Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I really, really hate the wording on the Rage USR:
”In the Movement phase, units subject to rage must always move as fast as possible towards the closest visible enemy.”
Enemy.. Enemy what? Enemy models? Enemy units? There’s a significant difference between the two. Let me illustrate.
Both moves are directly against the closest enemy unit. A is towards the closest enemy model.
To me A makes most sense, but it’s not really described anywhere. B would let you have alot more freedom though, even to the point where it’d sometimes allow you to charge enemy units that you wouldn’t otherwise have been able to.
Another more critical issue I have is this:
How does a unit move toward something? Do I just have to end closer to the enemy than what I started? Do I move every model straight toward the enemy? Etc.
Again, let me illustrate:
A) Every model in the raging unit moves straight towards the enemy model (closest to the unit). This makes them bunch up, weak to blasts.
– Doesn’t seem all fair.
Every model moves along the same vector, this makes the unit very rigid and weak to terrain tests (and kindof contradicts the rule that they must move as fast as possible).
– Doesn’t seem all fair either.
C) The closest model in the raging unit moves as far as possible straight towards the closest enemy model, all other models in the raging unit are free to move as they please, as long as they don’t break the normal rules for movement (coherency, etc.).
– This allows for alot of freedom, especially when considering you don’t have a limit as to what enemies you are allowed to charge.
D) The models in the raging unit must make a full move and must end closer to the enemy than they started, but don’t have to move straight towards the enemy.
– The average CC unit would barely be limited at all by this interpretation, and I believe it is the most wrong one, but remember having seen it suggested some time in the past.
Now there might be other interpretations and I just outlined the ones I consider dominant.
My own understanding points to the ”closest enemy model” and the C option, as these seems to fit best in between rules and intention.
What is your take on this? I don’t think either is optimal, but I guess it all comes down to the fact that you’re not forced to charge any enemy.
Edit: had some trouble with the pictures and now they ended up two places, any way to fix this?
Last edited by LastDinosaur; May 6th, 2010 at 11:06.
My interpretation goes like this. Considering that typically the entire unit has RAGE, and not just some of the models in the unit, I would say option C would be illegal. I think it would lie somewhere in between B and D. As for the first question pertaining to models vs. unit, I would go with B.
Just my opinions.
I understand the confusion. However, this is rather a simple answer. Rage rules contains "must move as fast as possible..." Since speed is equating to distance in this case. First Picture A, and Second pictures: Your B solution is the most correct. The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line. Therefore the Rage affected unit must move 'directly' toward the closest enemy model in the closest enemy unit. This is why the distinction doesn't need to be made in the Rage rule.
The argument regarding terrain is irrelevant. If the enemy is behind some bushes but are the closest unit, then the Rage unit will have to take the terrain test and move toward the unit. Its not a drawback or a disadvantage any more so than having to move in a certain direction due to Rage.
This also includes the 'disadvantage' of Jump Infantry, having to jump, and land within terrain causing dangerous terrain tests. Its just another disadvantage of Rage.
Last edited by Xpyre35; May 6th, 2010 at 15:00.
I realize now how foolish of me it was to call things A and B in both issues.. Yay.. (even made ABC in the 2C as I thought I'd be referring to them.. more preplaning please xD )
I have some further problems in going with 2B.
If there's a tank or impassable terrain obstructing the way for half your unit, what do you do then? If there's some little piece of difficult terrain that had been faster to move around than to walk through, you still walk through it? That doesn't seem to be in spirit of the rules.
After you have won a close combat you will be clustered together, and there's no way to spread out again, as consolidation follows the same limitations on movement.
Just like in assault when your unit must travel 'directly' toward them, if any of your unit must pass through difficult terrain, then then unit must roll for a terrain test, and the entire unit moves only the distance rolled. When partially obstructed, the Rage unit will move as fast as possible, you can use the Fall Back rules here as precedent. They will move toward the viable opening.
Yes Rage affect units can be funneled, it is one of the ways with dealing with them as an opponent.
Last edited by Xpyre35; May 6th, 2010 at 15:53.
The way I view Rage from a RAW standpoint 1B and 2D are totally legit. The only conditions that must be met for Rage are:
1.) You move as fast as possible (note, this is NOT the same as 'take the shortest route possible'). This is relative to the total number of inches moved, it doesn't concern direction. So infantry have to move a full 6" or jump infantry a full 12". I'd point at the movement categorizations for Vehicles to support this. Speed in these instances is determined by the total number of inches moved, not the total distance between my beginning and end point. If I move 4" then turn 90 degrees and move another 3" I still moved at cruising speed, even though the distance between my start and stop point is only 5".
2.) You move toward the nearest visible enemy unit. Toward is a very ambiguous term, and so long as you end your move closer to the nearest enemy unit I believe this requirement is fulfilled.
This would open up the abuse of say...moving forward just over 3" and then moving backwards just under 3" to effectively not move much at all but still fulfill both conditions. I would put forward that at no point could a Raging model make event a portion of their movement that doesn't fulfill condition #2, but since that is not the way in which movement is really defined in the BRB I'm not sure if that could be supported. Unfortunate, but that's how I'd read it.
Now, granted I don't play competetively so it's not really an issue and so long as my local and friendly opponents don't become completely unsportsmanlike in trying to abuse Rage against me by arguing about precise funneling movements that bottle me up for blasts and whatnot (which I do not believe is the correct interpretation) I won't get rules-lawyery with the above interpretation and will likely play it a lot more directly.
So not much of an issue for me, but I think there is a lot of assumption going into the intent of the Rage USR in some of these discussions that are not actually supported by the rules themselves.
It's very different from an assault move. The assault move rules state that the closest model assaults the closest enemy model "using the shortest possible route". Directly stating how you move.
Rage, on the other hand, states that the unit "must always move as fast as possible towards the closest visible enemy". This states two things:
1) They can't elect to short their movement
2) They have to go "towards" the closest visible enemy
Towards != Straight at. Towards literally means "in the direction of". I think 1B is fine. As long as they end their movement closer to the closest enemy unit and moved their full distance, they're obeying the literal wording of the rule. Maybe it will be FAQ'd otherwise, but I think currently that's RAW.
*edit* Ninja'd by Darguth! That will teach me to answer the phone while typing a response :p
Hmm.. I'm not a native english speaker, but were I to translate 'towards' it'd really mean straight towards.. Thus it is how I understand it in english aswell. I am not convinced by the "in the direction of"-argument as mathematically a direction would be represented by vector along a straight line.
@Darguth and moob: Assuming you are right however, how would you treat the models individually? Must each model end it's move closer to the enemy than it started or is it only the distance between the two units that must decrease with the move?
@Xpyre: By what reasoning do you abandon option 2A? When falling back you move towards a line, but in this situation you would move towards something that is closer to a point.
I'm sorry but until you can fashion something other than the "most direct" route from the Rage rule:To mean anything other than a direct (straight) line toward the enemy. Is simple a clear attempt to bend the rule.In the Movement phase, unist subject to rage must always move as fast as possible towards the closest visible enemy.
Your unit made up of individual models, in order to even determine which enemy unit is closest to your unit. You would have to measure from the model in your unit closest to the closest enemy model in the enemy unit. This exactly parallels the Assault description.
I'm all for different points of view, however, this one is as silly as running your guys backwards to avoid Rage.
Last edited by Xpyre35; May 6th, 2010 at 18:18.