Again with the Rage

[Grey Mage]

Its still not inconsistent.

 

If any part of the unit has done something, they all are considered to have done that something. If the unit cannot do something, nothing in the unit can do it.

 

 

Can one model in the unit make it into assault with an enemy unit? Then the unit has assaulted. Is the unit not allowed to assault due to a psychic power? Then no model in the unit can attempt the assault.

 

Did you shoot the meltagun in that squad? Then the whole squad has fired. Is the squad pinned and thus unable to fire? Then you cannot shoot the meltagun.

 

Did any model in the unit shoot a rapid fire weapon? Ok, none of them can assault this turn.

 

Etc etc etc.

 

You measure the distance between units by the closest model. Period. Not each model. Not wichever model. The closest model- if you do any other measuring its merely to determine wich two are the closest.

 

If any model in the unit moves closer to the enemy then the unit as a whole is considered to have done so.

[BigDunc]

If any part of the unit has done something, they all are considered to have done that something.

So one model fails an armor test they all do? That's too broad of a statement.

 

In regards to measuring between units, you're correct, it's closest to closest. So, if a single model is closer to the enemy unit you can say that the unit moved closer. However, that's in the past tense. We're not there yet. We're still at what the unit must do right now, as it Rages, and the rule says the unit (which includes every model) must Rage toward blah, blah. You're arguing in the wrong tense.

 

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.

Basically, this method of resolving Rage has skipped a step.

[Mezkh]

If any part of the unit has done something, they all are considered to have done that something.

So one model fails an armor test they all do? That's too broad of a statement.

 

The wound is inflicted on a unit, the armour save by the rules is then allocated to a particular model. All covered in the BRB.

 

-----

I don't see any justification for 'tenses'.

 

Rage tells you to move the unit towards the closest enemy. The rules tell you this is measured by moving the closest model in the unit to the closest enemy model. Once you've done that, you've completed what the rule has asked you to do.

 

There is nothing more to read into it. Totally agree with Grey Mage :P if the intention was that you move every model towards the enemy, it would specify 'model' and not 'unit'.

[Dan VK]

I also agree with Grey Mage. The rules are clear, even if I do not like them and think using Rage in the manner previously described is poor sportsmanship.

[Mezkh]

I don't think it's poor really. Considering the owner of the DC has splashed out 350 points before upgrades to afford a unit of 10 Death Company with Jump packs, the extra flexibility in the movement phase is the perk that comes from spending those points.

 

No other Blood Angel unit in the codex pays 15 points per model to buy a Jump Pack.

[BigDunc]

Players interpret the rules consistently when those rules don't have detrimental effects. What's happening here, because of compulsory movement that could be detrimental, is that those same players change and skew the interpretation of the rules to avoid detrimental effects. 'Unit' should be interpreted the same way every time for every rule, and that's not happening here. The 'it doesn't specify each model' argument is exactly where people are choosing to skew the rules.

 

The Rage rule as RAW says that the unit (which means all the models in the group as supported by what a unit is on BRB pg3 [which has yet to be refuted]) have to make a Rage movement.

 

Addition: Tenses. I'll have to think on a better way to explain that.

[Grey Mage]

Players interpret the rules consistently when those rules don't have detrimental effects. What's happening here, because of compulsory movement that could be detrimental, is that those same players change and skew the interpretation of the rules to avoid detrimental effects. 'Unit' should be interpreted the same way every time for every rule, and that's not happening here. The 'it doesn't specify each model' argument is exactly where people are choosing to skew the rules.

 

The Rage rule as RAW says that the unit (which means all the models in the group as supported by what a unit is on BRB pg3 [which has yet to be refuted]) have to make a Rage movement.

 

Addition: Tenses. I'll have to think on a better way to explain that.

Its consistant- and youve yet to show me a real example of when it isnt.

 

Im sorry you disagree with what this player did. To be honest, I dont agree with that kind of thing either- but that doesnt mean its against the rules.

 

If it helps- your right, your just skipping a step. The unit, wich is made of multiple models, has to move towards the closest enemy unit. Wich means the closest model in that unit must go towards the closest enemy model- because the unit is made of models, and so since that particular model has moved closer the unit has moved closer.

 

Its very simple, consistent and straightforward. I dont understand where the malfunction is that your seeing.

[BigDunc]

I'm running into the same mentality with RZ. People are skewing RAW to avoid doing what the rule tells them to.

 

Its consistent- and you've yet to show me a real example of when it isn't.

I don't agree that it is consistent. My second use of the pinned example shows the inconsistency.

 

Pinned says 'unit' not 'every model' and yet people understand that every model is pinned. Rage says 'unit' not 'every model' and people choose to apply Rage to only one model. That's inconsistency.

 

 

Would someone mind defining a 'unit'?

 

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.

When does this measurement take place?

[Grey Mage]

I'm running into the same mentality with RZ. People are skewing RAW to avoid doing what the rule tells them to.

 

Its consistent- and you've yet to show me a real example of when it isn't.

I don't agree that it is consistent. My second use of the pinned example shows the inconsistency.

 

Pinned says 'unit' not 'every model' and yet people understand that every model is pinned.

You said a pinned unit couldnt shoot- I provided reasoning for this that was consistant. So what example are we talking about here? Assault? Same thing. Move? Same thing. Where exactly is the inconstancy?

 

Rage says 'unit' not 'every model' and people choose to apply Rage to only one model. That's inconsistency.

No, its not. Because we are told to measure the distance between units by the closest models that comprise those units. How else are we to determine wether rages requirement is being met if not by using the rules to measure between units.

 

I'm running into the same mentality with RZ. People are skewing RAW to avoid doing what the rule tells them to.

 

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.

When does this measurement take place?

Whenever you need to check for anything that affects a unit- good or ill. In the case of rage you have to determine the closest unit, so youd measure from each model that might be closest to each enemy model that might also be the closest *as per the measuring distances rule* until you found the closest one. Then youd have to move the unit, maintaining coherency as normal, with that closest model moving towards the enemy as directly as possible. The rest of the unit is free to spread out as needed, move towards other units etc- just like any other unit. That closest model is the anchor around the units neck, and it gives direction to the unit. A good player can spread out their unit as needed to change their target and send them towards other parts of the table... sure. A good opponent can kite them around with fast moving and hard to kill units, dropping things behind them via DS, etc.

 

Would someone mind defining a 'unit'?

Unit is the term given certain groupings of one or more models that work together on a basic level in the rules. All models on the field are part of a unit, even if its just a unit of one model, as described in their rules. All units must be of one of the seven types described on pg 4 and 5 of the BRB in a standard 40k game.

 

Edit: Note, nothing in the definition of a unit stops the basic rule of measuring distances between units from working. Indeed, the idea that a unit with rage can have some members of the unit move in other than a direct line hinges on the idea that they are a unit as a whole- as supported by every rule using the term 'units'.

[Brother-Captain Devlonir]

Just to add something more to Grey Mage's point:

The rules about movement are very clear in the case that if ANY model in a unit has moved, the entire UNIT counts as having moved.

The rules are also clear in Rage that the UNIT needs to move as fast as possible to the closest enemy.

 

So.. how is it inconsistent then, keeping the general movement rule concerning multi model units in mind, to say that if the model in the unit that is closest to the enemy has moved as fast as possible towards the closest enemy, that the entire unit has done that movement?

 

Grey is right here bigdunc, I'm sorry.. but you really are not giving any examples at all that follow suit on your point. Yes, fluffy it might not be the nicest thing.. but when you call someone as a bad or unsportsman player for following RAW you are the bad and unsportsman player yourself. That is okay to do in your FLGS, but if you give someone minus sportsmanship points at a GT because they follow RAW it is your own unsportsman behaviour that wants to twist and turn rules to fit your idea of the fluffy world.

 

Think about it: A deepstriking Land Raider landing on top of a squad of Ork Boyz, who do you think gets the mishap according to RAW? Yet would you remove your Orkz squad if my Blood Angels LRR lands on top of that 20 man squad? No, you would call it a mishap and make me roll on the mishap table.

And that is a lot more illogical and unfluffy than raging idiots focusing on more than one target.

(aka.. I call this my 'end all fluff =/= rule discussions'.. the Deepstriking Landraider landing on top of 20 ork Boyz. Someone should make a demotivator about it..)

[Acebaur]

You guys keep talking about how you measure from closest model to closest model. How is that relevant at all to how the unit moves with the exception of determining which unit to move toward?

 

Yes the BRB says that if one model moves then the unit counts as moving, for the purposes of shooting. It doesn't say that it counts as moving the same amount of distance, because if you move one guy 2" further from his squad he may be 2" closer to the enemy but the rest of his unit isn't.

 

Also you'll forgive me if I don't feel bad for the guy who splashed out 350 points for a 10 man unit(which he isn't required to take) that comes with Fearless, Feel No Pain, Relentless, and Furious Charge and then expects to not have any down sides. Considering they start at only 20 points per model that's a bargain.

 

Don't tell me I'm unsportmanlike because a player wants to do something that(depending on which side of the argument you are on here) is at worst straight up cheating and at best, taking advantage of a loophole(see also TWC and Nob bikers kitted for wound allocation) in order to gain an advantage on the table-top. Is the latter legal? Sure, but is it in the spirit of the game? Not a chance, we have a term for those kind of things, it's called WAAC.

[Acebaur]

Sorry, double posted by accident

[Brother-Captain Devlonir]

Don't tell me I'm unsportmanlike because a player wants to do something that(depending on which side of the argument you are on here) is at worst straight up cheating and at best, taking advantage of a loophole(see also TWC and Nob bikers kitted for wound allocation) in order to gain an advantage on the table-top. Is the latter legal? Sure, but is it in the spirit of the game? Not a chance, we have a term for those kind of things, it's called WAAC.

 

Wait what? TWC and Nob Bikers kitted for Wound Allocation is unsportsmanship behaviour? Seriously..

 

And you feel that because a Raging unit is not forced to bunch together from the start of the game (because the interpretation you support forces a Raging unit to do that) is having 'no downsides'?

Have you ever actually played with a Raging unit following the rules Grey, and 90% of B&C, support? The forced 6 inch movement of your closest model to the closest enemy SEVERELY limits the options a unit has in their movement phase. Especially if you, in the case of the DC, pay 15 points per jump pack extra. The only room a Raging unit has is staying in coherency with the model that had to move to the enemy as fast as possible. Which, in most cases, means the squad either has to string out (a tactical bad idea) or spread out to be of any use at all when being kited.

 

Seriously though.. You want to add more downsides to Rage than the rules state they have, and you dare call those that follow the exact RAW unsportsman players? What we follow here is RAW and not an interpretation of it, because the point that if the closest model moved as fast as possible, the whole unit is consider as having moved as fast as possible has not yet been rebuked using good examples and rule quotations.

 

So please don't throw those accusations around and let people think that you are correct on your high mountain while your own following of feelings and not rules is unsportsman. Following rules, even if it is abusing them in your mind, is the most sportsman thing to do. Accusing others of being unsportsman or throwing around RAI to bend rules, even if making them more 'logcial' or 'fluffy', is unsportsman behaviour.

[Brother-Captain Devlonir]

To add to my point why forcing every model to move their own direct line to the closest enemy is severely limiting and breaks Raging units to become unplayable, see this hastly made model:

This shows that even a unit as small as 3 models will be forced to stand in B2B when just over halfway on the way to their target if they started their run to that specific enemy in maximum coherency. And from that point on, it is impossible for them to loose B2B with each other following the logic of each model moving as fast as possible by itself.

This can happen in turn 1 or 2 of the game already.

So please, say again with a straight face, that forcing each model to move as fast as possible and not the unit as a whole is not game breaking when from turn 2 and each turn onwards you can insta kill 10 of my 35 point models with your pie plate vindicator? I'm sorry.. but DC would be cheaper than normal marines and not more expensive if that is how Rage was intended to be used.

Case closed.

[Grey Mage]

You guys keep talking about how you measure from closest model to closest model. How is that relevant at all to how the unit moves with the exception of determining which unit to move toward?

Giving me a different way of determining if the unit has moved closer to another unit that is supported by the rules.

 

At the moment all we have is this- its a unit moving closer to a unit. Thus we measure the distance before and after the move from the closest model to the closest model and and it should be ~ the same distance as the units movement *ie 6" for infantry, 12" for jump infantry, etc* because rage says the UNIT must move there as fast as it can. If the closest model has then moved the maximum value it can move towards that closest unit *as determined by the closest model*, up to being at 1" away from an enemy model, they have met the entirety of the restrictions rage puts on them in the movement phase.

[Leonaides]

consider this- 10 dc lined up 1 inch apart. 1 enemy dread 2 inches away from the leftmost dc model. A unit of 5 infantry standing 3 inches away directly in front of the 5 dc on the right side. Which way must the dc move? If you want every dc to move directly towards the closest model, but the unit must move towards the closest enemy unit, you actually cannot do it. Greymage's got it right in my opinion...

[Spacefrisian]

Yep the rules are clear the op was wrong.

 

All models of Dc have Rage, all models must move towards the nearest target as they all have Rage. The nearest target was the Dread so all should have moved towards the dread.

 

End of story.

[Brother-Captain Devlonir]

Yep the rules are clear the op was wrong.

 

All models of Dc have Rage, all models must move towards the nearest target as they all have Rage. The nearest target was the Dread so all should have moved towards the dread.

 

End of story.

 

did you even read the thread? or the rules for that matter? (which state the UNIT not the models must move towards the nearest visible enemy)

 

Sorry.. but posts like this just don't add to the discussion at all.

 

Also, to add to your logical falicy:

What if the squad was joined by a Chaplain? The Chaplain model does not have Rage, so can it move any way it wants to?

tip: look up rules about multiple USRs in units and rules on ICs.

[Grey Mage]

Yep the rules are clear the op was wrong.

 

All models of Dc have Rage, all models must move towards the nearest target as they all have Rage. The nearest target was the Dread so all should have moved towards the dread.

 

End of story.

Sorry Spacefrisian, but its a unit special rule, not a model special rule, so that doesnt work.

[Spacefrisian]

Thats one of the lamest thing i ever read. Saying the model individually doesnt have the rule but as a unit they do.

[Captain Malachi]

Of course the model has the rule, that isn't the point. The point is the wording in the rule makes it affect the unit as a whole, not each individual model.

[Grey Mage]

Thats one of the lamest thing i ever read. Saying the model individually doesnt have the rule but as a unit they do.

Read the rule. It says 'units subject to rage'. It refers to 'units'. Not once does it say 'models'. Wether you think its 'lame' or 'cool' or whatever doesnt read into it. Are you tracking this?

 

Of course the model has the rule, that isn't the point. The point is the wording in the rule makes it affect the unit as a whole, not each individual model.

Exactly, and this is the basis on wich the rule operates. Rage doesnt effect individual models because the rule doesnt ever mention any effect on them. One, and only one, model in the unit needs to meet the restrictions to give the whole lot of them a pass because of how the movement and measuring rules are written.

 

Wether we think thats for the best or not. Wether thats enough of a 'drawback' or not.

[Brother-Captain Devlonir]

Thats one of the lamest thing i ever read. Saying the model individually doesnt have the rule but as a unit they do.

 

And I consider it 'lame' that your vision forces my DC to move like a solid blob with no room between them from turn 2 onwards (see my illustrated example above).

 

I also consider it lame that my Deepstriking Landraider landing on top of 1 enemy model gets a mishap and not a squished enemy. But it's simply the way the rules work.

[Acebaur]

First of remember that your interpretation of RAW and mine are different things in this matter. For the record, yes I think that kitting TWC and Nob bikers for wound allocation is cicumventing a rule that that GW has in place. Because you can take 5 wounds on a 5 man unit and not lose a single guy. That's a different discussion though so I'll stay on topic. You all keep saying that "the models don't have rage the unit does" It's the same thing, the models comprise the unit!! OF COURSE the models all have rage because they are all part of the unit.

This is taking it to an extreme, as long as you move towards the nearest model, you are ok. It doesn't have to force you to bunch up like this until you get there. See below for my next example.

This is the kind of BS that I am talking about. You move just one model in the direction that you are supposed to and then send everyone else in a totally differenent direction? I don't think so, that's not what the rule says. Here he should have surrounded the dread and if he didn't bring a powerfist that's his own dumbass fault.

So please don't throw those accusations around and let people think that you are correct on your high mountain while your own following of feelings and not rules is unsportsman. Following rules, even if it is abusing them in your mind, is the most sportsman thing to do. Accusing others of being unsportsman or throwing around RAI to bend rules, even if making them more 'logcial' or 'fluffy', is unsportsman behaviour.

I can't believe I just read that you are OK with abusing the rules, as long as you stay within what you define as RAW? Riiight, real sporting of you. Also look whos talking about being on a high mountain, did you ever stop to think that you might be the one who is wrong? You can honestly tell me that you are ok with the second example as being legal?

[Brother-Captain Devlonir]

I can't believe I just read that you are OK with abusing the rules, as long as you stay within what you define as RAW? Riiight, real sporting of you. Also look whos talking about being on a high mountain, did you ever stop to think that you might be the one who is wrong? You can honestly tell me that you are ok with the second example as being legal?

 

Yes I am, because it is. Because nowhere in the rules of Rage does it say the unit has to 'bunch around' the Dread as you just put it. It has to move as quickly as possible towards it and end it's move at least 1 inch away from it because the rules force us to do that.

Rage does not say: "Any excess movement may only be used to move around the closest enemy" or something else. So your whole point of saying the only legal move is to move around the Dread is silly.

 

Alright.. let me put it this way:

 

In example 1 you say:

This is taking it to an extreme, as long as you move towards the nearest model, you are ok. It doesn't have to force you to bunch up like this until you get there.

Now you do not follow your own ruling. Because you say, each model has to follow the Rage USR every time. So each model has to 'move as quickly as possible to the nearest visible enemy'

That is your idea. That immediately forces bunching up as I showed. There is no buts around it. If you want to rule such, at least be consistent about it.

 

Now.. we take the rule: if 1 model in a unit moves, the whole unit moves. Lets extrapolate that to Rage and say the following:

 

If the closest model moves as fast as possible towards the closest visible enemy, the whole unit does and if 1 model does not move as fast as possible towards the closest visible enemy, the whole unit doesn't.

 

Well.. then we can reason that in example 2, both happened. Models moved as fast as possible, and some models moved away. So the unit did: Both! Hey.. but at least we also moved as fast as possible towards.. so we fulfill the Rage USR.

 

Also: Your same example using Pinning before.. you are right, if one model gets pinned the whole unit does. So why would that reasoning only work for non-beneficial things and can it not work the other way around as well? So that if one model fulfills a special condition the whole unit does?

Because let me add a few more examples of how what 1 guy does can follow up on the entire squad:

- Moving through difficult terrain.. 1 models moves through, whole unit can be slowed down.

- Standing in cover out of sight.. 1 model is in sight the unit can be fired on

- Charging into assault.. 1 model makes it into assault range, the whole unit counts as being in assault.

There is only 1 situation I can think of off the top of my head that doesnt work that way and that is cover. Half the unit must be in cover to count as being in cover. And that rule has a specific description that this defines if a unit is in cover or not.

So tell me why Rage needs this special treatment?

 

I'm sorry, but I am still not convinced of your point. And you again did not actually bring forward any rules or reasons as to why I should be.

Also; There is no such thing as what I define as RAW. It is the major flaw of Warhammer players that they feel that their reasoning of RAW is as much RAW as a fully supported by the rules reasoning is. There is 1 RAW, and that is not a manner of opinion but of reasoning. So please give me good, solid reasoning that cannot be rebuked (the essence of scientific work) and I will accept your ruling.