Rage - addressed now, not later.

Why the Rage USR is broken.

With that exploit/rules freeze in mind... I think we should all go with a fixed version of Rage, not what the rulebook says - rather, a houseruled (league ruled?) version of it.

Who says we can't unbreak broken rules?

Personally, if I'm involved in a game with Tyranids (my own or someone else's) that USR is going to be different than the rulebook. I like this, for being something I whipped up in 30 seconds at the point in the night that I can't think 100% :

In the Movement phase, units subject to rage must always move as fast as possible towards the closest visible enemy. In the Shooting phase, they are free to decide whether to run, but if they do they must run towards the closest visible enemy. In the Assault phase they must always consolidate towards the closest visible enemy if they are allowed to consolidate. The closest visible enemy is defined as being the closest enemy unit or singular model (such as a vehicle) that can have line of sight drawn to it in any direction (even if they are "behind" the Raging model).

It took me about a good five minutes of reading that blog to even figure out what that guy was saying and this is what I came up with:

Durrrrrrrr

While common sense is not necessarily common, I have no idea what that could inspire someone to write something so long on something that was so blatantly simple to understand. Nor do I know what inspired you to bother posting this up.

The rage USR is pretty clear, in its intent. If you move, you move towards the nearest enemy you can see, and that you have to move in the movement phase. Does it explain what "See" is? No, because if GW were to explain every possible stupid reading of that USR, it'd be half a page. You'll note that it doesn't doesn't cover what a move is.

The person who wrote that blog was incredibly angry over something I don't even understand. Are there rules in GW books that have holes in them? Yes. Is this one even in the top 1000? NO.

If you feel the need to errata a simple rule, more power to you, but the rule you listed is basically the USR Rage with some extra bling for people who are either foolish, or exploitive.

I do appologize if this comes off as mean, its not intended at you. The guy in that link just makes me feel like my brain is bleeding.

What a crock. 40k has always been 360 degrees visablilty. We aren't playing fantasy here with specific facings. Why the hell would someone argue that what is visible to my little static mans eyes does not equal his LOS, well maybe I'll make all my guys with movable necks or eyes all around thier heads. Wow, people like this blogger have too much time on their hands to bring up BS like this. IMO not worth the read.

gluvzer wrote:What a crock. 40k has always been 360 degrees visablilty.

whoosh


Where in the rulebook does it say models have 360 degrees visibility?

where in the rulebook does it say you can't flick your opponents models off the table?
What happens with people wearing helmets that would affect their peripheral vision?
What about people modeled looking in strange directions?

OOH, and here's a good one: What about the witch hunters unit: Sisters Repentia? The models are BLINDFOLDED(At least they appear so to me)... and they have the Holy Rage feature (Which is - I believe - what the Rage USR was based off)

The rule CAN be argued simply b/c the wording isn't IRONCLAD, but anybody around here who tried to do so would quickly find themselves lacking people to play matches against. That's INTENTIONALLY trying to bend the rules to suit your own purpose. The intent of the rule is pretty freakin clear.

Which brings me to my last point:

HolyCause wrote:

gluvzer wrote:What a crock. 40k has always been 360 degrees visablilty.

whoosh


Where in the rulebook does it say models have 360 degrees visibility?

Please....

Don't argue this crap for the sake of arguing. Thanks for the time waste.

Just to add to this a tad more:

The poster from that blog is insane. Seriously, Having re-read it I nearly fell out of my chair when I got to the part where he seriously suggested that you consolidate each round because the rule says you have to consolidate in the assault phase.

Back when I used to D&D I was big on the optimization board, and one of the many rules of optimization reads as thus: "Which one of these readings of the rule is correct? Whichever one gives me more pluses."

Thats how this guy is reading the rules. =/

Oh, and one last thing. Technically the rule says I must move towards the nearest visible model. The USR rage says absolutely nothing about it being the nearest visible model to the unit I am moving. By this stupid logic, it is the nearest visible model to Chuck Norris. Does that make any sense? Nope? Neither do any of his arguements.

Well, the original reason for this post was to make sure we're all on the same page, and it seems I'm a few pages behind (albeit reading into them too much ). Even the motivational poster card got played, so I shall compliment it:



I hope someone else caught the irony of jim using that motivational poster.


I still think Stelek's arguments are valid (not to say a lot of the ones here are invalid, just... silly). But I raise the question... how far can common sense guide you through crappy rules?

Not sure how it's Ironic.. If I usually didn't show common sense, that would be ironic, but I think I do..

Maybe I'm missing something. *Shrug* As long as you're not advocating for the OTHER side of the argument, then no problems, eh?

Warmachine has facing. Infinity has facing. Fantasy has facing. Games like 40k and helldorado do not. Bashing GW rules for the sake of being unique= warseer. Everyone does it. And it makes zero sense. The rules work, they are quick and fun. There are holes, but this is not an important one.

I guess my problem with your point HolyCause, is that Stelek does NOT in fact, have any real valid arguements.

He cherry picks through the rules, finding things that support his arguement about how 'retarded' the rule is, while at the same time ignoring the many things that either counter-act it, or which are just as stupid. My example from above, about the nearest visible model. As I pointed out, nowhere under the description of the rage USR does it actually say that it is the nearest model visible to the unit you are using. That fact is assumed.

I love the fact that he pulled up a dictionary definition for the word "See". That is a total class act right there.

GW makes assumptions. The core rules would be about twice as thick and take ages longer to produce if the writers sat and pondered over every line of text and how it could be used and abused by someone with too much time on their hands. GW makes a lot of mistakes, but things like this are not one of them.

For me, the most telling point is the start of his arguement. He basically states: I would never use this, unless I was going to lose in a competitive game.

Anytime someone has to preface an arguement with a justification for why they'd use it, there is something wrong with their point of view.

The fact is, this does not need errata. Ask anyone with even a hint of 40k knowledge about if models have line of sight to models in plain view elsewhere on the table, regardless of the facing of the models doing the 'test' and they'd just say "Yup." The fact that it was a non-issue until some braindead attention-monger brought it up says more to the airtightness of this paticular rule than anything else.

In short? If someone were to bring this up in a game? In a tourny, they argue it, I say no, they press, I call a judge, he rules in my favor, we continue. In a casual game, He argues it, I say no, he either relents or presses, if he presses or throws a fit about 'playing it my way' I pack up my models, and refuse to ever play him again, and make it quite clear what type of player he is to others of my aquaintence to save them the trouble.

I guess Sisters Repentia can rage wherever they want because the models are blindfolded....

Jemal wrote: As long as you're not advocating for the OTHER side of the argument, then no problems, eh?

I don't really care what other people point out as broken rules, as long as this league can agree to a reasonable change or work-around (or just blindly assume everything... half sarcasm detected)

What I don't like is how GW does not enforce stricter rules... it can create "pockets" of differing definitions across people, because, and the irony behind your common sense thing, is that what is common sense to one isn't common sense to another.

It's common sense to me that Necrons get WBB after a sweeping advance, because there's no limitation within SA that states WBB isn't allowed and when WBB isn't allowed (in the Necron codex) isn't fulfilled by a sweeping advance. Yet many differ.

Enough of the stupid rules argument, bare knuckle brawling in the parking lot is the only way to settle a rules dispute, cocked dice, being late for a game or any other warhammer related dispute, it's clear as day written in the rule book, "Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for there is no piece amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage..." -pg -1, Warhammer 40k Main Rule Book.

Probably stop beating on that horse now.... Its been dead for awhile.

Can't wait for the next nit-picky RAW vs. RAI thread!!

HolyCause wrote: It's common sense to me that Necrons get WBB after a sweeping advance, because there's no limitation within SA that states WBB isn't allowed and when WBB isn't allowed (in the Necron codex) isn't fulfilled by a sweeping advance. Yet many differ.

Ok, I'm all for letting this particular conversation dissapate into the ages, but first I need to address this point. It says specifically under sweeping advance The destroyed unit is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or special ability can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over.

Since WBB does NOT state it applies to sweeping advance, this rule specifially states that it in fact does prevent WBB.

Can't wait for the next nit-picky RAW vs. RAI thread!!

"why tyranid close combat weapons are not actually close combat weapons." yes my re-rollable crushing claws are rending, act as power weapons, and inflict instant death upon a failed leadership test. rofl. But in all seriousness....

System Commander wrote:
Pre-empting problems like the rage clarification though just brings up a dispute that I dont think is needed.

I prefer to have all disputes settled beforehand so the games run smoother, but as you wish.

I don't get stressed or tense over rule discussions, that's just silly... it's an abstraction over plastic toys, what's the big deal?

The big deal is that many people have problems with arguments/disagreements and it causes tension to them. I'm personally a Debater, so I love arguing, but some people can't even stand SEEING other people argue without getting tense, so it's usually best to avoid public confrontations/debates unless they're required.

Jemal wrote:The big deal is that many people have problems with arguments/disagreements and it causes tension to them. I'm personally a Debater, so I love arguing, but some people can't even stand SEEING other people argue without getting tense, so it's usually best to avoid public confrontations/debates unless they're required.

Aye, that I figured, just gave an explanation (to those whom it wasn't obvious to, I guess).