Again with the Rage

[shatter]

So there I was. DS-ed a jp DC squad and they scattered near an immob and armless dread (very close to mishap). They shot at (some bolter DC) and weathered the shooting of a deva squad with no losses on either side, from about 15" away (from DS center model).

My turn came again. I moved a model to 1" from the closest target, the dread. The rest of the unit I stretched to be 1" from the deva squad... (opponents jaw dropped) and then, of course, charged them.

Opponent said, WHAT THE FIRETRUCK!

I pointed out that by moving the model to 1", the unit moved as far and as close as possible to the closest target and pointed out that what the rest of the models do isn't covered by the Rage rule.

Was I wrong?

Edit:

Here's a pic before and after 'rage move'. Just in case anyone was confused or misunderstood.

[Dan VK]

So there I was. DS-ed a jp DC squad and they scattered near an immob and armless dread (very close to mishap). They shot at (some bolter DC) and weathered the shooting of a deva squad with no losses on either side, from about 15" away.

 

My turn came again. I moved a model to 1" from the closest target, the dread. The rest of the unit I stretched to be 1" from the deva squad... (opponents jaw dropped) and then, of course, charged them.

 

Opponent said, WHAT THE FIRETRUCK!

 

I pointed out that by moving the model to 1", the unit moved as far and as close as possible to the closest target and pointed out that what the rest of the models do isn't covered by the Rage rule.

 

Was I wrong?

Incorrect? No. :cuss Wrong? I think so. :D

 

My understanding of the Rage USR from a purely RAW standpoint (this is the +OR+, after all) is that the model closest to the enemy must move as close to that enemy as possible and the rest of the models must maintain unit coherency.

 

If an opponent did that to me I would never play that person again. Not. Ever. :)

 

 

[EDIT: Plurals - I has them! :P]

[shatter]

I'd really like it if everyone looked at it the same way.

 

The rage rule sucks for two reasons. One, you have to do stuff... but that's okay. Two, because what they (the models within the unit) have to do is so interpretable, it makes the rule vary from place to place, player to player. If I play conservatively, ie. all models move towards closest target unit while knowing that the rule doesn't have to work that way, and play a guy who plays as above, I'll spit. Not because he's right and I'm wrong, but because both are arguable right but immensely different. And, I think that the way as above is the best way to play the rule in general. 30+ strong DCs highlights this as many models will be closest to different targets meaning following the blunt and common interpretation means MOST models will end up moving away from their closest target! Which is AGAINST an interpretable RAI.

 

*sigh*

[Dan VK]

I'd really like it if everyone looked at it the same way.

 

The rage rule sucks for two reasons. One, you have to do stuff... but that's okay. Two, because what they (the models within the unit) have to do is so interpretable, it makes the rule vary from place to place, player to player. If I play conservatively, ie. all models move towards closest target unit while knowing that the rule doesn't have to work that way, and play a guy who plays as above, I'll spit. Not because he's right and I'm wrong, but because both are arguable right but immensely different. And, I think that the way as above is the best way to play the rule in general. 30+ strong DCs highlights this as many models will be closest to different targets meaning following the blunt and common interpretation means MOST models will end up moving away from their closest target! Which is AGAINST an interpretable RAI.

 

*sigh*

Firstly, in case anyone wants arguments/explanations instead of "thus I say, thus it is!" which is pretty much what I did: Link.

 

Secondly, Rage is definitely a poorly worded rule. The intention is obvious, but intention means nothing when the wording is clear. Ideally, the rule would be phrased similar to the following:

 

"In the Movement phase, all models in a unit subject to rage must always move as fast as possible towards the visible enemy closest to the unit."

 

Of course, it is not worded that way. :P

 

 

[Edit: Linky! :D]

[shatter]

I remember the thread. The same day I saw it, I'd already made a diagram much like the OP. Mine was better, but no longer required. =)

 

"Units affected by rage must move their models towards the closest visible enemy while maintaining coherency." Would be best I think. Could make some hilarious tug of wars between equidistant targets.

 

Part of the reasoning for this posted topic was hope that something had changed.

[Grey Mage]

What rage says about the assault phase:

 

"If you consolidate it must be towards the nearest enemy unit".

 

Period, end of story. If that many kroot could multi-charge it so can your raging death gaurd of whatever.

 

You want a fluff reason? The dread wasnt enough- they wanted, nay needed! more carnage. Sucks to be the devis, moving on.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

So there I was. DS-ed a jp DC squad and they scattered near an immob and armless dread (very close to mishap). They shot at (some bolter DC) and weathered the shooting of a deva squad with no losses on either side, from about 15" away.

 

My turn came again. I moved a model to 1" from the closest target, the dread. The rest of the unit I stretched to be 1" from the deva squad... (opponents jaw dropped) and then, of course, charged them.

 

Opponent said, WHAT THE FIRETRUCK!

 

I pointed out that by moving the model to 1", the unit moved as far and as close as possible to the closest target and pointed out that what the rest of the models do isn't covered by the Rage rule.

 

Was I wrong?

 

You were correct.

Firstly, even if you were much closer to the Dread and just 5" away from the Devs, you can still assault the Devs. Rage says nothing about having to assault, or having to assault the nearest unit.

All you have to do is consolidate towards the nearest unit after an assault.

 

Rage ≠ shoot nearest unit

Rage ≠ assault nearest unit

Rage ≠ cluster around the nearest unit instead of gearing up for a multi charge, or not getting ready to charge another unit altogether

 

Dudes need to stop wanting others to do what they feel rules require you to do and actually follow the written rules. Then they'd not get offended when people follow the rules :)

[vonny]

next to being able to assault anything within range, or nothing at all (rage says nothing about having to assault either), I believe the scenario from the OP is completely legal too. as stated on page 3 of the main rule book: "When measuring distances between two units, use the closest models as your reference points." So as long as the closts model moves as close as possible, the rest is free to do as they like (maintaining coherency of course).

[Acebaur]

I disagree, the rule says "units subject to rage must always move as fast as possible..." You have to move the whole unit, not just one guy. You may measure closest model to closest model to determine the distance, but that doesn't mean you can just move one guy and then send the rest in another direction. They are part of the unit as well.

 

This rule is quite clearly written, there is no need to clarify models, saying unit includes all of the models in it.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

I disagree, the rule says "units subject to rage must always move as fast as possible..." You have to move the whole unit, not just one guy. You may measure closest model to closest model to determine the distance, but that doesn't mean you can just move one guy and then send the rest in another direction. They are part of the unit as well.

 

This rule is quite clearly written, there is no need to clarify models, saying unit includes all of the models in it.

 

Let us take this to the absurd. I do agree with you on what the RAI is asking for, but consider this:

 

Do you feel Rage is asking you to move all of your models as far as they can, bunching them up like a racked set of snooker balls, base touching base if the lead models get within 1" of the foe before their movement is used up?

 

How about if the nearest unit is a land raider and at best you have got krak grenades. If there is a squad of Tacticals next to the Raider, is it okay to assault them?

What if, by using the Acebaur method of movement, you would only be able to get, say, 2 Death Company into base contact with the Tacs. Yet if you use a less strict method, you could get to assault with 8 DC?

 

If you are not required to even assault or shoot that nearest unit, why do you need to huddle all your guys next to it?

 

Let's go for a wacky situation.

The Raider is the closest unit, to the NE of the DC. The Tacs are to the NW. A piece of terrain to the E of the DC means they actually head in a N direction. The DC are within assault range of the Tacs. They assault the Tacs.

Isn't this totally undoing 'the point' of Rage?

Isn't Rage 'supposed' to be attack the nearest unit?

Yet Rage never puts such limits on the Assault move, or even that you must assault.

 

The current Rage rule is more like "Fascination" with the nearest unit being a will-o'-the-wisp.

 

Now under Moving & Shooting pg 17, "the whole unit counts as moving if any of its models moved in the Movement phase."

Does not, by RAW, the same thing apply for Rage?

"the whole unit counts as moving as fast as possible towards the closest visible unit if any of its models moved as fast as possible towards the closest visible unit in the Movement phase."

 

What if there is a unit of Fangs over yonder. 60" away?

They are the nearest visible unit. Right next to the DC is their immobilised Rhino. On the other side of the Rhino is a small unit of Greys. Using the Acebaur method, the DC have to march across the TT and achieve nothing. Using another method, they can still launch an assault on the Greys.

 

Isn't Rage *really* about killing stuff? The other method allows for more killing.

 

I'm not really arguing against you. ^_^

I just think the whole idea of Rage just falls apart, even with more clearly written rules. 40K is too fiddly for such silliness.

That is why I think RZ is such a bad rule and I take a similar RAW method.

 

Rage and RZ has dudes chasing around things that they couldn't even hurt or even catch. It would work better if they *had* to charge something that they could catch and eat kill.

 

What do you think?

[Brother-Captain Devlonir]

I disagree, the rule says "units subject to rage must always move as fast as possible..." You have to move the whole unit, not just one guy. You may measure closest model to closest model to determine the distance, but that doesn't mean you can just move one guy and then send the rest in another direction. They are part of the unit as well.

 

This rule is quite clearly written, there is no need to clarify models, saying unit includes all of the models in it.

 

And when the closest model has moved closer to the closest enemy model, the entire unit, by default, has moved closer and it does not matter how any of the other models move as long as they stay in coherency. When one model in the unit does something, the entire unit does it by default. Same as for heavy weapons for example.

 

I really dislike the thought some people have that every model must move closer to the closest enemy as it creates one of 2 horrible situations:

1) there are different enemy units/models closest models for different models in the unit, forcing the unit to move out of coherency (rule breaking)

2) Raging units will ALWAYS end their movement in tighter formation than they were the turn before because each model has to bee-line for the closest enemy (game breaking)

 

The first breaks the rules of unit coherency, yet is how we should follow it if we say each model needs to do it if we want the unit to do it.

The second breaks the game because a raging unit will always be in tight formations and therefore an easy target for template weapons, adding even more downsides to a rule that already limits usability of squads enough that many people do not take them.

 

I am sorry, but RAW does not say each model of a unit needs to move closer.. it says the unit must move towards the closest visible enemy as fast as possible. So you check a few things:

- Is it visible?

- Is it the closest?

If both are yes, then you take the model that is closest to that enemy unit and bee-line it as fast as possible towards the enemy, keeping in mind rules like impassable terrain and not coming within 1" of an enemy model.

Then, you must move the rest of the unit, keeping it in coherency with that first model. Which means MOST of the squad will actually move closer in MOST situations just to keep that.

 

Case closed according to RAW.. all other ways of seeing it mock up other rules or playability too much for the sake of 'fluff' in my eyes.

[rat of vengence]

My turn came again. I moved a model to 1" from the closest target, the dread. The rest of the unit I stretched to be 1" from the deva squad... (opponents jaw dropped) and then, of course, charged them.

 

Was I wrong?

Were all your models in coherency? Did you have them out of coherency by assaulting in 2 different directions?

 

If they were in coherency, with ALL models moving as much as possible to get into contact, then you are fine. If they weren't, or you had some models not move much to string them out, then yes, you were wrong.

 

RoV

[Grey Mage]

I disagree, the rule says "units subject to rage must always move as fast as possible..." You have to move the whole unit, not just one guy. You may measure closest model to closest model to determine the distance, but that doesn't mean you can just move one guy and then send the rest in another direction. They are part of the unit as well.

 

This rule is quite clearly written, there is no need to clarify models, saying unit includes all of the models in it.

Thats wrong though. Sure, theyre part of the unit but thats not how we take measurements between units.

 

We always measure the distance between two units by the closest models- thus, if the two closest to each other become closer, they have in fact moved towards each other. That some other part of the unit has moved farther away has no bearing on that whatsoever.

 

Much like if one model in the unit is within 6" of a sanguinairy priest, the whole unit is.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

My turn came again. I moved a model to 1" from the closest target, the dread. The rest of the unit I stretched to be 1" from the deva squad... (opponents jaw dropped) and then, of course, charged them.

 

Was I wrong?

Were all your models in coherency? Did you have them out of coherency by assaulting in 2 different directions?

 

If they were in coherency, with ALL models moving as much as possible to get into contact, then you are fine. If they weren't, or you had some models not move much to string them out, then yes, you were wrong.

 

RoV

 

He doesn't have to assault the Dread. He only has to move towards the Dread in the movement phase [because it was closest] to 'some' degree ~ which is what we are trying to clarify.

He is completely free to assault anything but the Dread.

[rat of vengence]

I didn't even mention the dread, so where are you getting that from? I never said he HAD to assault anything...

 

My original point still stands :P

 

RoV

[Brother-Captain Devlonir]

-- edit --

 

oops, misunderstood Rat's point.. he was talking about assault.. nvm then.

[Seahawk]

The idea of the unit, to me, is much like an amorphous blob. It balls up, stretches skinny, and is free-flowing. The individual components don't matter for this, just it's imaginary boundary. The whole of it has indeed gotten closer to the closest unit, while also spreading out and getting near another unit. Nothing wrong with that at all and I would heartily play against it, being part of the rules.

[Acebaur]

Much like if one model in the unit is within 6" of a sanguinairy priest, the whole unit is

Thats because that specific rule says that. There are other rules that specify models within Xinches get blah blah blah. Do you just auto change those rules to inlcude the whole unit?

 

The rule is called RAGE guys. The guys who have it are not in control of their faculties. Look at Death Company, they've totally lost their sense, to the point that they have to be grouped together so they don't kill their other battle brothers in their bloodlust. It makes sense that they'd just charge at the nearest thing, it's called tunnel vision. If when they get their they spot the Tacticals which are an easier target they might assault them instead.

 

It's one thing if in a friendly game you want to move the DC N in Wilhelms example as the tacticals are close to the LR. It's totally different to move one model toward the Dread and then go in a completely different direction with the rest of the unit. You want to talk about game breaking and rule breaking? That kind of stuff is beardy and there is no way I would allow someone to do something like that in a game. Rage is not a USR that is supposed to be beneficial, it's a penalty for the unit's bloodlust(and in this case their destructive power)

So you get a little bunched up, oh well, thats the price you pay for such an awesome unit. So you can only get 2 guys into assualt with the tacticals. That's why they have to counter charge 6" to try and get into BtB with as many guys as possible. This will assuredly get more of the DC in combat.

[Captain Malachi]

I'm not sure what the problem is... The first model moved directly towards the dread, as rage requires, the rest of the unit followed but spread out slightly to allow him to multi-charge another unit without breaking unit coherency. Nothing, anywhere, in the rules prevents him from doing this, and it even makes more sense fluff wise. Hell, why would a bunch of 'raging' guys stand around having a friendly chat with the enemy devastators while a few members of their squad get torn apart by a dreadnought when they could just charge and kill them instead?

[Grey Mage]

Much like if one model in the unit is within 6" of a sanguinairy priest, the whole unit is

Thats because that specific rule says that. There are other rules that specify models within Xinches get blah blah blah. Do you just auto change those rules to inlcude the whole unit?

 

This isnt a change to the rules, its page 3 of the rules. Lets read them again:

 

When measuring distances between two units, use the closest models as your reference points, as shown in the diagram below. So, for example, if any model in a unit is within 2" of an enemy model, the unit is said to be within 2" of the that enemy unit/model.

 

Plain and simple english, very straightforward and easy to understand. ANY one model in the unit is at a certain distance? So is the unit. Any model in the unit moved closer, then the unit counts as moving closer.

 

Paragraph 2, right hand column, for those who have a hard time finding things.

[BigDunc]

I agree with Acebaur on this. All of the models in the unit must move towards the nearest visible enemy.

 

In the rulebook Pg 3 under UNITS: “A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group…“. On the next page there’s also, “A typical unit of infantry is between five and ten models but can be much larger.” I think it's fair to say that when a rule refers to a 'unit', it's referring to all the models in the unit. That means every model in a unit effect by Rage must towards the nearest enemy.

 

 

"When measuring distances between two units, use the closest models as your reference points, as shown in the diagram below. So, for example, if any model in a unit is within 2" of an enemy model, the unit is said to be within 2" of the that enemy unit/model."

I don't think this plays a part other than to determine the closest unit.

[Grey Mage]

But it does- as its the only way to measure distances between two units. According to the rules the Dread is as close as they are allowed to be in the movement phase.

 

You cant just decide to measure from every model independantly. If that was to be the case it would read 'models with the rage special rule'. It does not.

[BigDunc]

I'm arguing that the rule, by saying 'unit', is referring to every model in the unit. To determine which enemy unit is closest to the DC you use the rule you're referring to. (If multiple units are within 1" of the DC, then perhaps you roll off, but that's unimportant for this discussion). Do you measure each DC model to see which enemy unit that individual model is closest to? No, you measure the DC unit as a whole and once that enemy unit is determined, the unit (read as 'every model') must move towards, in this case, the Dread.

 

Think about Pinned and Gone to Ground in the 'unit' context. It says "If the unit fails the [pinning] test, it is immediately forced to go to ground". It never says 'every model'. So does that mean you can pin select models from the unit and allow the remainder of the models to shoot the next turn?

 

Of course it doesn't, but the same approach is being used here for Rage (and RZ).

 

Why the inconsistency?

[Grey Mage]

How do we measure distances for units? By measuring the closest models. Check.

 

Do the rules for rage specify what any particular model in the unit has to do or merely the unit? The unit.

 

Ive a single model moves, does the entire unit count as moving? Yes.

 

If any model in the unit is 7, 8, 9, or X" away from a model in another unit is that models unit considered to be 7, 8, 9 or X" away from that unit? Yes.

 

Are we clear at this point?

 

I hope so. In wich case it should be obvious that because we measure between the closest models the whole unit is considered to have 'moved closer' if any one model in the unit has.

 

As for your pinning example- it holds no water. You declare targets as a unit, not by model. Thus if the unit cant shoot none of the models can- because they have no target.

 

There is no inconsistency there.

[BigDunc]

How do we measure distances for units? By measuring the closest models. Check.

Do the rules for rage specify what any particular model in the unit has to do or merely the unit? The unit.

Ive a single model moves, does the entire unit count as moving? Yes.

If any model in the unit is 7, 8, 9, or X" away from a model in another unit is that models unit considered to be 7, 8, 9 or X" away from that unit? Yes.

Clear, yes. In agreement, no.

 

It all revolves around the meaning of 'unit'. The word 'unit' refers to every model in that group as supported by my above references to Pg3.

 

Yea, the follow through on the pinning example doesn't work. It was a shot from the hip. But with a reload it'll help point out the inconsistent use of the word 'unit'.

 

Pinned never uses the words 'every model' and yet it's understood that when a pinning test is failed every model in the unit is effected. Describing what each model does isn't necessary because it's inherent in the word 'unit'.

 

Then there's Rage (and RZ) where 'unit' no longer refers to every model for some reason. That's the inconsistency I'm talking about.