intent in terms of how rage should work was visible for all to see. The key to remember when it comes to 'difficult' terrain is that it can still be traversed though the same cannot be said for impassable terrain.

 

Now, in the event that the nearest target is behind a piece of impassable terrain but can still be seen by the rage unit then that unit would pretty much be scuppered if it couldn't get around, over or through said terrain to get at the juicy target behind. Effectively this becomes a valid tactic for anyone who wants to remove the rage unit from being a threat to their force by keeping its attention on the closest but unobtainable unit behind the impassable terrain. Granted, this isn't someting that will happen very often but there's the potential and something worth keeping in mind.

[Grey Mage]

Yep.... youve got time and placement usually to keep them from running up to the cliff wondering how to get at the lil buggers and gribblies across from them.

 

If not, tip your hat to your opponent.

 

And then hit the 'holding' unit with a couple plasmacannons.