Death Company and Rage

[Blitzkrieg861]

Hey guys, I played a game with my BA against my buddy's Chaos last night. Always a hard fought game, he is the better general. There was a point though when I felt I had a chance to turn the game around but it was stiffled out by my DC and Rage USR.

 

The DC whiped a Bezerker squad and consolidated towards his Land Raider. During my turn, as I've heard of people doing and seen in video battle reports, I moved one of my DC towards the closest visible target, the Land Raider, and move the rest in a congo line towards my intended target. I could not find the documentation, errata, or whatever specificly showing that this is a legal move. It got a little heated and he insisted that I take the move back. This is question one, is it in the wording of the rule or where can I find some "proof" that I was correct in my Rage shenanigans?

 

Question two. If I was all Raged out and had to go after the Land Raider okay. I immobilized it the first round of combat. During my next turn, am I not able to move again in said congo line and re-assault so I could get my Furious Charge aNd +1 Attack? (I only had the one power fist and was really really not counting on being locked there for like 6 rounds of combat)

 

Thanks in advance guys. I'm pretty sure I'm right on the first one, and it would've made the second question moot but good to know either way.

[Saiisil]

As for question 1, there is no wording in the rule that can be used as proof of that maneuver especially considering that the rule states that units and not models are what must move towards the nearest visible enemy.

 

For question 2, if you were to move out of base contact would you be moving towards the nearest visible enemy? no you wouldn't so you would not be allowed to make this maneuver either.

 

If you are concerned about getting stuck in combat with an av14 vehicle I would recomend an infernus pistol and replace the powerfist with a thunderhammer.

[Blitzkrieg861]

I was pretty certain on the second portion but on the first part... If I move one model towards the closest visible enemy then the unit has moved towards the closest visible enemy and have fulfilled that portion required by the Rage USR. I just cannot prove it. Honestly, I was inclined to believe the entire unit, all models, must move towards the closest visible enemies but I've heard of other BA brothers and seen battle report videos of people doing what I was attempting so it felt accurate. I can see both ways but I want to know for sure!

[Leonaides]

Did 'the unit' end up closer to the closest visible enemy model? Yes. Other than that, there is no restriction on wehre the other models within the unit move, as long as they obey the other rules for coherency etc... You can move like that - somewhere in the BA pages Morticon has a nice explanation.

 

For the secodn question - once you're in b-to-b then you cant back away and charge again.

[Saiisil]

For the secodn question - once you're in b-to-b then you cant back away and charge again.

 

Against vehicles without a WS you can actually except in the case of units with rage. pg63 of main book for assaults vs vehicles, 76 for rage.

[Frosty the Pyro]

For the secodn question - once you're in b-to-b then you cant back away and charge again.

 

Against vehicles without a WS you can actually except in the case of units with rage. pg63 of main book for assaults vs vehicles, 76 for rage.

 

rage is what we were talking about.

[Dan VK]

It is a long thread, but here is one of multiple previous threads on this topic.

 

In short, distances between units is determined by the two closest models, not all models in the unit. The maneuver is legal.

[Mezkh]

The unit must move as fast as possible towards the closest possible enemy. As long as you moved the closest model to the closest model it's full movement distance, then you've satisfied the condition for rage. You can move the other models however you like as long as coherency is maintained.

 

Page 3 of the BRB. Definitions of Models and units and states when measuring distances between the two units use the closest models as your reference points If any model is within 2" of an enemy unit/model, the unit is said to be within 2" of the enemy unit/model.

 

Thus with a little deduction and comprehensive reading, as long as the closest model moved as fast as possible towards the closest unit, the unit has said to have moved as fast as possible towards the closest unit. When measuring to see if you moved as fast as possible, you'd check the closest model to closest model to confirm adherence.

 

No part of the rage rule stipulates or infers that every model must move it's max movement towards the enemy unit closest to it, and for good reason, as there are plenty of situations where it would be unworkable to keep the unit in coherency if it actually stated that.

 

As an aside, it's really justifies the points cost for Jump Pack Death Company as well.

[Acebaur]

It is a long thread, but here is one of multiple previous threads on this topic.

 

In short, distances between units is determined by the two closest models, not all models in the unit. The maneuver is legal.

 

Maybe, but even if it is a legal move, it's cheap and against the spirit of the rule. It sounds like you were playing a friendly game against your friend and the purpose of this game is to have fun, for both people. To me it smacks of WAAC.

[Mezkh]

It is a long thread, but here is one of multiple previous threads on this topic.

 

In short, distances between units is determined by the two closest models, not all models in the unit. The maneuver is legal.

 

Maybe, but even if it is a legal move, it's cheap and against the spirit of the rule. It sounds like you were playing a friendly game against your friend and the purpose of this game is to have fun, for both people. To me it smacks of WAAC.

 

How wonderfully subjective?

[Chengar Qordath]

It is a long thread, but here is one of multiple previous threads on this topic.

 

In short, distances between units is determined by the two closest models, not all models in the unit. The maneuver is legal.

 

Maybe, but even if it is a legal move, it's cheap and against the spirit of the rule. It sounds like you were playing a friendly game against your friend and the purpose of this game is to have fun, for both people. To me it smacks of WAAC.

Have to agree there, it might be RAW, but it's definitely not RAI or fluff-accurate, and has a bit of a cheesy odor.

 

Of course, this being OR, all that matters is how the rules are written, not how the game designers intended them to work. Taking advantage of a loophole created by GW's inability to write fully thought-out and tested rules is still legal.

[Leonaides]

And if I think the spirit of the rule is to make sure that your unit with Rage always has to move towards the enemy (so no hiding in cover when that would be more advantageous), and they specified closest to make sure you couldnt claim you were moving closer to something 5' away on the other side of the board, that would of course make your assumption of the spirit of the rule completely wrong.

 

In this case, since 'the spirit of the rule' is ambiguous (and it really is) - please dont try and label me WAAC or cheap. I take BA tactical squads - according to net-wisdom, its actually impossible for me to be cheap or WAAC...

[JamesI]

To those arguing against the RAW (which moving the closest as fast as possible then keeping coherent is RAW) your method would require each model to move as fast as possible towards the enemy which would lead to units moving into small piles awaiting pie plating out of existence and units with rage would never be taken.

 

By 5th edition rules, it is 100% legal as distance is determined only by the closest models.

 

Rage is in my opinion one of the worst written rules in 40k.

[Blitzkrieg861]

This is how I read the rule as well. I hope it can be worked out, especially since I'm painting up my Land Raider in Death Company black and don't want to have to not use the model and the unit inside because of a rules disagreement. It's debateable if this usage is against rules as intended, rules as interpreted means absolutely nothing to me and rules as written is to be accepted regardless of anything else. I read through the other two threads about Rage and I really disagree with people getting labeled WAAC, power games, cheesy, beardy, or whatever the word may be. I used to play Street Fighter competatively and people used to rage (no pun intended) on me if I used one strategy to defeat them claiming it was cheesy. Same thing here. It's in the game, it might be strong, but if it isn't breaking the rules I'm going to use it... just as I suggest for all of my opponents to bring their hardest lists and A game every time we play because I'm going to as well.

[Saiisil]

It is one of those moves that while it is legal within the wording of the rules I feel should only be used in a competitive setting. in friendly games the atmosphere is different, your playing for fun and I feel that this move isn't exactly something to encourage fun. Beautiful thing is, keeping them in the LR is a nice tactic too, no need to worry about rage until they are out and if need be at the end of their move they can remount if the transport is in the direction of the enemy.

[Mezkh]

It's not fun for me when my opponent wants me to bunch my expensive unit of 35 point models (before upgrades) up nicely for his Plasmacannons because he wants to read something into the rules that isn't there.

 

I play with a Death Company unit almost every game. Having that one anchor model you have to maintain coherency with is a perfectly balanced drawback for their cost, both with and without jump packs (as I've said before, mitigating the rage drawback is why Death company jump packs are priced accordingly).

 

If the wrong interpretation was played as standard, it wouldn't be worth having the models.

[Chengar Qordath]

It would be nice to think players could agree on some happy medium between requiring Rage units to bunch up in tight squads that scream "Template/Blast me!" and resorting to conga line of cheese. I don't think any reasonable player would object to the entire unit moving towards the closest enemy while maintaining a sane formation.

[Saiisil]

It's not fun for me when my opponent wants me to bunch my expensive unit of 35 point models (before upgrades) up nicely for his Plasmacannons because he wants to read something into the rules that isn't there.

 

I play with a Death Company unit almost every game. Having that one anchor model you have to maintain coherency with is a perfectly balanced drawback for their cost, both with and without jump packs (as I've said before, mitigating the rage drawback is why Death company jump packs are priced accordingly).

 

If the wrong interpretation was played as standard, it wouldn't be worth having the models.

 

I believe you misunderstand what I am saying, there is no compulsion to bunch them together just to move them towards the nearest visible enemy and as long as they maintain coherency they are within the rules, as I said in my first post there are no rules to quote that says that the conga line is a proper move but there is nothing to invalidate it as a legal maneuver either as long as the unit maintains coherency and mover towards the nearest visible enemy. Seriously if someone says they need to be bunched up ask them to show you the rule.

 

It would be nice to think players could agree on some happy medium between requiring Rage units to bunch up in tight squads that scream "Template/Blast me!" and resorting to conga line of cheese. I don't think any reasonable player would object to the entire unit moving towards the closest enemy while maintaining a sane formation.

 

This is how I run my Death Company by keeping the models with 1-2" in between each as they move to avoid the Template/Blast me scream and have never resorted to the conga line, why because it is not in the flavor of my army fluff. As I said before, conga line = great for tournament, not so great for just for fun games.

[Morollan]

I believe you misunderstand what I am saying, there is no compulsion to bunch them together just to move them towards the nearest visible enemy and as long as they maintain coherency they are within the rules

 

But if you follow the chain of thought that says each model needs to move towards the closest enemy then you will end up with the DC bunched up together because each model will be moving directly towards the same enemy model.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

It would be nice to think players could agree on some happy medium between requiring Rage units to bunch up in tight squads that scream "Template/Blast me!" and resorting to conga line of cheese. I don't think any reasonable player would object to the entire unit moving towards the closest enemy while maintaining a sane formation.

 

Did you just say Rage units should move in a sane formation....?

 

Either they are Raging, or they are not? :P

 

"Have to agree there, it might be RAW, but it's definitely not RAI or fluff-accurate, and has a bit of a cheesy odor.

 

Of course, this being OR, all that matters is how the rules are written, not how the game designers intended them to work. Taking advantage of a loophole created by GW's inability to write fully thought-out and tested rules is still legal."

 

Is it RAI accurate to have the Rage unit chase after something like a dog trying to bite a rolling wheel, but keep a tactical spacing too?

 

I believe you misunderstand what I am saying, there is no compulsion to bunch them together just to move them towards the nearest visible enemy and as long as they maintain coherency they are within the rules

 

But if you follow the chain of thought that says each model needs to move towards the closest enemy then you will end up with the DC bunched up together because each model will be moving directly towards the same enemy model.

 

Exactly.

 

+++

 

I'm starting to see this more often around the place:

 

Bob does it differently from me, so I'll label Bob or his actions as WAAC, Cheesy or a Powa! Gamer.

 

How can it be correct for a unit to be desperate to engage the nearest visible enemy, chase after it, yet keep good tactical spacing?

So they cannot control themselves, but control themselves....?

 

That hardly sounds clear cut or objective, yet dudes who don't conform to this very subjective view get stigmatised?! :tu:

That seems a bit unfair to me.

 

I'm not trying to single out Acebaur or Chengar Qordath here, but am more trying to make a point about dudes pinging others who don't conform to their subjective beliefs about a something which is pretty nebulous.

 

Boo!

 

Think about this, are the DC any hardier or choppier than Templar Assault Terminators?

Furious Charge, re-rolls to hit. re-rolls to wound, no armour saves, 2+5++ saves.

 

A 3+4+ for the DC is the same as one 2+, mathematically speaking.

 

As JamesI said, Rage is a terribly written rule. You have to move towards a unit, but don't have to assault it. That's very inconsistent, as well as the way the rule is written.

[Mezkh]

What would be the point of an expensive assault unit that has a rule you can't control what it assaults?

 

Some people seem to think it should as simple to take a raging unit out of the game as flying a Landspeeder or (insert unit here) up to them. I dislike those 'Sorry Mr.super tactical genius your idea didn't work because you didn't understand how rage movement works, now you're footstomping and implying I'm a bad sport' people.

[Acebaur]

The congo line is not an attempt to avoid being templated. That is just a thinly veiled excuse for the owning player not wanting to move in the direction he is supposed to. The rule says that units must move toward the nearest enemy unit. It says unit, not 1 model in the unit, or some of the unit, it's the entire unit. What it does not say is that you have to bunch them up. Moving them towards the nearest unit doesn't necessarily mean they will bunch up, unless they are already very close to it, in which case just assault it. DC can take enough different kinds of weapons to deal with any foe.

 

I don't want to hear complaints about how expensive your unit is, because they come with the ability to take as many PW's as you want and have two of the best USR's there is(FNP, FC). Rage is there to be a handicap to a really powerful unit. Don't want your guys running in all the wrong directions? Put them in a vehicle until you need to assault something. To worried they might be templated or that they cost too much? Then don't take them. They aren't a mandatory unit.

[JamesI]

Acebaur, by the rules, distance between 2 units is measured by the closest models in each unit.

 

I don't think the conga line is the intention, nor do I think the bunch up to be pulverized is the intention (which is why I call rage a very poorly worded rule).

 

By RAW, the conga line is legal.

[Morollan]

The rule says that units must move toward the nearest enemy unit. It says unit, not 1 model in the unit, or some of the unit, it's the entire unit. What it does not say is that you have to bunch them up. Moving them towards the nearest unit doesn't necessarily mean they will bunch up

 

Yes it does. Within 2 movement phases (or 1 and a decent run) you will find your unit looking like it just arrived by Deep Strike because each model will be forced to move directly towards the same point. By definition that will result in bunching up.

 

As James I has already stated though, fortunately we're not forced to do anything quite so stupid as long as the closest DC model ends up moving as far as possible towards the closest enemy model.

[Grey Mage]

If even a Single Member of a unit has done something- including move, shoot, make it into assault, etc- then the unit is considered to have done so. If one model in the unit moves directly at the enemy, then the rest of the unit is considered to have done so.

 

Thats the difference between Models that work on an individual basis and Units wich work on a group basis.