Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was reading a battle report, and the writer was running a chaos army. He put his dreadnoughts in front of this other units, so that if they had a "fire frenzy" result, they would shoot the "closest visible unit" (quote from C:CSM), which would be enemy units because the dreadnoughts cannot see behind themselves. Some commenters on the blog responded that that was not correct, as units have a "360 degree" line of sight.

After doing some research, I don't think that this is any longer the case. In the rules, it specifically says that line of sight is limited to a "model's eye view."

On page 11 of the BGB, it says that a model may rotate freely during it's movement, and that it does not matter if your infantry are facing enemy units as "infantry models can also be turned to face their targets in the shooting phase." Note that this is not actually written in the shooting phase rules.

When firing with a vehicle you are directed to point the weapon(s) firing at the target and then check line of sight.

When firing a walker's weapons, you're directed to rotate it to face its target, then check line of sight along the barrels of its weapons.

So given this evidence, I would say that facing actually matters in 5th ed, and that a chaos dreadnought would actually shoot a farther target in it's line of sight, rather than a closer target behind it. I think this would also require players to be a little more careful about the placement of models to prevent enemy infiltrators to set up within 12".

The problem with this, however, is that GW has not actually specified any sort of an "arc" for line of sight. For vehicles it can be interpreted fairly straight-forward: the arcs that the mounted weapons may fire, so 45 degrees for walker-mounted weapons, 360 for turrets, 180+ for most sponsons. But what about for infantry? I'm probably going to play a front 180 degree arc, if it becomes important, but I think that this is a pretty glaring hole in the rules.

When measuring LOS, you measure from the vehicles hull. If there is nothing blocking TLOS then the dredenough can see it.

You can measure from any point on its hull (its base)

It has LOS from any of these points.

Facing only matters in terms of AV and front/side/rear values.

I would like to know how you come to the conclusion that the arc of visibility is 180 degrees? Casual inspection of available infantry models would seem to indicate a visibility arc of much closer to 270 degrees for models which don't have a head sunken into their body.

Of course, as a Chaos player who owns four antique dreadnaughts and none of the aweful refigerator dreadnaughts which might qualify as having the restricted 180 degree visibility arc, the models are still too atrocious to purchase. Would it be too early to jump straight to the modeling for advantage fight?

Facing only matters for Fire Arcs on Walkers.

Walkers in the shooting phase act like infantry (in that they rotate to fire at their target)

Now if his Dreads were immobilised, then yes, rolling a fire frenzy would result in shooting the closest unit from the facing of their weapons.

This is a good point as I recently decided to field a Dreadnought in my 1000 point list. There's a couple ways you can look at it... if you want to get fluffy, ask your self why would a Dreadnought, running for the enemy, take the time to stop and turn around to shoot something else? If I were a Dreadnought (which I'm not... I don't think), I would shoot at the first thing I can see (which would be in front of me).

However the dreaded RAW says that "it must pivot on the spot towards the closest visible unit (friend or foe)". With that it could mean anything...

Personally if I had it my way, I would make it shoot at what it can actually SEE without turning around completely (since logically that doesnt make sense). If however the Dreadnought itself was a person (not a robotic walker) then I could see it turning around.

So sadly I think the rules mean it will turn to shoot whatever it can, but realistically it would shoot what's in front of it.

I read that battle report too. Just another example of Stelek breaking the rules.

Visibility defined by the Line of Sight rules.

Nurglitch wrote:I read that battle report too. Just another example of Stelek breaking the rules.

Visibility defined by the Line of Sight rules.

And line of sight rules are defined as a "models eye view."

Where in the rules does it say that models can see backwards?

See p.72, Walkers: Walkers Shooting. It says:

"When firing a walker's weapons, pivot the walker on the sport so that its guns are aimed at the target (assume that all weapons mounted on a walker can swivel 45 degrees, like hull-mounted weapons) and then measure the range from the weapon itself and line of sight from the mounting point of the weapons and along its barrel, as normal for vehicles."

Nurglitch wrote:See p.72, Walkers: Walkers Shooting. It says:

"When firing a walker's weapons, pivot the walker on the sport so that its guns are aimed at the target (assume that all weapons mounted on a walker can swivel 45 degrees, like hull-mounted weapons) and then measure the range from the weapon itself and line of sight from the mounting point of the weapons and along its barrel, as normal for vehicles."

Yes, I did a paraphrase of this exact rule in my original post. That's not being argued. In fact this post is only by extrapolation even about CSM dreadnoughts. However, the Fire Frenzy rule (which over-rides the normal shooting rules) says "pivot on the spot towards the closest visible unit." So the bone of contention here is, what is considered a "visible unit." Going by the rulebook, the only guidelines for determining line of sight is a "models eye view."

This also makes things interesting for infiltrating units. If an entire enemy's unit is facing the other direction, could an infiltrating unit set up within 12" if even in the open?

There is no bone of contention, merely your lack of comprehension. The Dreadnought's line of sight is measured from its weapons. So you pick the closest unit that it could have a line of sight to from one of its weapons, that's the closest visible unit, and pivot towards that unit.

Willydstyle, I still think that you're discounting about 45 degrees worth of peripheral vision on each side of a human-like figure when talking about the "model's eye view" of things.

willydstyle wrote: So the bone of contention here is, what is considered a "visible unit."

Because the rules allow (and in fact require in this specific case) the model to pivot on the spot to face potential targets, a visible target is simply one that isn't concealed by some intervening obstacle.

Determining actual LOS occurs after you have turned the model to face its target.

Nurglitch wrote:There is no bone of contention, merely your lack of comprehension. The Dreadnought's line of sight is measured from its weapons. So you pick the closest unit that it could have a line of sight to from one of its weapons, that's the closest visible unit, and pivot towards that unit.

I'm sorry that you feel like insulting me. So if a dreadnought's line of sight is measured from its weapons, that's what's "visible" to the unit, so by the fire frenzy rules (which supersede the normal firing rules) the dreadnought would in fact only be able rotate to face units within its front 45 degree arc.

insaniak wrote:
Because the rules allow (and in fact require in this specific case) the model to pivot on the spot to face potential targets, a visible target is simply one that isn't concealed by some intervening obstacle.

Determining actual LOS occurs after you have turned the model to face its target.

This interpretation has merit, because the rules do not actually define what "visible" is. I think that it could be interpreted either as a synonym for "in line of sight" which would be restricted to the "models eye view", or as you have said, merely not behind an intervening obstacle. I think if we look at the rules independent of 4th ed's system of 360 "line of sight" which is not actually mentioned anywhere in the rule book any more, the first option is more supported by the rules, however.

willydstyle wrote: I think if we look at the rules independent of 4th ed's system of 360 "line of sight" which is not actually mentioned anywhere in the rule book any more, the first option is more supported by the rules, however.

It's really not.

You determine LOS after you have pivoted the model. So what is within the model's LOS is completely irrelevant to the direction it is facing at the start of the shooting phase.

And for the record, it worked exactly the same in 4th edition. LOS was a model's eye view, with the models allowed to pivot to face their target in the shooting phase.

insaniak wrote:

willydstyle wrote: I think if we look at the rules independent of 4th ed's system of 360 "line of sight" which is not actually mentioned anywhere in the rule book any more, the first option is more supported by the rules, however.

It's really not.

You determine LOS after you have pivoted the model. So what is within the model's LOS is completely irrelevant to the direction it is facing at the start of the shooting phase.

And for the record, it worked exactly the same in 4th edition. LOS was a model's eye view, with the models allowed to pivot to face their target in the shooting phase.

But the rules for the chaos dreadnought's fire frenzy are different. Codex supersedes the rulebook, and the chaos dreadnought tells us to pivot to the nearest visible unit, not the normal order of "pivot towards target then check LoS". So what does the word visible mean? I can't think that it means anything but "within line of sight." Given the previous example of units being obscured by terrain as not being "visible" then how is that different from being outside of the walker's line of sight as determined by a "model's eye view?"

The rules never define "visible". So you have to fall back on common usage or a dictionary, which give you 'able to be seen'...

... and things that are behind the dreadnought are able to be seen, if the dreadnought simply turns around.

So the dreadnought must indeed turn around, expose its rear armour to the enemy, and brass up its own team.

"Pivot to nearest visible unit"

so nearest unit that is not invisible.

i can't think of any units with invisibility, stealth fields maybe, but no invisible units.

hmm, i wonder if you could argue that it could target any unit then. Since there are no units that aren't technically visible.

Boss Ardnutz wrote:The rules never define "visible". So you have to fall back on common usage or a dictionary, which give you 'able to be seen'...

... and things that are behind the dreadnought are able to be seen, if the dreadnought simply turns around.

So the dreadnought must indeed turn around, expose its rear armour to the enemy, and brass up its own team.

But if another unit were already "visible" to the dreadnought by being in its LoS at the beginning of the shooting phase, then it would indeed be the "nearest visible" as it would not be necessary to pivot to see it.

I certainly see what willydstyle is getting at. There is definetly a difference between the closest visible unit, and the closest unit that is visible.

Say you have a dreadnought with a loyalist marine 20 inches in front of it and a brother chaos marine 5 inches behind it. You pivot towards the "closest visible unit" not towards the closest unit. The closest unit is the chaos marine. But the closes visible unit is the loyalist if you are using true LOS, assuming the dread sees what is in front of it.

Its not rock solid, but its still a good point, and its enough of one for us to question if the dread shooting the closest thing to it is actually RAI or if its a mistake that makes a silly RAW reality where chaos dread suck.

willydstyle wrote:But the rules for the chaos dreadnought's fire frenzy are different. Codex supersedes the rulebook, and the chaos dreadnought tells us to pivot to the nearest visible unit, not the normal order of "pivot towards target then check LoS".

Right. Specifically, the Chaos Codex tell sus that the Dreadnought has to pivot to face the nearest visible target, as opposed to the normal rules which give you the option of turning to face whoever you like.

Given the previous example of units being obscured by terrain as not being "visible" then how is that different from being outside of the walker's line of sight as determined by a "model's eye view?"

.

It's different because, once again, you don't bend down and determine LOS until after you have turned the model to face its target.

Eh, I think that the definition of "visible" as being "could possibly be in line of sight," vs. the definition of "visible" as "in line of sight" is a little bit convoluted.

If you were to read the rule with 5th ed only in mind, and had not been played differently for the majority of the time to codex was out, then the more obvious interpretation is that the dreadnought shoots the nearest unit that is already in line of sight.

The Frenzy rules don't even mention Line of Sight.

There is no deifinition given for "visible" unit. So you must agree beforehand with your opponent what this means.

RAW simply does not suffice in this case.

Are we really arguing that a zombified cybernetic supersoldier encased in an ensorceled ambulatory sarcophagus studded with weaponry can only see things directly in front of itself? I'm willing to bet they sprang for some daemon sensors or mirrors to give the homocidal corpse 360 degree vision. Especially since the Dreadnought is only vulnerable to attacks from the rear.

Fluff-nonsense over-
It counts as an infantry model, even in the shooting phase. That's why it can run, and why it would be able to turn to face its target, even without the Codex exception.

Democratus wrote:The Frenzy rules don't even mention Line of Sight.

There is no deifinition given for "visible" unit. So you must agree beforehand with your opponent what this means.

RAW simply does not suffice in this case.

This is pretty much the crux of it.

To be honest, I'm going to keep playing it the old way because my opponents would pitch a fit if my dreadnought was anything but a liability to me.

willydstyle wrote:If you were to read the rule with 5th ed only in mind, and had not been played differently for the majority of the time to codex was out, then the more obvious interpretation is that the dreadnought shoots the nearest unit that is already in line of sight.

Then why does it specifically tell you to pivot the Dreadnought to face its target? There is absolutely no reason to do so if the target must already be in the Dreadnought's LOS... it's already facing it.

In CC aren't Dreads spinning and whirling about in such manner that regardless which side of them a model is touching, they always strike the front armor? I know this is a fulff-based argument, but it seems much more in the spirit of the game to have them hit whatever's nearest. For further fluffiness of Chaos' emo compulsion, what about Kharn's old rules to kill friendlies he's not in the same CC as? It just doesn't make sense to pretend he's only looking directly in front.

Insaniak, i think you have the order of operations here wrong.

It's different because, once again, you don't bend down and determine LOS until after you have turned the model to face its target.

You identify what is visible before you pivot it. It says pivot towards nearest visible target, not pivot towards nearest target and then check to see if it is visible.

So again it comes down to if "visible" means "in the units field of vision" or if it means "not 100% obscured"

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:You identify what is visible before you pivot it.

Which would negate the possibility of ever turning to face a target in the shooting phase.


We're told by the rules that a model can be turned to face its target in the shooting phase. So, when it's time to shoot, you turn the model to face the potential target, and then you check to see if it has LOS. You can't check LOS before turning the model, because it's facing the wrong way... and if that stopped you from checking LOS, there would be no point to the rule allowing you to turn the model to face.


When there are two possible interpretations of a rule, and one of them makes no sense, it seems reasonably sensible to take the other one...

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:In CC aren't Dreads spinning and whirling about in such manner that regardless which side of them a model is touching, they always strike the front armor? I know this is a fulff-based argument, but it seems much more in the spirit of the game to have them hit whatever's nearest. For further fluffiness of Chaos' emo compulsion, what about Kharn's old rules to kill friendlies he's not in the same CC as? It just doesn't make sense to pretend he's only looking directly in front.

I don't know if you've ever been to battle, but I can tell you with certainty when there's an enemy in front of you, you're not spinning around in circles. Like I said before, logically he would fire at what he can see instead of stopping to turn around to fire at something closer but originally out of sight. The rules, however, state otherwise and he will do just that... turn around to shoot something he can't initially see.

The rules for the dreadnaught clearly states that it will only pivot after visible units. And things that it cant see (draw LOS to) is usually counted as not visible. The dreadnaught got a head and follows the normal rules for drawing LOS, its firearcs from its weapons is a totally diffrent rule and doesnt affect the LOS at all.