Again with the Rage

[JamesI]

Personally, I don't like Grey Mage's interpretation, but it seems to be correct by RAW.

 

But then again, rage units become useless if they all have to move as fast as possible towards the closest enemy unit as they could easily be forced to bunch into a small area and be plasma cannoned or vindicator shelled out of existence (as shown in some of the above images)

 

A simple solution would be to require every model to move closer. The first must move closer to the enemy as fast as possible, the rest must all move closer but are allowed to maintain coherency and not forced to bunch. It wouldn't allow as many abuses as the current rule allows.

 

Rage works perfectly for a unit of 1 model. Its wording is poor for mutli-model units. I'd really like to see a FAQ to deal with this.

 

(I'll point out in the rare cases that I've used Death company outside of Kill Team, I followed the idea that every model had to move as fast as possible towards the closest model in the target unit while maintaining coherency).

[BigDunc]

When a multi-model Rage unit gets right on top of the designated enemy unit (which is one model, like the Dread in the OP) they'll start to bunch up. Against another multi-model unit, however, there's enough leeway to allow the Rage'd unit to keep some distance between models. As long as a majority of the unit's movement is towards the enemy unit then you're good (and I don't mean 2" backwards and 3" forwards). Think of it like Trigonometry. If you move 3" directly towards the enemy then you can move 3" laterally away from the enemy. It can be said you moved 'in the direction of' (which is the Webster's definition of 'towards') the enemy unit because of majority of the movement is in that direction. This allows for a 45 degree angle somewhat away from the enemy that you're allowed to move. Roughly like this:

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt90/bigduncm24/45degreeargument.png

I have used one model for each unit to keep things simple, but the concept still holds as you add in models.

 

 

Rage and RZ are both very similar in how they're worded, to include 'unit' instead of 'every model'. For what it's worth (which I expect to be very little considering how unimportant logic has been in this whole argument), here's a link to an old GW Throne of Skulls FAQ that talks about RZ. Scroll down to #93.

[Dan VK]

I stand by my previous comments. I believe it is unsportsmanlike to use the letter of the rules to gain an advantage or eliminate a disadvantage, regardless of the codex used or the edition played. I felt the same way about various issues throughout the previous two editions; every game has its problems, and player use of poor wording for personal gain has traditionally been Warhammer 40,000's major problem in my experience. To me, using Rage in the manner previously described in the original topic post is the same as using Gate of Infinity to remove a Librarian from close combat, or using Marneus Calgar's God of War special rule to avoid No Retreat! wounds. It is beardy/cheesy, whether it is legal or quasi-legal. Most importantly, my previous comment was :to: (and this one is, too), and has no bearing on the validity of the arguments on either side of the issue. My bad for bringing a loaded term like 'unsporting' into a previously civil conversation. :huh:

 

To get back on topic, as I stated previously, I do not like the rule, but Grey Mage has the right of it. Grey Mage said something similar ("I dont agree with that kind of thing either- but that doesnt mean its against the rules."). What we think of the rule matters not one bit if the rule is worded clearly. It does not matter if it is inconsistent with other rules. It does not matter if it is an inaccurate representation of the effect as described in the fluff. It does not matter if the benefit (or lack thereof) is not appropriate to the point cost. It does not matter if the correct interpretation ruins how you play the game (congratulations, you have a vested interest in your position). The RAW is crystal clear to me, as it seems to be for most posters, and clarity is all that matters.

 

 

[Edit: Adjusted disparate tenses.]

[Algesan]

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?

 

I'd like to point out a thought for everyone that is often missed. Nothing personal Acebaur, you are just the one that called "abuse" on using a rule. In my experience with a great many kinds and varieties of games, all of them have rules that can be "abused" or "exploited" depending on how they are applied. Works that way in real life too when "rules" are important.

 

Many times these "exploits" happen when players read the rules and apply them. At this point it isn't "cheesy", "beardy", "WAAC", "poor sportsmanship", etc. it is simply applying the rules to a situation that is often a special case. For example, charging a bunch of easy kill peons with several units and happening to tag a nearby MC with a three model unit with one in BTB with the MC, one in BTB with the peons and one to maintain coherency between the other two to make it a multiple unit combat is considered a valid tactic. I've seen it written up and videos on Youtube showing how to do it.

 

Cool, you pile up the wounds on the peons, limit your risk to the MC to two models and if you are a MEQ then you pretty much have tossed the equivalent of another squad (or more) of MEQ at the MC (per wound you win by) when you figure you skipped the need to hit and wound. Not a bad little trick. However....

 

If the interpretation if that each fearless unit takes that same amount of wounds in a multiple unit assault, then accordingly it is worth throwing every last model you can find against the "patsy" because that multiplier effect means that it is not only per wound you win by, but also per fearless unit involved. Even if it would be stupid to do so in any other case with your current units.

 

"Abuse"? "Beardy"? "Cheesy"? "Exploit"? "Poor sportsmanship"? "WAAC"?

 

None of the above, simply using the rules of the game.

[Algesan]

I stand by my previous comments. I believe it is unsportsmanlike to use the letter of the rules to gain an advantage or eliminate a disadvantage, regardless of the codex used or the edition played. I felt the same way about various issues throughout the previous two editions; every game has its problems, and player use of poor wording for personal gain has traditionally been Warhammer 40,000's major problem in my experience.

 

How do you judge? What about various armies that can use FNP to avoid taking some wounds? Is it unsportsmanlike for Sisters to use an act of faith to get +2 Initiative and strike first in a melee? Should Black Templars give up the effects of their EC's vow? All of these are letter of the rules and at times and places they allow one to gain an advantage or eliminate a disadvantage.

 

FWIW, my experience is that all games have to deal with people using "poor wording" to win.

[shatter]

I think it's a little sad that people are so used to their preconceived and literally wrong interpretations of rage and to a lesser extent unit movement rules, that people like me, that have read the rule and could* follow it apparently perfectly without preconception, are judged to be poor sportsmen. When I play, and I see someone make a mistake with rules that obviously presents preconception, I tell them. Every time.

I'll say: "Dude, before you finish that move, I think you might be making a mistake. You don't have to blahblahblah with that model's blahblahblah. Or a specific and common example, "Dude, you can place that unit so that only the edge of the unit is in range of that unit's mark. Check wargear ranges."

 

Breaking preconceptions is pretty painful and difficult for most people. Much like any form of prejudice. The resistance in this thread to playing the rule literally and correctly is palpable and quite sad in my opinion. Oh well, we're all human I guess.

 

This is a game of abstractions. There are so many situations in the game where the leading edge of a unit rules against common sense it's laughable. Take shooting for example. If a massive unit has but a single model (the unit's leading edge) in range of another unit's weapons, the whole unit gets affected. People don't balk at that, yet with rage they do.

 

*sigh*

 

I think most people are not playing RZ correctly. Again, only the leading edge has to move forward to complete the rule's 'towards the enemy' component. The only real reason the rule makes reference to and makes use of consolidation rules is because the unit lost model(s) and must regain any lost coherency, not to gain the 'up to' component, but that's another kettle of really really stinky fish.

 

Yes, I'd very much like the Rage USR to be rewritten and with diagrams. Rage is a very important rule for me, as a BA player. And because of it, I don't use DC except for funsies.

 

*Yes. I lied. That situation in the first post never happened and is just hypothetical.

[Dan VK]

I stand by my previous comments. I believe it is unsportsmanlike to use the letter of the rules to gain an advantage or eliminate a disadvantage, regardless of the codex used or the edition played. I felt the same way about various issues throughout the previous two editions; every game has its problems, and player use of poor wording for personal gain has traditionally been Warhammer 40,000's major problem in my experience.

 

How do you judge? What about various armies that can use FNP to avoid taking some wounds? Is it unsportsmanlike for Sisters to use an act of faith to get +2 Initiative and strike first in a melee? Should Black Templars give up the effects of their EC's vow? All of these are letter of the rules and at times and places they allow one to gain an advantage or eliminate a disadvantage.

 

FWIW, my experience is that all games have to deal with people using "poor wording" to win.

Your first two examples are the clearly intended benefits of those special rules, and I do not understand what you are trying to imply with the third example (I am not intimately familiar with the C:BT rules). I suspect you misunderstood what I attempted to convey. Would you care to continue this discussion in personal messages where it is not off-topic?

 

I think most people are not playing RZ correctly. Again, only the leading edge has to move forward to complete the rule's 'towards the enemy' component. The only real reason the rule makes reference to and makes use of consolidation rules is because the unit lost model(s) and must regain any lost coherency, not to gain the 'up to' component, but that's another kettle of really really stinky fish.

 

Yes, I'd very much like the Rage USR to be rewritten and with diagrams. Rage is a very important rule for me, as a BA player. And because of it, I don't use DC except for funsies.

I agree that most people do not play Righteous Zeal and Rage as written. A few days before this thread was posted I lost a game because my opponent bounced my thirty count Death Company squad between two units, making them completely ineffective for three game turns. Upon closer inspection I found the RAW to be different than I previously believed.

 

*Yes. I lied. That situation in the first post never happened and is just hypothetical.

I do not understand why you fabricated the situation rather than presenting the scenario as a hypothetical, but your admission does not change the RAW or the validity of your question.

 

 

[Edit: I added an additional response to avoid posting in succession.]

[Isiah]

By all means discuss Rage as a rules issue but there is no place here for directly criticising how others play it or understand it. The latter will result in a closed topic and possible warnings for those who have been judged to have stepped over the line with regards breaking B&C rules.

 

Cheers

I

[shatter]

*snip*

 

*Yes. I lied. That situation in the first post never happened and is just hypothetical.

I do not understand why you fabricated the situation rather than presenting the scenario as a hypothetical, but your admission does not change the RAW or the validity of your question.

 

*snip*

 

To motivate the more valid (emotional) reactions from the player as much as the RAWyer within each of us in order to make the closing points I made above more relevant. Rage generates, well... rage. I wish it wasn't so.

[BigDunc]

This arguments feels reminiscent of arguing with people about religion. Such people are so set in their ways, so set in their interpretations, that they're unwilling to see the simpler interpretation for fear of what it might mean. Who's to say that the Grey Mage interpretation isn't the preconception? Furthermore, using ideas from outside the rulebook (ie Bible), such as logic or the value of sportsmanship, just doesn't work. That plays no part in our little strategic, competitive game. There is only the accepted interpretation of the law, no matter how inconsistent that point of view might be when viewed from the outside.

 

There still exists interpretation when it comes to RAW. If that wasn't the case we wouldn't be having this disagreement. To further complicate things, all of our supporting arguments are subject to interpretation as well. For example, "if one model moves then the unit counts as moving". It could be argued that this in only regards to shooting considering the location and formatting of the rule and so wouldn't apply to a movement situation like Rage.

 

Unfortunately, without the help of GW this disagreement won't ever be resolved. Players will use the "one model moving closer satisfies Rage" interpretation because it's less detrimental to their success. It's human nature.

 

Does that mean my opponent will receive a low sportsmanship score? It'll factor in, and it should, but it's a very small piece of a much larger picture. I understand this interpretation is what's accepted and so has to be taken with a grain of salt when determining comp scores. Besides, they'll probably look at me with the same raised eyebrow when I use Preferred Enemy to re-roll my successful hits in order to miss and stay in close combat.

[Mezkh]

Unfortunately, without the help of GW this disagreement won't ever be resolved. Players will use the "one model moving closer satisfies Rage" interpretation because it's less detrimental to their success. It's human nature.

 

I agree with a lot of your post, but don't agree with this. I'll use the "one model moving closer satisfies rage" interpretation because it satisfies my comprehension of the rules the most, not because of any bias. I play plenty of contentious rules issues where others have had 'wrong' ideas about the rules that disadvantange my side of the board, reference WBB and sweeping advance for my Necrons, or Blood Angels and cover saves for vehicles (something I was proven wrong about).

 

It's too easy to turn your argument around and say you'll play against rage insisting on your interpretation because it's less detrimental to your success to have more uncontrollable enemy units. But I wouldn't think that to be correct?

[Niiai]

I think shatter played corectly and after having played a lott of game up over the years it is a very good example of a person making a good play based on the rules RAW. It also makes sence in game and in my head RAI but that is not the point. The point is RAW.

 

I am behind gray mage on this. The DC ended up close to the dread. The Rage rule states that the unit (that is the whole blob, not all the models in the blob) need to move towards the dreadnought. after he had moved the unit was 1" away from the dread, witch is the closest it can get befor charging. The rest of the marines did not have to swarm around the dread and suround it. The had forfilled the Rage rule. What the rest of the unit does (like a tail) does not really matter. The only exeption was that this tail was a bit prehensile and started walking towards the other units. Perfectly legal since they still are as close as they can get to the dreadnought. And when they then charged they charged the marines.

 

If however the tail had mamaged to grab a land raider (say the land raider drowe 1" into the death company they would be in a jam. Since now they have to be 1" close to both units I think. They could probably solve this by charging the dreaded dreadnought. :(

 

PS: Grey Mage, I think there are a lott of trolls in this thread, but you newer know with GW.

[BigDunc]

It's too easy to turn your argument around and say you'll play against rage insisting on your interpretation because it's less detrimental to your success to have more uncontrollable enemy units. But I wouldn't think that to be correct?

No, that wouldn't be correct. Perhaps if I wasn't a BT player it might be. I think RZ works the way that I've been arguing for Rage (each model must RZ/Rage), and that's the way I play it. They are very similar rules and were I to play BA, I would play them the way I've been describing, or as Shatter does, not play DC.

[BigDunc]

PS: Grey Mage, I think there are a lott of trolls in this thread, but you newer know with GW.

So we disagree and become trolls? Nice.

[Grey Mage]

I had thought to come back and re-engage in some intelligent debate after a long day over the grill, not to insults or religion, lets keep this clean.

 

When a multi-model Rage unit gets right on top of the designated enemy unit (which is one model, like the Dread in the OP) they'll start to bunch up. Against another multi-model unit, however, there's enough leeway to allow the Rage'd unit to keep some distance between models. As long as a majority of the unit's movement is towards the enemy unit then you're good (and I don't mean 2" backwards and 3" forwards). Think of it like Trigonometry. If you move 3" directly towards the enemy then you can move 3" laterally away from the enemy. It can be said you moved 'in the direction of' (which is the Webster's definition of 'towards') the enemy unit because of majority of the movement is in that direction. This allows for a 45 degree angle somewhat away from the enemy that you're allowed to move. Roughly like this:

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt90/bigduncm24/45degreeargument.png

I have used one model for each unit to keep things simple, but the concept still holds as you add in models.

 

Im sorry, but where does rage mention 'majority'. I cant find the word in the Rage USR anywhere. You have to move towards them as quickly as possible- that doesnt mean at an angle and then back again, etc- because the boards we play on are basicly a flat plane the fastest way will always be a straight line.

 

And if we further went with your interpretation that each model- as opposed to the unit- had to move directly at the enemy thered be no ability to spread out at all. Your only way of trying to change things up would be the order of movement and unless it was a very terrain heavy area youd end up in base to base when you moved directly at the unit.

 

Mostly though, what your asking people to do doesnt work with the measurement rules for units. Why are we trying to transpose the word unit into models? I just dont understand your underlying objection, or why your bringing rightcheous zeal into this?

 

I do however have several reasons why I cant respect your interpretation:

 

1) As I said, it doesnt work with the measurement rules.

2) It would set a horrible precident where unit=model. Units declare targets, not models- but if we transpose here then why not there and have each model declare its own shooting? Assaults? morale tests? Pinning tests?

3) Why do you keep bringing up RZ? Theres an entirely separate set of reasons that support your basic issue with RZ, the models vs units argument we have here is not the lynchpin so what is there to prove?

[Brother-Captain Devlonir]

I had thought to come back and re-engage in some intelligent debate after a long day over the grill, not to insults or religion, lets keep this clean.

 

Sorry, I feel co-guilty for this.. I'll keep it civil.

 

 

Im sorry, but where does rage mention 'majority'. I cant find the word in the Rage USR anywhere. You have to move towards them as quickly as possible- that doesnt mean at an angle and then back again, etc- because the boards we play on are basicly a flat plane the fastest way will always be a straight line.

 

And if we further went with your interpretation that each model- as opposed to the unit- had to move directly at the enemy thered be no ability to spread out at all. Your only way of trying to change things up would be the order of movement and unless it was a very terrain heavy area youd end up in base to base when you moved directly at the unit.

This was my point exactly and why I made the diagram using the simplest possible situation. 3 models, 1 target they all need to move to. This example can, in many cases, go up to 30 when it involves Raging units of multiple models.

Even heavy terrain will not do more than force the unit to move more along a string than a bunched up blob.

 

Mostly though, what your asking people to do doesnt work with the measurement rules for units. Why are we trying to transpose the word unit into models? I just dont understand your underlying objection, or why your bringing rightcheous zeal into this?

This is exactly what I do not understand either. Why is this the way of this discussion? The dutch board I am active in has the same idea which I simply do not understand.

 

When I simply ask someone on a gameboard, and take my closest non-JP Death Company Marine and move it 6 inches to his closest model and ask them: I moved the unit as fast as possible now, did I not? They all say yes and let me move the rest of my unit however I want it over the battlefield. Not once in all my time have I heard anyone complain when my models did not bunch up turn 2 because they all had to move in a straight line forward.

 

I do however have several reasons why I cant respect your interpretation:

 

1) As I said, it doesnt work with the measurement rules.

2) It would set a horrible precident where unit=model. Units declare targets, not models- but if we transpose here then why not there and have each model declare its own shooting? Assaults? morale tests? Pinning tests?

3) Why do you keep bringing up RZ? Theres an entirely separate set of reasons that support your basic issue with RZ, the models vs units argument we have here is not the lynchpin so what is there to prove?

 

Ugh.. why do you have such a better way with words to explain my exact points without becoming a bit emotional over it.

I am jealous of you Grey Mage!

[Niiai]

PS: Grey Mage, I think there are a lott of trolls in this thread, but you newer know with GW.

So we disagree and become trolls? Nice.

 

I am not saying you are trolls. I you felt this remarc was aimed at you I am sorry. I do not know if you are familiar with the forum defenition of trolls (not the warhammer/norwegian troll.) It was more of a generell remark in a situation where one side comes up with argument 1. And the other side comes up with argument 2. And none of them tend to take into themself the other parties argument.

 

Grey Mage states out the rules in the book for how the game count's a unit. Then the points out the measurement rules. Then from those two rules he points out how he moves the rage unit. It seems very logical to me. Warhammer 40k is not logical, it is just a sett of rules so that you can play the game, so the reason I think Grey Mage has a logical argument here is because he is refering to the rules.

 

What I realy do feel gives these argument weight is that in the argumentetion from the side bigdunc in on they have no concrete rules to refer to. You just say that you feel that rage should afect the whole unit on a model on model basis. I understand why you feel that, but it is not suported by the rules. Or if it is, please point out where in the rules that is. The way you read rage it sounds like a very bad rule where death companies just end up getting hit by a plasma template. It just feels like you are sett on getting your vision through when it comes to how the rage rule should be played out withouth actualy having it backed up by the rules.

 

If the unit was not a unit but models (all the models need to move towards the target) then I agree with grey mage that every induvidual model in the unit should be abel to shoot at seperet targets. But clearly that is not the case. I am pretty shure somebody from Games Workshop would have pointed it out to players on one of there tournaments by now. And from there this fact would have found it's way out onto the internett.

 

All this argumentation where the one side just is not taking in the arguments and debating against the arguments against them, well that is just what makes it feel like a troll thread. Again, I am sorry since I ofended yout, it was not my intension. I would also apolegise for the spelling errors, as I am a dyslextic. But I would just like the page number on where you get your rules from, that states that rage units have to break the rules that units normaly follows.

[Algesan]

I stand by my previous comments. I believe it is unsportsmanlike to use the letter of the rules to gain an advantage or eliminate a disadvantage, regardless of the codex used or the edition played. I felt the same way about various issues throughout the previous two editions; every game has its problems, and player use of poor wording for personal gain has traditionally been Warhammer 40,000's major problem in my experience.

 

How do you judge? What about various armies that can use FNP to avoid taking some wounds? Is it unsportsmanlike for Sisters to use an act of faith to get +2 Initiative and strike first in a melee? Should Black Templars give up the effects of their EC's vow? All of these are letter of the rules and at times and places they allow one to gain an advantage or eliminate a disadvantage.

 

FWIW, my experience is that all games have to deal with people using "poor wording" to win.

Your first two examples are the clearly intended benefits of those special rules, and I do not understand what you are trying to imply with the third example (I am not intimately familiar with the C:BT rules). I suspect you misunderstood what I attempted to convey. Would you care to continue this discussion in personal messages where it is not off-topic?

 

I'm making the point that many rules, depending on codex and/or edition provide advantages or eliminate disadvantages. I think you will agree.

 

At what point do these rules become "poor sportsmanship"?

 

Let's take it out of 40k for a second.

 

Rule for chivalrous combat: "Take no unfair advantage of your foe's position."

 

Ok, if your foe trips over a rock or something, then letting him stand up would fit that rule.

 

Now, how about if you shield bash him onto his arse?

How about if you hammer him to his knees with your weapon?

 

Do you let him get up to "take no unfair advantage"? Or is this a fair advantage since it was by your actions the foe was put in the position he is in?

 

Following the rules isn't "unfair" or "poor sportsmanship". If the rules allow this move with Rage, then they allow players to do it, even if it gives either one an advantage or disadvantage.

[Seahawk]

I don't see any advantage anyway. They're still being forced to move in a direction that you don't necessarily want them too.

[Dan VK]

Algesan: We are off-topic; the only topic I will discuss further in this thread is the Rage Universal Special Rule. If you wish to continue our discussion please send me a personal message.

 

 

[Edit: I removed my spammy quotes.]

[BigDunc]

I am not saying you are trolls. I you felt this remarc was aimed at you I am sorry.

Fair enough, Niiai. Personally, I consider a troll someone who undermines a thread just for kicks, and that's not what I'm doing.

 

If you're (the general 'you' not you, Niiai) not willing to look at this situation openly and logically, stop reading now. You won't see my position and you'll waste your time. Despite not being realistic combat, 40k requires logic and reasoning to play. GW actually relies on a logical approach by players when it writes the rules. It does so to keep costs down. Without logic, every single word and concept (such as 'what does "towards" mean exactly') would have to be defined in order to even have playable rules. Defining everything means the rulebook becomes 30" thick and costs $150, not to mention the higher cost of the miniatures themselves. Such an idea is evidenced by the shooting rules, which in 3E took up ~8 pages and now in 5E take up ~12 pages. IMO, this is in response to RAWyers skewing the rules.

 

The difficulty of my argument, in terms of me defending it, is it's simplicity. I've quote pg3 of the rulebook (concrete rules, Niiai) in regards to what a 'unit' is, but that doesn't seem to qualify for you guys. None the less, I'll try to explain using situations from the rulebook. Hopefully my understanding of how the rules work will coincide with yours and you'll be able to understand me. In my opinion, you guys are firmly entrenched in your foxholes (rulebook) and are unwilling to poke your heads up and look my/our way (actually I picture us outside the foxhole pointing behind you but you guys aren't willing to look behind you to see what you're defending). While I can see your interpretation (and have played by your interpretation) I don't think it's correct. I don't think it's correct in terms of RAW, RAI, or the spirit of the game. Furthermore, I don't agree with the interpretations of your supporting rules. However, you guys are correct in saying that I have not explained my position very well. So, considering finals are now done, perhaps I can do better.

 

The key to my position is that 'unit' inherently refers to every model in that group. It logically follows that if something effects a unit then every model is effected in turn.

 

In post 13, Grey Mage mentions the Sang Priest's FNP/FC bubble. The Blood Chalice (BC) rule reads, "All friendly units within 6" are subject to the Furious Charge and Feel No Pain special rule." If one model from a friendly unit is within 6", then every model in the unit gets FNP/FC. This is understood because 'every model' is inherent in the word 'unit'. It's not necessary for BC to say "all models part of friendly units within 6"..." because it's already understood. When the unit is effected by FNP/FC, every model is considered effected by FNP/FC.

 

The same scenario happens with Pinning. The Pinning and Gone to Ground rules never say that 'every model in the unit is gone to ground' because it's unnecessary. Instead Pinning (pg31) says, "If the unit fails the test, it is immediately..." and Gone to Ground says, "Whilst it has gone to ground the unit may do nothing of its own volition..." How is it that I know every model in the unit is effectively 'pinned'? Because it's logically understood that 'unit' refers to every model in the group. When the unit is effected by pinning, every model is considered pinned.

 

Shooting rules are based on the same understanding of 'unit'. The first step in the shooting phase is to declare a unit's shooting. It's understood that every model is effect by this declaration because the word 'unit' is used. Unless stated otherwise every model in the unit has to shoot and at the same target. However, the shooting rules do state otherwise and give exceptions to what this declaration entails, for example, by saying that models can fire. This allows individual models to 'break free' of what the unit is doing. However, this 'breaking free' is limited because the rules specifically state that a unit cannot split fire.

 

In the assault phase, again, you start by declaring what a unit is going to do before being given exceptions and specific limitations. For example, because of the understanding of 'unit' it's necessary to have rules specifically stating that individual models within a unit can assault an enemy unit other than the declared target.

 

Another example is Fall Back. 5E Fall Back rules specifically state that each model must fall back. When you look at the 4E rulebook it doesn't say that. 4E only refers to the unit. Why the change? To squash the ability of RAWyers to skew the rules, just like it's being done with Rage and RZ.

 

Rage (like shooting, assaults, pinning and the Blood Chalice) uses the term 'unit', except now the logical (and otherwise accepted) understanding of something effecting a unit also effecting the models appears to be invalid. Somehow, Rage's 'unit' only effects the one model because that in turn effects the whole unit while 'unit' in the Blood Chalice means every model. Why is that? How is that justified?

 

IMO, the why is because players are avoiding a possibly detrimental rule. And 'how' justification comes not from support within the rulebook, but support from the accepted skewness of the rulebook within the community. Call it the meta-mob rule. My opinion about people avoiding detrimental rules could be wrong. It's definitely a generalization and doesn't apply to everybody. But, the following comments give weight to my opinion:

Shatter, post 3: The rage rule sucks for two reasons. One, you have to do stuff... but that's okay...

Dan VK, post 4: The intention is obvious, but intention means nothing when the wording is clear.

Brother-Captain Devlonir, post 11: 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...

Mezkh, post 30: 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.

Brother-Captain Devlonir, post 38: Following rules, even if it is abusing them in your mind, is the most sportsman thing to do.

JamesI, post 51: ...rage units become useless if they all have to move as fast as possible towards the closest enemy unit as they could easily be forced to bunch into a small area and be plasma cannoned or vindicator shelled out of existence...

 

 

I, and others, have mentioned RZ because it's very similar to Rage. While RZ has it's own interpretive issues that need not be discussed here, one issue that both rules share is how 'unit' is interpreted.

RZ: "... and passes it, then the unit must move towards the nearest visible enemy."

Rage: "... units subject to rage must always move towards the closest visible enemy [as fast as possible]." I have moved the compulsory distance aspect of Rage, but it still maintains the same meaning.

 

These are very similarly worded rules, and work very similarly: RZ has compulsory movement, optional distance, and compulsory direction; Rage has compulsory movement, compulsory distance, and compulsory direction. There similarities, especially the identical use of the word 'unit' is important in regards to this: 2009 Throne of Skulls FAQ. The appropriate question is #93. If every model from a unit has to RZ, and because Rage and RZ are so similarly worded, it logically follows the same thing should happen with Rage.

 

I also don't think the quoted rules used to support Grey Mage's position is interpreted correctly. His interpretation is mostly supported by this rule:

"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."

 

As I understand the Grey Mage interpretation, after the first model has Raged, the unit has satisfied the requires and may move in any fashion within the movement rules. After a Rage effected unit has moved, you guys ask yourself the question (in the past tense), 'has the unit moved closer to the enemy unit?'. Using this supporting rule, the answer is Yes. However I don't think this is the correct usage of this rule and it's because something that effects the unit inherently effects all the models in that unit (my key point). So, the proper question to ask is, 'did the effected models in the unit (ie all of them) move closer to the enemy unit?'. Using your movement techniques the answer would be No.

 

I have another issue regarding this supporting rule. For this rule you guys are visualizing the unit as a blob. When you have to decide towards which enemy blob the friendly blob will move, you use the above rule, and that happens before any models are touched. After the blob moves you again use this rule to justify that the blob has moved towards the correct enemy blob. As I understand your interpretation, once this measurement is made the big green check mark is applied to satisfying Rage. Once Rage is satisfied, you're free to do whatever (such as stretching the unit out towards the Devs) with the remainder of the models. So, when does this 'post-movement' measurement take place? When does the big green check mark actually appear? Since we're working with blobs is it fair to say that this measurement takes place after the blob has completed it's movement? Assuming you agree with that, let's work through it.

 

So you move your first model. If no other models are moving then the blob has completed it's movement (as hypothetically agreed above) and the measurement is made. If the blob ended up closer then you've satisfied Rage.

 

But what if you intend to move other models? In that case the blob has not completed it's movement, and therefore you can't measure to satisfy Rage as 'agreed' above. If you're working on the blob 'scale' it's fair to ask that you remain on the blob 'scale'. So, since you haven't satisfied Rage requirements, the second model must Rage in the same direction. And the third, fourth, fifth.... until the last model has moved. THEN, at that point, once the blob has completed it's movement, you can measure blob-to-blob, using the above rule, and satisfy Rage.

 

 

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one, and IMO that simple explanation is that every model in the group is referred to when the word 'unit' is used, therefore every model must adhere to Rage.

[Dan VK]

IMO, the why is because players are avoiding a possibly detrimental rule. And 'how' justification comes not from support within the rulebook, but support from the accepted skewness of the rulebook within the community. Call it the meta-mob rule. My opinion about people avoiding detrimental rules could be wrong. It's definitely a generalization and doesn't apply to everybody. But, the following comments give weight to my opinion:

[Removed by Dan VK for space]

Dan VK, post 4: The intention is obvious, but intention means nothing when the wording is clear.

[Removed by Dan VK for space]

Obviously feel free to use my own statements to support whatever argument you want to make, but please do not assume my intention for supporting Grey Mage's (and others) interpretation of the rule in question. I support the Rules As Written, now and always, because this is an Official Rules forum. I believe I have made my personal opinion of the RAW for Rage very clear, to the detriment of this thread and myself.

 

As I understand the Grey Mage interpretation, after the first model has Raged, the unit has satisfied the requires and may move in any fashion within the movement rules. After a Rage effected unit has moved, you guys ask yourself the question (in the past tense), 'has the unit moved closer to the enemy unit?'. Using this supporting rule, the answer is Yes. However I don't think this is the correct usage of this rule and it's because something that effects the unit inherently effects all the models in that unit (my key point). So, the proper question to ask is, 'did the effected models in the unit (ie all of them) move closer to the enemy unit?'. Using your movement techniques the answer would be No.

As I understand the wording, after the unit has moved it has satisfied Rage if the model in the unit closest to the nearest enemy unit has moved the maximum distance allowed towards the enemy unit. I believe I understand your argument, but distances between units are measured between the nearest models in the appropriate units, not every model in the unit.

[JamesI]

bigdunc, thanks for using my quote to claim I am trying to ignore a detrimental rule. As I have said many times, I don't use DC partly because of the lack of clarity of rage (though no matter how GW finally rules if they ever do, I probably will still not use DC).

 

Also, bigdunc, remember 2 important facts.

 

1) A similar ruling in one codex FAQ does not necessarily carry over to another.

2) Throne of Skulls FAQ is not official anyway.

 

Now, this argument doesn't affect me. I don't use a unit with rage and neither does any of my opponents. But the RAW is clear (and again I think RAI is not clear, I have no idea if they intend Rage to work the way I say it does or you say it does)

 

Can we please try to continue this discussion without the accusations of Rules Lawyerhood, troll or other insults? It is possible for each side to honestly believe their interpretation of the rules is the correct one without anyone trying to be a jerk/cheater.

[Grey Mage]

Thats alot of text, and trust me it was an interesting read but in order to keep my post a reasonable size for further rebuttals Im only going to quote the pertinent parts.

 

IMO, the why is because players are avoiding a possibly detrimental rule. And 'how' justification comes not from support within the rulebook, but support from the accepted skewness of the rulebook within the community.

Your right, this happens sometimes. Sometimes a cost/benefit analysis is applicable, but it surely is the weakest form of argument. At the same time however I note you, and others, have repeatedly noted Rage to be a 'drawback'. That in and of itself is never stated in the rules, and is a matter subject to our interpretation.

 

 

Rage (like shooting, assaults, pinning and the Blood Chalice) uses the term 'unit', except now the logical (and otherwise accepted) understanding of something effecting a unit also effecting the models appears to be invalid. Somehow, Rage's 'unit' only effects the one model because that in turn effects the whole unit while 'unit' in the Blood Chalice means every model. Why is that? How is that justified?

No, I think your oversimplifying it.

 

Shooting- only one model has to be in range for the unit to successfully declare the target of its shooting. Assault- only one model has to be in range to successfully launch an assault. Pinning- only one model has to be wounded to cause a pinning test. Blood Chalice/etc- only one model has to be in range to grant the benefit to the squad. Or lets go for a combo- only one member of a unit has to have shot at one member of another unit to force the restriction of having to assault that unit or no other this turn *embarked transports being a specific exception*.

 

In each and every case only one model in a unit has to meet the requirements for the entire squad to gain the benefit. Want further, GW supported proof? Look at the new core book FAQ for the 'Stealth' USR- if any one model in the unit has it the whole unit gains the benefit.

 

Thats how Im looking at this. I dont see any difference in how rage operates compared to these other fundamental rules.

 

As I understand the Grey Mage interpretation, after the first model has Raged, the unit has satisfied the requires and may move in any fashion within the movement rules. After a Rage effected unit has moved, you guys ask yourself the question (in the past tense), 'has the unit moved closer to the enemy unit?'. Using this supporting rule, the answer is Yes. However I don't think this is the correct usage of this rule and it's because something that effects the unit inherently effects all the models in that unit (my key point). So, the proper question to ask is, 'did the effected models in the unit (ie all of them) move closer to the enemy unit?'. Using your movement techniques the answer would be No.

Your correct in groking me there bigdunc. And your right- what affects a unit affects the entire unit.

 

In this case once one member of the unit has satisfied the constrictions of rage, the entire unit has. Just like shooting, moving, assaulting, etc.

 

I, and others, have mentioned RZ because it's very similar to Rage. While RZ has it's own interpretive issues that need not be discussed here, one issue that both rules share is how 'unit' is interpreted.

RZ: "... and passes it, then the unit must move towards the nearest visible enemy."

Rage: "... units subject to rage must always move towards the closest visible enemy [as fast as possible]." I have moved the compulsory distance aspect of Rage, but it still maintains the same meaning.

 

These are very similarly worded rules, and work very similarly: RZ has compulsory movement, optional distance, and compulsory direction; Rage has compulsory movement, compulsory distance, and compulsory direction. There similarities, especially the identical use of the word 'unit' is important in regards to this: 2009 Throne of Skulls FAQ. The appropriate question is #93. If every model from a unit has to RZ, and because Rage and RZ are so similarly worded, it logically follows the same thing should happen with Rage.

 

I see. Yet the key part of the FAQ your linking doesnt mention the wording of units, it mentions an edition change:

Do Black Templars still have to run towards the nearest enemy unit when they take shooting

casualties (and pass a morale check)? Under 5th Ed this rule has now changed, as the massacre

result no longer exists in the rulebook.

Massacre had no 'up to' you just moved towards the nearest enemy unit at d6 speed, assaulting if you made contact. This FAQ is only here because of a complete change in the editions rules.... I dont think the comparison is fair at all.

 

For this rule you guys are visualizing the unit as a blob.

Sorry, this I dont get at all. I must have missed when a poster mentioned that units were blobs. I disagree with this statement- their not blobs, their simply linked at the second complexity level of the rules- the unit level. Much like a sports team that is punished with extra work because they lost *at the team level* or taken out for food for winning *at the team level* yet they score, block, pass, or whatnot on the individual level *say attacks in CC, shooting off BS, and taking armor saves*.

 

If any one person incurs a penalty the entire team suffers. If any one person on the team is playing on the field the team is considered engaged in play. Individuals have their own concerns, teams have theres too.

 

But, that being said:

So you move your first model. If no other models are moving then the blob has completed it's movement (as hypothetically agreed above) and the measurement is made. If the blob ended up closer then you've satisfied Rage.

 

But what if you intend to move other models? In that case the blob has not completed it's movement, and therefore you can't measure to satisfy Rage as 'agreed' above

You dont measure after movement, in 40k your not allowed to premeasure in most cases- and I think your opponent would cry foul if you measured again when it wasnt needed. After all, you measured the distance to his unit to begin with right? You moved the models distance directly at them, right? okay, job done. After the models moved, unless you routinely put down tokens or something- theres no way to tell exactly and specificly where the model was.

 

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one, and IMO that simple explanation is that every model in the group is referred to when the word 'unit' is used, therefore every model must adhere to Rage.

And in my opinion having to measure from every single model in the raging unit for its own purposes is horribly over complicating it. Not only that, but were we to follow your interpretation fully we would end up with this:

 

I have 7 models in my DC squad, who are all identically equipped with jump packs and powerfists. Model 1 is 23" away from a model in enemy unit Tac4. Models 2, 3, 4, and 5 are likewise 24-26" away from that unit, wich is their closest unit. Models 6 and 7 however are 25" and 26.5" away from that unit respectively, and only 24" away from the enemy unit Rhino1. Now, were we to execute rage on the model level my DC 6 and 7 would have to move 12" towards the rhino and while models 1-5 moved towards Tac4. Next turn according to the squad coherency rules they will be unable to do anything but move back into coherency, and my opponent and I will be forced to have a long discussion about wich takes precedence- the forced regroup movement or the forced rage movement.

 

Not, they could move that way at an angle to maintain coherency. No, quite specificly they have to move directly at the opposing unit. They will now be around 9-10" out of squad coherency, and as the unit closes on my opponents multiple enemy units this would get worse, as each models personal rage took over.

 

This is not simple. Yet if we attempt to merely apply the rule on a model by model basis as youve instructed this is exactly what the rules say we have to do. That is where I think your argument most fully breaks down, and is completely and utterly game breaking.

[shatter]

*snip*

The key to my position is that 'unit' inherently refers to every model in that group. It logically follows that if something effects a unit then every model is effected in turn.

*snip*

 

I think you use this as a license and way too far. You use it to hang your whole argument upon. 'Inherently refers to' is, I think, wrong. A unit IS the models. It doesn't mean all rules affecting units can and should where possibly interpretable be forcibly applied ('referred') to individual models. Additional rules specifically state when exceptions occur.

 

I think one of the best arguments in support of unit satisfaction = rage satisfaction is found under turbo-boosters* BRB pg 76. An exception to unit movement rules is stated as required for cover save to be enabled. Rage doesn't have any unit movement rule exceptions, only a single requirement (per phase stated relevant).