Rage USR

[Grey Mage]

Uh... maybe there is a translation issue here, but I simply can't see how moving around something is towards it or how the always aspect only matters for part of the movement phase.

 

The problem here is one of Aristotelian Logic. You are focusing on the word TOWARDS when your problem is your use of the word ALWAYS - confusing it with the word ONLY. Lets remove game mechanics for a moment.

 

Consider the example: When you go to the grocery store, you must always buy bananas. Can you buy peaches? Your argument is "No, you must always buy bananas." My argument is "As long as you buy bananas, you may also buy peaches." You have confused the word Always with Only. They are very different words when it comes to logic puzzles like this one.

 

Back to RAGE. Since the rule does not require you to stop, nor does it discuss forfeiting movement, there is nothing stopping you from making lateral movement once you have satisfied the "as fast as they can" portion of the rule, as long as that movement is not AWAY from the enemy in question.

Definition of "Always"

At all times. Invariably. Forever. Perpetually.

 

Always does in fact mean that you are doing it constantly. In this case, you must always move towards the enemy with any moves you make. If you are as close the enemy as possible, you cannot in fact move closer, and thus your movement must end, because maintaining distance is not the same as moving closer.

 

And you ALWAYS have to move closer.

 

Because in this case, when your buying those peaches you are no longer buying the bananas ;)

[shinigami]

Ok, i see you all ended up discussing the very same issue people are discussing on the italian forum: which is the actual meaning of the word "always"... i don't know if crying or laughing.. hehe

 

On the italian community, there are people saying that once you have moved to the nearest enemy as fast as possible, you have satisfied the rule, and can then end your movememntin any direction you want; and other people stating that the only possible movememnt for a raged unit is toward the nearest enemy, and ONLY toward it.

 

Is there a way to get an official answer from GW? OK, i know.. there's no way except a FAQ, i suppose...

[Massawyrm]

"In the Movement phase, units subject to rage must always move in a straight line". Can you move in a straight line and then move in a curve?

No. Curve violates Straight the same way Away violates Towards. I'm not arguing that you move, satisfy conditions and then everything is fair game - I'm saying that orbiting said enemy that you must move towards does not violate the conditions of the rule.

 

Raging landspeeder (fast/skimmer) starts 1.1" away from an enemy model. You say "I move .1" towards the enemy model. I have now satisfied the requirements of rage. I am now moving 23.9" in any direction I want, however I want." Sure, yes, your interpretation of the rules would allow this. Would any opponent?

Sure, as long as it didn't move AWAY with that 23.9 inches. Moving to the other side of the enemy doesn't seem at all out of the question.

 

At all times. Invariably. Forever. Perpetually.

Except that you know that this isn't the case. You are adding a lot of invisible qualifiers to that ALWAYS. Mostly other rules - but you are also adding your own.

 

If you are as close the enemy as possible, you cannot in fact move closer, and thus your movement must end, because maintaining distance is not the same as moving closer.

Show me ANYWHERE in the rules that says anything resembling this...

 

I'm also noticing that you guys seem to be interpreting it as MODEL and not UNIT. In most circumstances, orbiting a unit would involve getting the most raging models as close as possible to enemy models. By your rational, a raging unit either A) Stops once the first model in their unit gets close to closest model in the enemy unit or B) bricks up into a tight little ball next to the closest enemy model regardless of available movement.

 

My problems with this is that there is no rule stating either of these (the lack of a stop clause and the phrase enemy model), in other words RAW, and that it also comes across as silly and decidedly unfluffy (RAI). Quick guys, ignore the extra 4" move you have and all of those open guys. Get THAT ONE! GRRRR! Come on! Claw over each other!

 

The entire argument hinges on your definition of Towards and always - neither of which seem to have corroborating rules to back it up. It seems that this interpretation leans less towards making the rules make sense and more in the vein of making the rule lean towards countercharging units that don't want to get foiled by a crafty player.

[njm3]

Right, so if "Away" is not towards, how is sideways/orbit/lateral movement towards?

[Massawyrm]

On the italian community, there are people saying that once you have moved to the nearest enemy as fast as possible, you have satisfied the rule, and can then end your movememntin any direction you want;

 

This I wholeheartedly DISAGREE with. Moving AWAY violates TOWARDS in both RAW and RAI.

 

Right, so if "Away" is not towards, how is sideways/orbit/lateral movement towards?

 

Because it doesn't say ONLY. Do me a solid, stop repeating the same question and answer the REAL question. Where does the stop occur? Please show your work and cite from the book.

 

edit: and just because - when you are orbiting, you are still moving towards a position 1" from the enemy. Until you can define a stop - you can never actually satisfy towards, can you? Where does the stop occur? Who stops? There are no rules governing a mandated stop.

[njm3]

What stop?

 

You're moving towards the enemy. You must stop if you are 1" away. The movement was towards the enemy.

 

Do you have left over movement? Possibly.

 

What happens to the left over ability to move.

 

It is lost. You can't move any farther.

 

The part of the rule you are interpreting is actually kinda clear for a GW rule. Sure, the effects of terrain, multiple models, different methods of moving, all that can add complexity, but it appears to me that you are interpreting the rule as:

 

In the Movement phase, units subject to rage must always move [as close as possible] to closest visible enemy.

 

But that isn't the rule. You can't move -past- or -around- or -through- as long as you end up 1" away. You have to move -towards-, which is is normally a straight line drawn from base to base and you have to follow the shortest possible path. Yes, the rule doesn't say "directly towards" or "in a straight line towards", but any other interpretation (subject to the situation on the board) strains or violates the must-always-towards triumvirate.

 

You're agreeing with the away part as not allowed, but then saying that maintaining distance while moving farther is ok. I'm saying it isn't. No, I can't cite to a page that says "Massawyrm is wrong". I can keep quoting the rule at you, and you can keep repeating that "But I have leftover movement!". That movement is lost as soon as you can't move any more "towards" the enemy.

[Grey Mage]

At all times. Invariably. Forever. Perpetually.

Except that you know that this isn't the case. You are adding a lot of invisible qualifiers to that ALWAYS. Mostly other rules - but you are also adding your own.

 

If you are as close the enemy as possible, you cannot in fact move closer, and thus your movement must end, because maintaining distance is not the same as moving closer.

Show me ANYWHERE in the rules that says anything resembling this...

1) I know no such thing- that was a direct quote of the definition given to me:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/always

 

See? Nothing added, changed, or qualified.

 

2) No, thats simple logic- If you are as close as possible to something it is impossible to move closer. Why? Because if you can move closer, then you couldnt be as close as possible.

 

Maintaining distance means your change in distance between the two are going to stay the same- ie if you measure at the begining of the move and at each point during the move, itll be the same distance showing on your tape measure.

 

Getting Closer would cause the distance showing on your tape measure to be smaller.... because the distance would be less eh?

 

You cant be at the same distance, and be at a closer distance at the same time. It just doesnt work.

 

Just like this idea people are putting forth- you cant move however you like just because you walked up into poking range of your opponent, because youd have to either maintain distance OR move farther away- neither of wich is moving "closer".

 

Theres no "orbit" involved- these arent stellar bodies, gravity isnt coming into play here, this is all linear geometry, and really really basic physics.

[Massawyrm]

It is lost. You can't move any farther.

You made this up. There isn't a single line in the rulebook to support this. In fact, out of the dozen uses of the word towards in the rulebook, only one applies to mandatory movement and enemies (well, two - but one is a LIE! Promising to answer this very argument later in the book grumblegrumble). That example is the Push in, listed under DEFENDERS REACT.

 

"After all assault moves have been made, the player controlling the units that have been assaulted this turn must move any member of these units that is not yet in base contact with a foe towards the enemy. These models move up to 6" in an attempt to move into base contact with an enemy."

 

Oddly enough - these models that "must move any member of these units that is not yet in base contact with a foe towards the enemy" may use its move to skirt around said enemy in order to respect the other limitations put on it - requirements that they try to come into base to base with an enemy not in base to base, and to stay in coherency. These are not exceptions to the rule - they are limitations that must be obeyed. And they most certainly do not lose movement because they can no longer move towards the unit...because they are continuing to move "towards" another enemy model within that unit - which is the point I've been trying to make. They only lose movement when they come base to base with another model.

 

Also odd, is that all versions of forced movement in the book use the phrase "shortest possible route" except Rage, suggesting that "as fast as possible" refers to its locomotion and not the distance (requiring Jump Infantry to jump it rather than walk). I cannot find a single instance in the entirety of the rulebook that validates any argument that a 10 man raging unit must collect like a little ball of hate next to the nearest enemy model despite a wealth of other targets that also constitute "nearest enemy", unable to fan out around or flank the "nearest enemy" in question.

[Brother-Captain Devlonir]

I cannot find a single instance in the entirety of the rulebook that validates any argument that a 10 man raging unit must collect like a little ball of hate next to the nearest enemy model despite a wealth of other targets that also constitute "nearest enemy", unable to fan out around or flank the "nearest enemy" in question.

 

This.. let me try and make it a bit visible..

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4097/4812329846_2ac401636e.jpg

 

The situation pre-move is above.

 

All 3 situations below the unit (the red dots), as a whole, moved as fast as possible towards the closest enemy (the black square).

 

We can all agree on move 1 fulfilling the rule.

 

Move 2 also fulfills the rule, the unit is closer and still in coherency. 1 model is as close to the enemy as he can get, and the unit as a whole moved closer, but specific models moved in other directions than directly to the enemy, why is that possible? We still fulfilled the unit moved closer.

 

Now.. Move 3 is the so called wrap around. Now compare that to the situation. How can you, unless you are a SW player who wants our DC to be easilly counter charged, objectively say the unit is not moved closer to the enemy unit? it went as fast as possible, had movement left and used it to wrap around the enemy, maybe no longer moving towards the enemy but around him, but it clearly is NOT moving away from the enemy on a model level.

And, when push comes to shove.. the UNIT moved as fast as possible closer to the enemy.

Heck, of all movement possibilities shown it has the most units actually close to the enemy, which, in the logic of some, should actually mean wrapping around is prefered above just stacking up in line to want to hit something.

 

Now.. look again at those moves and say again that none of those situations had the UNIT not moving closer to the enemy.

[Grey Mage]

Now.. Move 3 is the so called wrap around. Now compare that to the situation. How can you, unless you are a SW player who wants our DC to be easilly counter charged, objectively say the unit is not moved closer to the enemy unit? it went as fast as possible, had movement left and used it to wrap around the enemy, maybe no longer moving towards the enemy but around him, but it clearly is NOT moving away from the enemy on a model level.

And, when push comes to shove.. the UNIT moved as fast as possible closer to the enemy.

Heck, of all movement possibilities shown it has the most units actually close to the enemy, which, in the logic of some, should actually mean wrapping around is prefered above just stacking up in line to want to hit something.

 

Now.. look again at those moves and say again that none of those situations had the UNIT not moving closer to the enemy.

You misunderstand me- the models above are incomplete with regards to distance, so its difficult to say, but in example 1, did all of the raging models us as much of their movement as possible? If so, then yes I agree with it, if not, then I most certainly do not.

 

I also do not agree with the second example- the unit as a whole has gotten closer, but certainly not "as fast as possible", unless of course that one model is at 1" away? In wich case it is as close as possible, and cannot move any farther. The other members of the unit however could make their moves, and would stop 1" away from the enemy.

 

Its not an objection to using tactics, its being a stickler for basic geometry, and logic- Once you are as close as possible to an enemy unit, you simply cannot move closer. And we move individual models, one at a time, in order to move units.

 

So, if youve got the movement to get your guys around the enemy unit AND as many as possible have gotten as close as possible to the models in the front, then I wont object to them going around. But if your unit of DC moves up to my Dire Avengers, and then proceeds to walk around them, Ill object. Why? Because my avengers arent going to be packed together in a block formation- in order to move closer to one model in the unit youll have to move farther away from the other and thus farther away from the unit at some point during the move.

[Brother Landrain]

"In the Movement phase, units subject to rage must always move as fast as possible towards the closest visible enemy."

 

Here is another example of GW and poor wording.

 

What does Fast mean in 40K?

 

It means moving the maximum movement possible...

 

ie. If a unit can move 6 or 12 inches.. 6 inches is not its "FASTEST" movement.

 

So if a unit is 5 inches away, foot slogging troops cannot possibly move their fastest towards the enemy unless they take a indirect route, and a jumppack unit is surely screwed...

 

Now I can hear all of the screams of people out their now, yelling RAW, RAI, cheese.. etc...

 

Here is how the USR RAGE should be worded...

For a unit with Rage:

1. During the movement phase
   
2. While running in the shooting phase
   
3. When consolidating at the end of the assault phase
   

MUST move as follows.

1. Determine the closest unit to any model in the unit, and within line of sight.
   
2. Difficult and Dangerous terrain between the model must be traversed. If there is impassable terrain between the two models, select the next closest pair.
   
3. That model must move in a direct line towards the closest unit, using its maximum allowable movement
   
4. After the first model has been moved, all other models in the unit move and maintain unit coherency.
   

 

This is the most logical and seemingly intended method of interpretation for this rule...

And in any friendly game, I would discuss this with my opponent before starting.

 

Why Can't GW hire some actual game designers?

[njm3]

There isn't a single line in the rulebook to support this...

 

There is. It's under universal special rules, page 76, and starts "In the Movement phase"...

 

I cannot find a single instance in the entirety of the rulebook that validates any argument that a 10 man raging unit must collect like a little ball of hate next to the nearest enemy model despite a wealth of other targets that also constitute "nearest enemy", unable to fan out around or flank the "nearest enemy" in question.

 

A strict reading of RAW would indicate just that, "enemy" is singular, and all the ragers would have to move towards that single enemy. But that isn't the issue here. It's the meaning of "always" and "towards" and if you can continue to move after you approach 1" to the closest visible enemy.

 

You say you can, I say you can't.

 

Brother-Captain Devlonir, the rule isn't "as long as you end up closer, it is kosher", it's all movement must be towards.

 

I'm done. Feel free to have the last word.

[Brother-Captain Devlonir]

Brother-Captain Devlonir, the rule isn't "as long as you end up closer, it is kosher", it's all movement must be towards.

 

I'm done. Feel free to have the last word.

 

No it doesnt say all movement must be towards.. it says: the UNIT needs to move as fast as possible TOWARDS the nearest ENEMY

 

And in all my 3 examples, the unit moved towards the nearest enemy as fast as possible (assuming max movement is enough to wrap around)

The unit's move ended closer to the enemy than where they were and in the wrap around situation (3) the unit used all of its max movement.

 

In example 1, they stopped their movement before they used it all, but they moved closer untill the 1'' distance was reached. They did not even move as fast as possible for all units because some could have moved more but they didn't.

 

In example 2, some models moved in no direct line to the nearest enemy, but the unit still did because 1 model did and the rest kept unit coherency with it.

 

The rulings are clearly talking about a unit, not a model. So as long as 1 model in the DC fulfilled the rule to go as fast as possible towards the nearest enemy, all other models can move however they want as long as they keep unit coherency.

 

You can, in no way, claim my unit did not move closer towards the nearest enemy in all 3 examples.

[Grey Mage]

Brother-Captain Devlonir, the rule isn't "as long as you end up closer, it is kosher", it's all movement must be towards.

 

I'm done. Feel free to have the last word.

 

No it doesnt say all movement must be towards.. it says: the UNIT needs to move as fast as possible TOWARDS the nearest ENEMY

 

Im sorry, but if the movement must be TOWARDS the enemy, MUST be... then ANYTHING else would be ILLEGAL, against the rules, cheating.

[lunchb0x]

Solution to this problem :

 

1. Move models as close as possible to nearest enemy ( in the way us sneaky gits dont like )

2. RUN IN THE SHOOTING PHASE PAST THAT UNIT TO THE JUICER UNIT THAT YOU REALLY WANT

 

 

Problem solved.

 

well its at least what I do to help solve this situation when playing others that want to debate it all day.

[Brother-Captain Devlonir]

Brother-Captain Devlonir, the rule isn't "as long as you end up closer, it is kosher", it's all movement must be towards.

 

I'm done. Feel free to have the last word.

 

No it doesnt say all movement must be towards.. it says: the UNIT needs to move as fast as possible TOWARDS the nearest ENEMY

 

Im sorry, but if the movement must be TOWARDS the enemy, MUST be... then ANYTHING else would be ILLEGAL, against the rules, cheating.

 

And the UNIT still moved towards the enemy if at least 1 model in the UNIT moved towards the enemy and every other model remains within squad coherency. So it is not cheating.

[Grey Mage]

Brother-Captain Devlonir, the rule isn't "as long as you end up closer, it is kosher", it's all movement must be towards.

 

I'm done. Feel free to have the last word.

 

No it doesnt say all movement must be towards.. it says: the UNIT needs to move as fast as possible TOWARDS the nearest ENEMY

 

Im sorry, but if the movement must be TOWARDS the enemy, MUST be... then ANYTHING else would be ILLEGAL, against the rules, cheating.

 

And the UNIT still moved towards the enemy if at least 1 model in the UNIT moved towards the enemy and every other model remains within squad coherency. So it is not cheating.

It is if any member moves away from the unit at any time- wich is the case in your example 3. Its also the case if you stay at the same distance to the unit while moving in any direction- because its not going towards. Because if one model in the UNIT moves away from the enemy, then the unit has moved away from the enemy.

 

And still- all the movement the unit partakes in must be towards the enemy, as I said. If you move in any other direction, your not obeying the rules.

[Brother-Captain Devlonir]

Grey Mage, you are adding words to the USR again.. the important line is:

(I Hope B&C allows this direct quote for the sake of this discussion, as we all know it is not the entire rule just 1 line in it)

 

"In the Movement phase, units subject to rage

must always move as fast as possible towards the

closest visible enemy."

 

again.. units, not models. So as long as the unit moves as fast as possible towards the closest enemy the rule is followed. There is nothing that says all movement of all models in the unit need to move closer, only that the unit itself must. The unit is a blob of models that can stretch or pack together and the only rule limiting how I move a squad is the squad coherency rule.

 

So: The fastest way possible in the situation of a squad is to determine which enemy is closest to the unit of DC. The 'edge' of the DC is determined by the edge of the base of any model in the unit.

Step two would be to get the closest model to the closest enemy, and make that model move at max speed in a straight line towards the enemy untill he reaches it. Then all other models in that unit are free to move how they like as long as they keep squad coherency.

 

Nobody can make a case I cheated as long as I followed that procedure, no matter how much you repeat your points and add words to the rule that are not in there. The Unit of DC moved closer and fulfilled the rule of squad coherency, my move is legal.

 

Point closed.

[Brother Landrain]

The problem is with the USR wording...

Taking Grey Mages comments, and the exact wording of the Rule you get ...

Brother-Captain Devlonir, the rule isn't "as long as you end up closer, it is kosher", it's all movement must be towards.

I'm done. Feel free to have the last word.

No it doesnt say all movement must be towards.. it says: the UNIT needs to move as fast as possible TOWARDS the nearest ENEMY

Im sorry, but if the movement must be TOWARDS the enemy, MUST be... then ANYTHING else would be ILLEGAL, against the rules, cheating.

And the UNIT still moved towards the enemy if at least 1 model in the UNIT moved towards the enemy and every other model remains within squad coherency. So it is not cheating.

It is if any member moves away from the unit at any time- wich is the case in your example 3. Its also the case if you stay at the same distance to the unit while moving in any direction- because its not going towards. Because if one model in the UNIT moves away from the enemy, then the unit has moved away from the enemy.

And still- all the movement the unit partakes in must be towards the enemy, as I said. If you move in any other direction, your not obeying the rules.

One of the dumbest RAW interpretations I can imagine..

The way Rage is worded, is terrible.

It works for a SINGLE model unit only...

[Brother-Captain Devlonir]

My point exactly Landrain.. if every move of every model in the unit had to be towards the closest enemy and in no way sideways (as our Grey ally suggests).. then the Death Company should be called the British Company as they are Queueing towards the nearest enemy every time... Thanks for putting that in a figure.

[Brother Landrain]

My point exactly Landrain.. if every move of every model in the unit had to be towards the closest enemy and in no way sideways (as our Grey ally suggests).. then the Death Company should be called the British Company as they are Queueing towards the nearest enemy every time... Thanks for putting that in a figure.

 

Squad Leader "Ok.. everyone in line for the picture...."

Minion "Ummm, thats NOT a camera..."

Squad Leader "Of course it is...Argggggggg"

SPLAT!

[Brother_Dan'l]

I think what makes this so difficult is that annoying little question of what do you do when your own models stop you from moving closer to the enemy but you still have movement left. A single model, as other have pointed out, is very simple. But when you get to multiple models the typical GW issue of piss-poor, in house, editing kicks in. Hard. The editor knew exactly what the author meant so he/she saw no problem with the language as printed in the book. The rest of us are left hanging by the lack of the descriptor model, unit or whatever for "enemy". Then we've got "As fast as possible" and how it can be taken to mean anything from shortest distance to fastest movement type. Should a jump unit have to use it's packs to get to an enemy 2" away in difficult terrain? A Jump Pack is unquestionably "faster" than walking. After all it allows you to cover 12" in the same time moving by foot covers 6".

 

Personally I see no issue with moving your unit so that all your models are as close as possible to an enemy model, in the nearest enemy unit, as their movement allows. Do I think this means you can move up to 1" away and then slide around at that distance? Not so much. But any other models in the unit should be trying to get to that 1" distance as best they can. If that means they have to move what is obviously not directly towards the enemy unit, so be it. I think that most accurately represents the intent of the rule while still following the letter to the best of your ability.

 

Can I prove that's the right way to play it? Nope. And I don't see the point in trying. As long as I'm consistent and my opponent doesn't burst into flame over my interpretation I'm content.

[Venerable Jazzman]

What other 40k units have Rage, and how have they been played since the 5ed rulebook came out?

This isn't a unique rule to BA.

 

I kinda get the feeling we're re-inventing the wheel here, when there's probably other codex' out there discussing tyres and 8-spoke alloys... ;)

[Grey Mage]

My point exactly Landrain.. if every move of every model in the unit had to be towards the closest enemy and in no way sideways (as our Grey ally suggests).. then the Death Company should be called the British Company as they are Queueing towards the nearest enemy every time... Thanks for putting that in a figure.

It might be stupid, but its accurate. If you dont like it then take it up with GW, or house rule it, but it doesnt change the current RAW.

 

Rage is a drawback, and its supposed to be. If it helps your assault move doesnt have to be at the closest enemy, nor does it have to be directly linear as long as the first two are between the closest models, as normal.

 

***

 

Now, in my gaming group do I complain if they fan out and we dont measure angles and do trig for each model as it closes? No. But then again none of my opponents have ever tried anything about walking around behind the unit theyre being pulled towards either. They took it for what it was and just moved as quickly as they could towards my units. They played like gentlemen, moving swiftly towards the opposition in a mass.

 

But if a player wants to pull shenanigans, like moving sideways, or circling around a unit, then Ill bring up RAW as a stopping point. The way your trying to say is RAW isnt for a couple very good reasons-

1) If your interpretation were to be used, you could circle around the unit and then be within 1" of another unit and circle around it aswell.

2) such actions could also lead to assaults that are otherwise simply not possible under RAW- the raging beserkers running around a rock hard unit, only to assault the heavy support team directly behind them.

3) If maintaining distance is allowed a raging unit could simply decide to remain stationairy, or shuffle a half inch to the left.

 

None of wich is legal by RAW.

[Brother Landrain]

It might be stupid, but its accurate. If you dont like it then take it up with GW, or house rule it, but it doesnt change the current RAW.

 

Rage is a drawback, and its supposed to be. If it helps your assault move doesnt have to be at the closest enemy, nor does it have to be directly linear as long as the first two are between the closest models, as normal.

 

Actually by your interpretation it DOES hvae to be directly linear, if not then you are not moving towards the closest unit as fast as possible. A component part of your movement is necessarilly AWAY from the closest enemy...

 

... actually at a 90 degree angle directly away, wierd how vectors work, if its not linearly towards, part is direct and part is away... And to be silly, if you move in a circular orbit about the unit, you are actually accelerating towards the closest unit but not getting any closer...