Blood thirsty and shooting

[ImperialReaper]

Bretheren.

 

As far as I know the original english rule for "blood thirsty" says you have to move towards the next visible target. If you decide to run, the same goes for this movement. It does acctually but not say that you have to assault the unit you are moving towards. So those of you happy enough to live in countrys like the UK or the US may not have the problem I have. You can shoot whatever you want.

 

BUT - since GW owns some of the most genius translators- in some countrys like germany the rulebooks says something different regarding the"blood thirsty"rule. In mine for instance we positively have to attack the nearest visible enemy unit. And there is my problem. The "blood thirsty" rule does not say anything about shooting. So nothing denies me to shoot any enemy unit of my choice rulewise. But if I do so the general rules are contrarry to the "blood thirsty" rule.

 

Say we have 2 enemy units A and B. A is the closest visible one. I decide to shoot unit B. According to the general rules I can only assault unit B since I am only allowed to assault the same unit I have shot in this turn. But the messed up in translation blood thirsty rule says I HAVE to assault unit A now.

 

Please advice.

[Legatus]

Are you refering to the 'Rage' universal special rule form page 76 of the rulebook?

 

According to that rule, the unit is NOT required to assault at all. It merely has to move towards the nearest visible enemy unit in its movement phase. If teh unit decides to run, it has to do so towards the nearest unit as well, but that is optional. The only additional requirement from this rule is that this unit has to consolidate (i.e. after a won combat) towards the closest enemy as well.

The unit does not have to pick any specific target for shooting, and it does not have to assault at all. That is a bit odd, but perhaps GW did not want to take controll of this unit completely away from the player. The unit can still make a tactical decision which enemy to fire at, or which enemy unit to attack, and cannot be led completely by the nose by an opponent who wanted to exploit that rule.

[ImperialReaper]

Are you refering to the 'Rage' universal special rule form page 76 of the rulebook?

 

According to that rule, the unit is NOT required to assault at all. It merely has to move towards the nearest visible enemy unit in its movement phase. If teh unit decides to run, it has to do so towards the nearest unit as well, but that is optional. The only additional requirement from this rule is that this unit has to consolidate (i.e. after a won combat) towards the closest enemy as well.

The unit does not have to pick any specific target for shooting, and it does not have to assault at all. That is a bit odd, but perhaps GW did not want to take controll of this unit completely away from the player. The unit can still make a tactical decision which enemy to fire at, or which enemy unit to attack, and cannot be led completely by the nose by an opponent who wanted to exploit that rule.

 

1. Yeas I mean "Rage"

2. Its hard when 80% of my post just gets ignored.

[Grey Mage]

In the english version they are not required to assault. They are likewise not required to shoot at anything in particular.

 

I do not own a german copy, but a good friend of mine does speak it fluently- perhaps you could copy 'bloodthirsty'/rage here in german? It would assist me greatly.

[Legatus]

2. Its hard when 80% of my post just gets ignored.

Ok then...

 

 

Bretheren.

 

As far as I know the original english rule for "blood thirsty" says you have to move towards the next visible target. If you decide to run, the same goes for this movement. It does acctually but not say that you have to assault the unit you are moving towards. So those of you happy enough to live in countrys like the UK or the US may not have the problem I have. You can shoot whatever you want.

Yep, you are entirely correct there.

 

 

BUT - since GW owns some of the most genius translators- in some countrys like germany the rulebooks says something different regarding the"blood thirsty"rule. In mine for instance we positively have to attack the nearest visible enemy unit. And there is my problem. The "blood thirsty" rule does not say anything about shooting. So nothing denies me to shoot any enemy unit of my choice rulewise. But if I do so the general rules are contrarry to the "blood thirsty" rule.

As you pointed out correctly, the translation is indeed flawed. You can do what I allways do in such a situation and go with the original rule text. But it helps if you have an english rulebook handy in case someone you are playing against does not believe you that the translation is flawed.

Either way, if a unit is forbidden to assault for any reason, then it cannot assault the nearest enemy unit. If the rage rule says you have to assault the nearest enemy unit, but your unit is not allowed to assault because it just fired rapid fire weapons, then it still cannot assault. So in case you fired at a different unit than the closest one (and have been using only pistols or assault weapons) then you are not allowed to assault at all, since you would have to assault teh closest unit, but are forbidden to assault a different unit than the one you fired at.

Though, if the unit you fired at is close to the unit that is nearest to you, perhaps you can manage a multiple assault, first moving a few models into contact with the unit you fired at, and then also assaulting the unit nearest to you. That way all the rules are followed.

 

 

Say we have 2 enemy units A and B. A is the closest visible one. I decide to shoot unit B. According to the general rules I can only assault unit B since I am only allowed to assault the same unit I have shot in this turn. But the messed up in translation blood thirsty rule says I HAVE to assault unit A now.

Yes, but you are not allowed to. Just like when the unit had fired rapid fire weapons or had run. If the unit is not allowed to move or assault, it will still not move or assault if under the effect of the 'rage' rule.

You can debate with your opponents whether that means the unit can now chose a different target (like the one it had fired at) or whether it now cannot assault at all. In case unit B is out of assault range, the unit obviously cannot assault at all, since it would have to assault the unit it fired at, and cannot chose to assautl a different unit (its 'rage' target) instead. But in case unit B was close enough to be assaulted, it is up to you how you interprete the options for the raging unit. According to the original rule text it can assault any target (after all, as long as they end up in combat, the raging unit should be satisfied). If you chose to go with the translated rule, either your unit cannot assault at all that turn (because it would have to assault the closest unit, but is not allowed to assault them) or it can chose to assault unit B (because it simply is not allowed to assault unit A, so rage does not take effect). Or, as I said earlier, maybe it is possible to assault both the unit that was fired at and the nearest unit at the same time.

 

 

In summary:

 

Original rules:

- your raging unit can assault any unit it wants

 

Translated rules:

- agree with your opponent whether nearest units that cannot be assaulted are ignored, or whether it means the raging unit cannot assault at all that turn

[ImperialReaper]

In the english version they are not required to assault. They are likewise not required to shoot at anything in particular.

 

I do not own a german copy, but a good friend of mine does speak it fluently- perhaps you could copy 'bloodthirsty'/rage here in german? It would assist me greatly.

 

With pleasure! I guess I just do one little exscerpt so I wont violate the board rules and GWs copyright.

 

"In der Schussphase müssen sich Einheiten mit der Sonderregelt Blutrünstig immer direkt auf den nächsten sichtbaren Feind zubewegen. In der Schussphase dürfen sie sich entscheiden zu rennen. Wenn sie dies tun, müssen sie allerdings in Richtung des nächsten sichtbaren Gegners rennen. In der Nahkampfphase MÜSSEN sie immer den nächsten sichtbaren Gegner angreifen."

 

But I can offer a "retranslation" right away which is pretty accurate to the german text:

"During the shootingphase units with the special rule rage/bloodthirsty always have to move thowards the next visible enemy. In the shooting phase they may decide to run. If they do so, they but have to run into the direction of the next visible enemy. In the close combat phase, they always HAVE TO attack the next visible enemy".

[Legatus]

The line:

 

"In der Nahkampfphase müssen sie immer den nächsten sichtbaren Gegner angreifen."

 

had originally been:

 

"In the Assault phase they must always consolidate towards the closest visible enemy."

 

"Consolidation" would be "Neupositionieren" in german, so the movement after having defeated an enemy in combat, not "Angreifen" (which would have been "assault" in english). So essentially the translation should really be:

 

"In der Nahkampfphase müssen sie sich beim Neupositionieren immer auf den nächsten sichtbaren Gegner zubewegen."

 

But I assume you already knew that?

[ImperialReaper]

Yes I knew, but thanks for the final clerification.

 

However I was unshure on how to deal with such major translationfaults which have not even been FAQed or listed as an errata.

But I guess the majority of the players in any country have the oppinion that all players should play according what the rules say in their own language. But I dont know. You could argue that if everyone uses the false rule it affects everyone and there should be no ballancing issues.

But IMO units like the Death Company were designed with the correct english rules in mind and players using such units then definitely experience some drawbacks.

 

I could of cause ask they guy at the local GW store for a judgement - but my signature reminds me of what most people think about the GW store owners :D

 

But anyway legatus thank you for the excamble using the rapid fire weapons or running. I guess the logic behind this has to be - they have to attack IF they are able to attack.

[Grey Mage]

Looks to me like you can shoot whomever you want. Nothing in that rule says otherwise- it mentions running, and assault, but not shooting.

 

So shoot. If you can assault the closest unit because you shot something else then so be it- not your problem. Just like its not your problem if the unit cant assault the closest enemy unit because its out of range.

 

If they want to argue it, then your units can attack the closest enemy even if that enemy is 23" away during the assault phase. I doubt youll get many who want that interpretation.

[Brother-Captain Devlonir]

Yes I knew, but thanks for the final clerification.

 

However I was unshure on how to deal with such major translationfaults which have not even been FAQed or listed as an errata.

But I guess the majority of the players in any country have the oppinion that all players should play according what the rules say in their own language. But I dont know. You could argue that if everyone uses the false rule it affects everyone and there should be no ballancing issues.

But IMO units like the Death Company were designed with the correct english rules in mind and players using such units then definitely experience some drawbacks.

 

I could of cause ask they guy at the local GW store for a judgement - but my signature reminds me of what most people think about the GW store owners :D

 

But anyway legatus thank you for the excamble using the rapid fire weapons or running. I guess the logic behind this has to be - they have to attack IF they are able to attack.

 

Best advice I can give you in trying to get a good point and (hopefully) national concensus on the wrongly translated rules, is by going to either a big national tournament and discussing it with judges there or by going on to a national German forum and discussing your point there. Using this thread as reference to point out the enormous difference between the German and English rules because of one mistranslated word.

 

Another option you also have to do is to write/e-mail German's Games Workshop department. They will be will responsible for the translations of all documents. Hopefully, your own translated erata/FAQ (which I hope you also get because you do get your own translated rules as well) will pick it up then and bring out a correct new translation. Again, use this productive thread as backup of your point where international players all support the fact that your translation is wrong.

 

(PS.. if you choose to do as I say, PM me and I will edit this last part out :-P)

If all fails, write a Huuuuuuge complained letter to Games Workshop UK complaining about the low quality of their local national offices and the translation of the english rules done by them. Try and find more examples of faulty translations and show them the problems. Hopefully some pressure from above may help if community input does not.

 

That's the best advice I can give you in how to move forward. Good luck with it.

[Legatus]

Well, in fact, the german FaQ does adress this issue and corrects the translation...

 

Seite 75 – Blutrünstig:

Ersetze im vorletzten Satz „[…] müssen sie immer den

nächsten sichtbaren Gegner angreifen“ durch „[…] müssen

sie sich immer in Richtung des nächsten sichtbaren

Gegners neu positionieren“.

[Dan VK]

Well, in fact, the german FaQ does adress this issue and corrects the translation...

 

Seite 75 – Blutrünstig:

Ersetze im vorletzten Satz „[…] müssen sie immer den

nächsten sichtbaren Gegner angreifen“ durch „[…] müssen

sie sich immer in Richtung des nächsten sichtbaren

Gegners neu positionieren“.

:o