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.

Insaniak is right, the dread must turn and light up his friendlies.

insaniak wrote:

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...

What you are saying about the shooting rules is perfectly correct. You pick a target, turn towards it, and then check LOS. But fire frenzy has its own rule, and is not nessacerily the same as regular shooting. So, what you are saying does not counter the argument being made for fire frenzy.

Alright... let's break it down (no, I'm not trying to be MC Hammer ).

Normal Walker Shooting Rule:

When firing a walkers weapons, pivot the walker on the spot 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 weapon and along its barrel, as normal for vehicles...

Broken down:

1. Select TARGET
2. Pivot Walker towards TARGET
3. Check Range
4. Check LOS
5. Commence firing

Chaos Dreadnought Fire Frenzy:

The Chaos Dreadnought may not move or assault this turn. At the beginning of the shooting phase it must pivot on the spot towards the closest visible unit (friend or foe!) and fire all of its weapons against it - twice!

Broken down:

1. Check LOS
2. Check Range (for closest target within LOS)
3. Pivot towards closest TARGET within LOS
4. Fire twice

I think somee of the confusion was because some people were assuming that if it's within LOS then automatically it's in its arc of fire... which it isn't. You could be in LOS but not in the arc of the weapon (hence why you must pivot so it is able to be within said arc). Now the question is the arc of sight... would it make sense that if it is within the walkers forward arc is also its LOS? Yes. Yes it does. Dreadnoughts do not have eyes on the back of their um... body. Nor the sides. Another way we can look at it is this:

Assume there are woods to one side of the dread, and a building to the other side. You have a Chaos unit behind the dread and an enemy unit just further but in front of it and in plain sight. You roll the Fire Frenzy result. Closest visible unit would be the one directly in front of it. Since the Chaos unit is not visible at the beginning of the shooting phase, it doesn't need to pivot all the way around to shoot it... since it isnt visible at the start of the shooting phase.

I disagree.

Walkers are like infantry with an armor rating. They see 360 degrees. Their weapons only shoot in a 45 degree arc, but they see 360 degrees. This is represented by the fact that they can freely pivot after moving to shoot at anything they want, unlike a vehicle.

The only reason the rule even exists is because the direction a walker faces matters for when it is shot at, and it matters for when it becomes immobilized. They picked 45 degrees as the walkers firing arc to make it more realistic that the walker turns and faces its target.

What the weapons can shoot at (45 degrees) and what the walker can see (360 degrees, like infantry) are two different things.

As it says, "unlike infantry, walkers have a facing, which limit where it can fire". This doesn't mean that it limits where they can see, only where they can fire.

Actually I don't know if I even convinced myself here. But assuming you check LOS before pivoting just because you interpret visible to mean 45 degrees in front doesnt make any more sense.

Ahh but thats where you are wrong and right at the same time. Walkers are like infantry with an armour rating, and you measure the LOS from the "eyes" of the model.

The eyes on a chaos dread in in the middle of his torso and only sees ahead, its impossible to draw anything from its head to things behind it.

my obliterators have no necks either but they can see in any direction.

The only difference is that the obliterator can see and also shoot in any direction, while the walkers have to pivot to what they see to shoot it.

Really the question is - do they pivot to see (like a vehicle) and just get to do it for free, or do they already see (like infantry) and pivot to shoot (like a vehicle) for free.

No where does it say that walkers are also infantry, just that they move "just as infantry". "Just as infantry" and "are infantry" are 2 completely different things.

Obliterators are infantry and can see all around, but a walker is still a vehicle and thus has facings, armour values, etc... and since it has those things the facing generally dictates what it can and cannot see (as I cannot face one direction and be able to see in another, except through a clever series of mirrors ).

Obliterators are infantry and can see all around, but a walker is still a vehicle and thus has facings, armour values, etc... and since it has those things the facing generally dictates what it can and cannot see (as I cannot face one direction and be able to see in another, except through a clever series of mirrors ).

But you're infantry right? And you just said that infantry can see all round...

Weapon facing and LOS isn't the same thing. LOS could exist between two units no matter which direction the model might be facing. There is no argument that can be used to claim that dreadnoughts can only see ahead that can't be applied to infantry.

Weapon facings merely limits directions you can fire weapons in, if a unit stands behind a Leman Russ in the open that has had it's turret weapon destroyed the Leman Russ can still perfectly well see the enemy unit, it just can't bring any weapons to bear at that time. They serve to limit LOS for a weapon, not for the unit.

So given that the unit has LOS, it can turn pivot to face them and then shoot them to bits. Sadly this means that the badly written chaos dread loves nothing more than having it's back facing the enemy and shooting the pals that where behind it....

That old "360 degree" line of sight for infantry has popped up again...

That's 4th ed thinking. If you scour the rulebook, you'll never find once that it says such a thing. All it says is that LoS is determined by a "model's eye view."

Theres an interesting point I'd like to... point out, on page 16 of the rulebook: ""Many times however, it will be more difficult to tell if line of sight is blocked or not, so players will have to stoop over the table for a 'model's eye view'. This means getting down to the level of your warriors, taking in the view from behind the firing models to 'see what they can see'.

It continues...

'Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit (for 'body' we mean its head, torso, legs and arms).

Those bolded points CLEARLY (and boldly, I might add), state that you cannot see things from behind.

Also, when firing a vehicles weapon, you take line of sight from the weapon along the barrel.

willydstyle wrote:That's 4th ed thinking. If you scour the rulebook, you'll never find once that it says such a thing. All it says is that LoS is determined by a "model's eye view."

Perhaps you could tell me where the 'eyes' are on a Leman Russ battletank? Or a crisis suit?

That's what the original post was really about. The rules only give us one definition for line of sight... model's eye view.

Then in the shooting descriptions for a tank... such as the leman russ, it tells us to point the weapons at the target, then check line of sight down the barrel of the weapon.

So given that information, does a Russ even have LoS as a model any more, or can we assume that it would be covered by the entire arc that the weapon can fire?

Check the diagrams on page 59... they say "arc of sight" not "arc of fire". This is for their weapons.

Actually... it also states on how when walkers fire, to check LOS from the weapon just as other vehicles...

ALSO on that same page, it says "Unlike infantry, a walker has a facing, which influences where it can fire (see below) and its Armour Value when fired at."

You all seem to be ignoring the fact that you can pivot Infantry and Walkers in the Shooting Phase.

Gwar! wrote:You all seem to be ignoring the fact that you can pivot Infantry and Walkers in the Shooting Phase.

Thats not the point. The point is that the Chaos Dreadnoughts Fire Frenzy requires them to fire at the closest visible unit and if there is a unit that is visible at the start of the shooting phase, it will shoot that instead of pivot at a unit which it cannot initially see at the beginning of the phase.

Gwar! wrote:You all seem to be ignoring the fact that you can pivot Infantry and Walkers in the Shooting Phase.

Please read the entire thread.

TBH its clear they shoot the closest target, pivoting to shoot at it.

You are all reading too much into a battle report with people who haven't a clue about the rules.

I have not read this battle report you speak of. At first that's what I thought but then upon closer inspection and reading of the rules over and over, this not only makes more sense but also seems to be correct.

Gwar! wrote:TBH its clear they shoot the closest target, pivoting to shoot at it.

You are all reading too much into a battle report with people who haven't a clue about the rules.

The battle report in question was simply what spurred me to look up the pertinent rules. I think if you read the rules leaving 4th ed behind, you'll find that facing of models actually matters in 5th ed, but the problem lies in that facing is so nebulous and is not really defined by the rules. We are simply given no indication of what "arc" a models-eye-view represents.

Page 11 or rulebook says:

Turning and Facing: As you move the models in a unit, they can turn to face in any direction, without affecting the distance they are able to cover. Infantry models can also be turned to face their targets in the Shooting Phase, so don't worry about which way they are pointing at the end of tehir Movement phase (although dramatically facing off against their foes is traditional).

This part of the rules assumes that models can see 360 degrees.

Furthermore, the rulebook (also on page 11) says: Infantry move up to six inches in the Movement Phase. This represents most creatures moving at a reasonable pace but stopping several times to scan the surrounding landscape for enemies, communicate with their commanders, etc.

Page 72 Walkers move in exactly the same way as infantry, . . .

Putting all this together, the Chaos dread moves at a reasonable pace scanning his surroundings, and he knows who is behind him and beside him and in front of him. To suggest that he does not know who is behind him when the shooting phase arrives goes against logic, the plain written rules, and the 'spirit of the rules.'

Feldmarshal Goehring wrote:Page 11 or rulebook says:

Turning and Facing: As you move the models in a unit, they can turn to face in any direction, without affecting the distance they are able to cover. Infantry models can also be turned to face their targets in the Shooting Phase, so don't worry about which way they are pointing at the end of tehir Movement phase (although dramatically facing off against their foes is traditional).

This refers to INFANTRY, not Vehicles (such as walkers).

Feldmarshal Goehring wrote:
This part of the rules assumes that models can see 360 degrees.

No it doesnt. The first sentence you quoted is regarding the distance they move. The second refers to INFANTRY models and that they can turn to face their targets in the shooting phase. Walkers turn to face in a similar manner (their weapons have arcs of sight), and have facings for their armour value and thus it matters which direction they are pointing. Assumptions do not work when rules are involved.

Feldmarshal Goehring wrote:
Furthermore, the rulebook (also on page 11) says: Infantry move up to six inches in the Movement Phase. This represents most creatures moving at a reasonable pace but stopping several times to scan the surrounding landscape for enemies, communicate with their commanders, etc.

Fluff does not = rules.

Feldmarshal Goehring wrote:Page 72 Walkers move in exactly the same way as infantry, . . .

Indeed. But sadly, we're not talking about how they MOVE but rather how they SHOOT. Their LOS (which is what this is about) stems off their weapon as they are a vehicle (also on page 72). Their weapons are fired the same as Hull Mounted weapons, which if you check page 59 have a 45 degree arc of SIGHT.

Feldmarshal Goehring wrote:
Putting all this together, the Chaos dread moves at a reasonable pace scanning his surroundings, and he knows who is behind him and beside him and in front of him. To suggest that he does not know who is behind him when the shooting phase arrives goes against logic, the plain written rules, and the 'spirit of the rules.'

I can agree with the first bit to an extent... I dont know if you've ever looked at a Dreadnought (I mean this in the nicest possible way) but for it to turn around completely to see what behind him doesn't make sense. Would he know whats behind him, despite that fact? Sure, why not? That's not what we're debating though. The FIRE FRENZY rule that we are talking about says it must fire at the closest visible unit, not which unit the Dreadnought may or may not be aware of. I'm not certain what logic you're using to ignore a target out in front of you, stop, turn around, and shoot something else. That is NOT logical at all. We're discussing the written rules and they say closest visible unit which would be something in front (and technically in the 45 degree sight arc of the weapon).

The fire frenzy rule actually says the model must pivot on the spot to shoot at the closest visible unit.

Why is it pivoting when it's only able to shoot at something in a 45 degree arc? not much pivoting there...

lambadomy wrote:The fire frenzy rule actually says the model must pivot on the spot to shoot at the closest visible unit.

Why is it pivoting when it's only able to shoot at something in a 45 degree arc? not much pivoting there...

Because walkers must pivot towards what they are shooting.

The rest of that sentence says "and fire all of it's weapons...". The 'must' is saying it is required to do all of those things. Also note Drudges post above mine.

The way I am reading this is that since the Dreadnought has a viewport/eyeslit/eyes it has a LOS to the front arc (ie its front armour value). It must pivot so that its weapons arc is able to hit the first unit in that arc. I will not deny that there are different ways to interpret this rule... but no matter what anyone chooses to use they will have to clarify it with their opponent first off, until a FAQ corrects this (yeah like THAT will ever happen... ).

Well i'm certainly going to present this to the redshirts where i play as what they say goes for that store.

every argument here has revolved around the fact that walkers only see 45 degrees in front of them - the firing arc of their weapons. Not that they somehow see 180 instead of 360...there is nothing to support that.

All I'm saying is there is 0 reason to pivot or for them to mention that you need to pivot if you're really supposed to shoot only something in the 45 degree firing arc. You're already pointed at it.

This is not meant to be a convincing RAW argument...just an example of why I think it's obvious that what that fool thorpe intended was for you to pivot and shoot.

Of course, maybe I'm missing something in the 4ed rules that made the sentence make more sense, seeing as this is a 4e codex.

insaniak wrote:

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...

Just because it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to other people, so don't get all hot and bothered about something in an argument.

If all units are treated as targets for this special rule, and the Dread shoots at the closest VISIBLE unit, why would it do a complete turn around to shoot at something that is presumably closer? The dread doesn't know its closer, what it knows is that the closest VISIBLE target(friendly and enemy units) is right friggen in a front of it.

The rules give you the OPTION to pivot so you can shoot at some unit, and once moved it cannot pivot again to miraculously get front armor values. Why would you pivot if you already see something clear as day in front of you, in the case of this rule? Tunnel Vision anyone? The 'must pivot' part of this rule is simply a precautionary to say that, hey, you need to pivot towards this unit(meaning a 0 degree difference), so then your armor value facings are different.


EDIT: And on a further note, Weapon LOS != Model LOS.

Feldmarshal Goehring wrote:Turning and Facing: As you move the models in a unit, they can turn to face in any direction, without affecting the distance they are able to cover. Infantry models can also be turned to face their targets in the Shooting Phase, so don't worry about which way they are pointing at the end of tehir Movement phase (although dramatically facing off against their foes is traditional).

This part of the rules assumes that models can see 360 degrees.

Actually, this does nto assume that models can see 360 degrees, it strongly implies that they cannot because otherwise why would they need to pivot in the shooting phase?

It doesn't imply anything of the sort. It strongly implies that they don't shoot their guns out of their rear ends or over their shoulders. That is about it.

lambadomy wrote:It doesn't imply anything of the sort. It strongly implies that they don't shoot their guns out of their rear ends or over their shoulders. That is about it.

Isn't that what I just said?

No, because not being able to see/look that way, and needing to turn around to shoot something, are two different things.

Anyway, there's no point in playing the "imply" game. The fact that the rules in the chaos codex say that you pivot to shoot *imply* that you need to actually pivot - so since you have no need to pivot to shoot if you're only shooting at things in your 45 degree view, well, saying you need to pivot would serve no purpose since you don't actually need to pivot.

What happens if there's no targets at all in the 45 degree arc? doesn't shoot? yeah, right.

lambadomy wrote:No, because not being able to see/look that way, and needing to turn around to shoot something, are two different things.

Anyway, there's no point in playing the "imply" game. The fact that the rules in the chaos codex say that you pivot to shoot *imply* that you need to actually pivot - so since you have no need to pivot to shoot if you're only shooting at things in your 45 degree view, well, saying you need to pivot would serve no purpose since you don't actually need to pivot.

What happens if there's no targets at all in the 45 degree arc? doesn't shoot? yeah, right.

Well, since it says to point directly at the visible unit, there would be few times where you wouldn't need to pivot at least a bit. And also, the rules pretty specifically say that if the dreadnought may not fire any weapons (for example because there are no "visible" targets) that you treat the results as "sane" instead. So it would just stand there.

I don't think that this can really be answered because too much depends on the definitions of too many words that are, at least as far as the rules go, not defined.

IMO the best option is to assume that the rule is the opposite of whatever you want it to be and then to discuss it before you play. There are enough broken rules for enough of the armies that you should be able to come to a compromise... and if not, you are already prepared for the worst.

What I hate about this conversation is the fact that though I strongly disagree with the 45 degree theory, that sort of an interpretation would actually make the Dreadnough closer to being worth its points. :\

Why couldn't they just have written 'viable' instead of 'visible'. Bollocks.

Magellan wrote:What I hate about this conversation is the fact that though I strongly disagree with the 45 degree theory, that sort of an interpretation would actually make the Dreadnough closer to being worth its points. :\

Why couldn't they just have written 'viable' instead of 'visible'. Bollocks.

Because the codex was written in 4th ed when all units were considered to have 360 degree "visibility."

willydstyle wrote:Because the codex was written in 4th ed when all units were considered to have 360 degree "visibility."

And once again, no, they weren't.

4th edition had the same rules for drawing LOS through a model's eye view, and had the same section on 'Turning and Facing' in the movement rules, which stated that models could be turned to face their target in the Shooting phase.

I wish I still had my 4th ed book, but I could swear that there were rules saying that models could "see" 360 degrees. They couldn't shoot 360 degrees (walkers for instance had the front 180 fire arc) but for purposes of seeing other models such as infiltrating enemies, they were considered to have 360 line of sight. Those rules don't exist any more.

For infantry, this is simply a matter of semantics. If I can turn my models to face a target in the shooting phase no matter where they are then I have 360 degree vision. It doesn't matter if you turn the Infantry model or not, since no matter what facing of the model you shoot it's just as easy or hard a target.

For Dreads it makes a difference because I have to leave it facing the way it shot, and AV is different on the back.

Also, you don't have to turn the Dread to face directly towards it's target... just far enough to get the target into your firing arc.

The Green Git wrote:For infantry, this is simply a matter of semantics. If I can turn my models to face a target in the shooting phase no matter where they are then I have 360 degree vision. It doesn't matter if you turn the Infantry model or not, since no matter what facing of the model you shoot it's just as easy or hard a target.

For Dreads it makes a difference because I have to leave it facing the way it shot, and AV is different on the back.

Also, you don't have to turn the Dread to face directly towards it's target... just far enough to get the target into your firing arc.

Well... not really because there is one other situation where line of sight matters: setting up infiltrators.

But Line of Sight isn't even in the frenzy rules. So it makes little sense to be worried about it.

We would all have to agree that "visible" means "in line of sight" from the Dreadnought. Without this universal agreement then discussion of LoS isn't particularly productive.

Except it actually touches on a different concept that I was trying to explore with my first post: the need to have units facing in the appropriate direction to prevent infiltrators from deploying within 12" of your units.

I agree with you about the lack of definition for "visible" being the big problem with the Fire Frenzy rule BTW.

OK, Willyd... what's to keep me from pointing models in units with more than one in different directions? That way my unit *CAN* see 360 degrees. Problem solved.

That's one of the points I've been trying to make

So if I choose to mount my dread's weapons backwards he can never fire? What if I model multiple heads on my dread? This argument is stupid.

I guess the rules are stupid then.

For the sake of comparitive rules arguments:
4th Edition
"Turning and Facing", page 16,

Infantry models can be turned to face their targets in the Shooting phase, so don't worry which way they are pointing at the end of their movement...

"Line of Sight", page 20,

In some cases, it will be difficult to tell if line of sight is blocked or not, so players might have to stoop over the table for a model's eye view. This is the best way to determine whether or not a line of sight exists.

The section continues with the exceptions to the model's eye view such as area terrain and friendly models.

"Vehicle Line of Sight", page 64, describes line of sight from the weapon mounting. "Weapons mounted on walkers can fire in a 180 degree forward arc." Page 64 also shows a diagram depicting the lines of fire for various vehicles and a walker is shown as having a semicircle line of fire.

What changed for 5th edition?
"Turning and Facing" moved to page 11 without any change to the quoted material.

For line of sight, moved to page 16, renamed, and there are huge changes to the rules. The text still use 'model's eye view', but adds the paragraph beginning with "Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model ..."

Vehicle line of sight moved to page 58 and still tracing line of sight from the weapon mounting although it includes minor additions. The firing arcs for walkers changed radically to 45 degrees off of weapon direction, and the rule specifying that walkers pivot to face their target added on page 72.

What's my point for all of this?
1. Infantry didn't have a 360 degree field of view in 4th and they don't have one now. They have a 360 degree arc of fire and they can turn to face their targets but that isn't the sam thing.
2. In order for a model behind the walker to be visible, line of sight would have to be drawn through the back of the walker's head. That hasn't changed, either.
3. Adding blinders to your chaos dreadnaughts is probably modeling for advantage.

solkan wrote:
3. Adding blinders to your chaos dreadnaughts is probably modeling for advantage.

note that this is fair and legal

Even vehicles can see 360 degrees, they simply cannot always fire that way. (Check out turrets!)
Any thing in Line of Sight is in sight. It may not be a viable target, for hull mounted weapons and such but this would explain the "pivot" stipulation.

Shrug

I dont know if anyone read any of my posts... I keep seeing exactly what I wrote worded differently... :(

Line of Sight for vehicles is traced from their weapons, not the vehicle itself. They cannot "see" 360 degrees and no where does it even say that they can.

I dont know why infantry rules keep coming up because walkers are NOT infantry. If you look under their section on the FOC it says Type: Vehicle (Walker). The closest they are to infantry is they MOVE (and only move) like infantry... they have their own rules for shooting which is what this question is about. Hows aboot (yes, I just said aboot) we summarize this:

A) Dreadnoughts LOS is drawn from their weapon which counts as a hull mounted weapon with a 45 degree arc of sight

B) If a Fire Frenzy result is rolled and there is nothing in this arc, it therefor cannot fire and thus treats it as the Sane result instead

C) If a Fire Frenzy result is rolled and there is a unit (friend or foe) within this arc, it pivots towards it so it is facing the unit, and fires all its weapons twice.

I read all the posts.

Line of sight is not the same as arc of fire.

regardless of how its reiterated.

shrug

LOS is measured from the head of the model. There are no rules what soever about 360 LOS, you simple go down and check it from the head of your model.

Well considering you rotate the model before checking line of sight....

kirsanth wrote:I read all the posts.

Line of sight is not the same as arc of fire.

regardless of how its reiterated.

shrug

If you did you'd have noticed that on page 59 it says Arc of Sight. The weapon can fire in that arc of sight. This is because with vehicles (which a walker is), you take LOS through the weapon.

Gwar! wrote:Well considering you rotate the model before checking line of sight....

Normally yes, but on the Fire Frenzy result you need to check the closest visible target which would be in that arc.

I feel like I'm talking in circles... haha.

anticitizen013 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Well considering you rotate the model before checking line of sight....

Normally yes, but on the Fire Frenzy result you need to check the closest visible target which would be in that arc.

There is absolutely nothing requiring the target to be in the dreadnought's immediate arc of fire.

The normal rules allow the model to be turned to face its target in the shooting phase.
The Fire Frenzy rules require the model to be turned to face its target in the shooting phase.

Both of these combined provide what is effectively a 360 degree line of sight. You simply turn the model to face the nearest target.


I can certainly see how you could draw the opposing conclusion, but I don't agree that it's what the rules actually allow, nor what was intended. YMMV, obviously.

I'll agree to disagree then

It depends which order you do things... in my opinion it means you must check what is not only closest but also visible at the start of the phase.

From a "model's eye view" of a dreadnought, it can trace LOS in 360 degrees. This is because a unit will never block it's own LOS (BRB, p.16).

Question where is this battel report? I would like to get a copy.

To me it seems to breakdown like this:

1) Identify what is visible, in this case in the models LOS. And since for vehicles LOS = Arc of fire, that means arc of fire.

2) Identify the nearest unit of those visible.

3) Pivot towards it. This is in there because you are supposed to pivot towards what you shoot.

4) Shoot it twice with everything.

This seems fairly simple and straight forward to me. If there is nothing in your weapon's arc then there is nothing visible and so you act normally. I would like to make the point that the sequence is to identify what is visible and THEN pivot, not to pivot towards the nearest unit and then identify if it is visible.

Democratus wrote:From a "model's eye view" of a dreadnought, it can trace LOS in 360 degrees. This is because a unit will never block it's own LOS (BRB, p.16).

Sigh...

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:To me it seems to breakdown like this:

1) Identify what is visible, in this case in the models LOS. And since for vehicles LOS = Arc of fire, that means arc of fire.

2) Identify the nearest unit of those visible.

3) Pivot towards it. This is in there because you are supposed to pivot towards what you shoot.

4) Shoot it twice with everything.

This seems fairly simple and straight forward to me. If there is nothing in your weapon's arc then there is nothing visible and so you act normally. I would like to make the point that the sequence is to identify what is visible and THEN pivot, not to pivot towards the nearest unit and then identify if it is visible.

Bingo.

Democratus wrote:From a "model's eye view" of a dreadnought, it can trace LOS in 360 degrees. This is because a unit will never block it's own LOS (BRB, p.16).

Thanks Democratus... that actually pretty much settles things for me.

A unit and a model arn't the same thing. The rule Democratus is quoting is for squads seeing through other members of their own squad.

"Visible" isn't the same thing as "in LOS without moving".

A unit behind a dreadnought is visible to the dreadnought - they are able to be seen by the dreadnought. Therefore they meet the criteria for fire frenzy.

The dreadnought pivots, so the unit goes from 'able to be seen' to 'actually being seen right now' and the dreadnought brasses them up, laughing maniacally through its daemonic loudspeakers as it does.

Boss Ardnutz wrote:"Visible" isn't the same thing as "in LOS without moving".

A unit behind a dreadnought is visible to the dreadnought - they are able to be seen by the dreadnought. Therefore they meet the criteria for fire frenzy.

The dreadnought pivots, so the unit goes from 'able to be seen' to 'actually being seen right now' and the dreadnought brasses them up, laughing maniacally through its daemonic loudspeakers as it does.

Again, this is covered earlier in the thread.

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:To me it seems to breakdown like this:

1) Identify what is visible, in this case in the models LOS. And since for vehicles LOS = Arc of fire, that means arc of fire.

There's your mistake. Nowhere in the rules does TLOS=Arc of fire.
Find a quote from the BRB or codex or stop making rules up.

Page 59. View it. Love it.

There seems to be several misconceptions flying around this thread.

First off, line of sight for vehicles, including walkers is not drawn from the "eyes" of the model but rather by "trac[ing] the line of sight from each weapons' mounting and along its barrel, to see if the shot is blocked by terrain or models" (pg 58).

The 'arc of fire' some people have been talking about is simply the arc that weapons which are glued in place are assumed to be able to pivot, even though they can't physically do so.

So in order to draw line of sight for a dreadnought you simply bend over the table and look from the mounting point of the weapon down along the barrel towards the target and you pretend that the barrel can pivot up to 45 degrees in either direction even if the model itself doesn't allow such movement on the weapon.


And THAT is how dreadnoughts draw line of sight.


HOWEVER the problem here, as has already been pointed out, is that the wording for the Fire Frenzy rule is imprecise in its use of the word "visible" and as such no one can conclude with any certainty how this should actually be played by the RAW. It is simply impossible to do so.

You can argue for twenty pages until the cows come home but it isn't going to change the fact that we don't know exactly what the author meant by the term "visible". It is just something you'll have to discuss with your opponent ahead of time and if you're a sporting player you probably want to go ahead with the least advantageous interpretation and stick with forcing the dreadnought to turn around to fire at friendly models, at least IMHO.

I agree Yakface. The problem is that with one interpretation Dreads are a crappy unit that should never be used outside fun lists. And in the other they are a decent unit that requires considerable managment but can be worthwhile.

yakface wrote:
So in order to draw line of sight for a dreadnought you simply bend over the table and look from the mounting point of the weapon down along the barrel towards the target and you pretend that the barrel can pivot up to 45 degrees in either direction even if the model itself doesn't allow such movement on the weapon.


And THAT is how dreadnoughts draw line of sight.

Not Quite
BRB pg72.
"When firing a walker's weapons, pivot the walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target (assume that all weapons mounted on a walker can swivel 45 degrees,..."
The walker has no restrictions on pivoting. Therefore they have a 360 degree LOS
Vehicles firing have to have a target in their Arc of Fire and in LOS.
Nothing in the rules on page 58 or 59 tell us that LOS and Arc of Fire are the same.

Arc of Sight. That's what it says. Dreadnought weapons are the same as hull mounted weapons, ie 45 degree arc of sight.

Fire Frenzy rule states at the beginning of the shooting phase, you shoot the closest visible unit. Meaning it needs to be in the arc of sight at the start of the shooting phase for it to be visible. Dreadnoughts always pivot to face their target when firing. I think I'm going to go insane from repetition and God forbid I roll a 1... (yes bad joke... but seriously...)

SeattleDV8 wrote:
Not Quite
BRB pg72.
"When firing a walker's weapons, pivot the walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target (assume that all weapons mounted on a walker can swivel 45 degrees,..."
The walker has no restrictions on pivoting. Therefore they have a 360 degree LOS
Vehicles firing have to have a target in their Arc of Fire and in LOS.
Nothing in the rules on page 58 or 59 tell us that LOS and Arc of Fire are the same.

I wasn't trying to say that you can't (or don't) pivot before drawing line of sight, just that there are some people in this thread who are incorrectly assuming LOS for walkers is drawn from the model's eyes, which I wanted to point out is incorrect. The actual process of drawing line of sight is done by looking down the barrel of the gun and imagining it can move up to 45 degrees (which happens after pivoting occurs, of course).

anticitizen013 wrote:Arc of Sight. That's what it says. Dreadnought weapons are the same as hull mounted weapons, ie 45 degree arc of sight.

Fire Frenzy rule states at the beginning of the shooting phase, you shoot the closest visible unit. Meaning it needs to be in the arc of sight at the start of the shooting phase for it to be visible. Dreadnoughts always pivot to face their target when firing. I think I'm going to go insane from repetition and God forbid I roll a 1... (yes bad joke... but seriously...)

And. . .so what? We don't know what the rules mean when they ask for the closest "visible" unit. And as has been pointed out, with walkers you declare your target, pivot the walker to face the target and then you'd check line of sight. So technically you don't find out if a target is visible until after you declare a target.

None of this functions clearly with the Fire Frenzy rules as written. You're supposed to select the closest "visible" target but if "visible" means within line of sight then you have to have already selected a target in order to check line of sight. . .it's a catch-22.

You can keep saying "arc of sight" until you're blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact that the rules aren't clear as written.

Ah. Yes of course, no argument then . I misunderstood your point.

yakface wrote:And. . .so what? We don't know what the rules mean when they ask for the closest "visible" unit. And as has been pointed out, with walkers you declare your target, pivot the walker to face the target and then you'd check line of sight. So technically you don't find out if a target is visible until after you declare a target.

That works for how walkers normally shoot (ie pick a target, pivot, etc). Since in the Fire Frenzy it is given to you (closest visible) you don't pick your target as it is already in essence picked for you (closest visible). Though on this yeah, it is hard to say what exactly the author of said rule intended (and wrote, haha) since there is very little to go by and it's not as clear as it should be.

yakface wrote:
None of this functions clearly with the Fire Frenzy rules as written. You're supposed to select the closest "visible" target but if "visible" means within line of sight then you have to have already selected a target in order to check line of sight. . .it's a catch-22.

As I (think) I posted before... the way that seems most logical is to check LOS, and if there are more than 1 unit in the LOS you pivot towards it and fire twice.

yakface wrote:
You can keep saying "arc of sight" until you're blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact that the rules aren't clear as written.

I'm just working with what is given to me and since that says sight, I'm pretty sure it means sight and not something else. You yourself explained in a previous post how LOS works for vehicles (ie walkers) and you were correct (as you supported the Arc of Sight (hopefully that's the last time I'll ever utter/type those words)).

This debate will go on forever since it is quite unclear what was intended, so I think I will stop repeating myself and let this die out. Hopefully someone can make an official(ish) ruling or it be clarified in the 12 years it takes to make a new Chaos Codex...

anticitizen013 wrote:
As I (think) I posted before... the way that seems most logical is to check LOS, and if there are more than 1 unit in the LOS you pivot towards it and fire twice.

There are two 'logical' ways to play it, and both require you to break the rules in order to accomplish them.

One is the way you've been suggesting, that "visible" means "within line of sight" and that the Fire Frenzy rules allow you to check line of sight out of the normal shooting sequence and you immediately check for the closest unit within line of sight and proceed from there.

It is important to note that this method does break the rules in that you are checking line of sight before selecting a target, something the Fire Frenzy rules do not specifically mention that you are allowed to do.


The second logical way to play it is to assume that you pivot the walker to face the nearest unit in order to check line of sight (since this is the normal method that walkers check line of sight) and then if the nearest unit isn't "visible" (again assuming this means "within line of sight") then you'd pivot the walker again to face the next nearest target and check line of sight again until you find the closest unit that is "visible" (within line of sight).

As with the other method, you have to bend some rules and make some assumptions to make it work.


In the end, you should be discussing this issue with your opponent as the rules as written do not give you a clear way to play.

Thanks for the lively discussion on a rule that I found to be an absurd update from the old codex.

I think there is a strong case for either rule interpretation. I will discuss this with my opponents before I field a dreadnought with anything other than dual CCWs. If they allow me to use the dread to fire at the nearest visible unit BEFORE pivoting I will use my dusty dreadnoughts again, though they will need careful management. If they disagree with that interpretation they will remain dusty until the 'fire frenzy' rule is changed or I pick up a Dreadclaw, whichever comes first.

thalor

This'd be a good 'HOW WOULD YOU PLAY IT' poll.

lambadomy wrote:It doesn't imply anything of the sort. It strongly implies that they don't shoot their guns out of their rear ends or over their shoulders. That is about it.

It does imply that they can see 360. If they could not see 360, then they would not be able to pivot to shoot. They would be denied the ability to pivot . . .

Regardless, it has become obvious to me that a strong argument can be made for either position. And as I do not play Chaos; therefore, I do not have a 'dog' in this fight. So, I am going to bow out of the conversation.

Thankfully, I can take a pole here and set up a 'House Rule' for our local group until GW settles the issue (if they settle the issue).

I agree with Yak.

Its best to check with a TO/friend before making a decision here

Hope nobody minds me bringing this back up, its only on the second page though.

So, i brought this question up to my local redshirts (disclaimer: Yes i know what they say is not official, but its still more input) and they were surprised that it is even an issue. Their response was pretty much a "duh, of course its only out of the units they can see in front of them." Turns out pretty much everyone in the store thought it was that way and agreed with the argument that vehicles can only see what is in their weapon arcs, as in 5th weapon arcs = LOS. So i'll certainly be playing it this way from now on.

I like how that sounds... makes the Dreadnought actually worth it ;P

Thanks for posting your (their) feedback!

I think it really is the simplest reading of the rule.

There's something to be said for simplicity.

This brings up another question that I was wondering.

Can dreads see over railings like normal infantry to shoot straight down?

Sorry to be OT :(

5th ed LoS rules are actually quite simple: if the model can see another model it can see it.

So there is no railing rule anymore? Sweet.

Remember, too that a vehicle's weapons may pivot 45 degrees up and down (even if the model can't) to shoot. That may also help shooting from elevation.

AffliKtion wrote:So there is no railing rule anymore? Sweet.

No what rule?

willydstyle wrote:5th ed LoS rules are actually quite simple: if the model can see another model it can see it.

That's always been the core premise of 40K's LOS rules.

So i was re-reading this thread and it would actually seem that if we stick 100% to RAW than with either interpretation the Dreadnought always shoots itself, unless there is a rule specifically saying units cannot shoot themselves (not just that they cannot shoot friendly targets).

And another question: If walker weapon are only 45 degree arcs doesn't that mean that, if a unit is close enough and directly in front of it (like after a pivot) that the weapons cannot actually see it?

And even another question: Going by the interpretation of fire frenzy that it only shoots what is visible before it pivots, then if nothing is in its arc of fire and it is "sane" then does that mean it can then pivot and shoot something else? Obviously it still can't move since you are in the shooting phase before you get to check for the fire frenzy.

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:So i was re-reading this thread and it would actually seem that if we stick 100% to RAW than with either interpretation the Dreadnought always shoots itself, unless there is a rule specifically saying units cannot shoot themselves (not just that they cannot shoot friendly targets).

And another question: If walker weapon are only 45 degree arcs doesn't that mean that, if a unit is close enough and directly in front of it (like after a pivot) that the weapons cannot actually see it?

And even another question: Going by the interpretation of fire frenzy that it only shoots what is visible before it pivots, then if nothing is in its arc of fire and it is "sane" then does that mean it can then pivot and shoot something else? Obviously it still can't move since you are in the shooting phase before you get to check for the fire frenzy.

Yes to all of this...

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:So i was re-reading this thread and it would actually seem that if we stick 100% to RAW than with either interpretation the Dreadnought always shoots itself, unless there is a rule specifically saying units cannot shoot themselves (not just that they cannot shoot friendly targets).

A dreadnought can't be in its own fire arc (and thus visible for shooting), unless you've put the weapons on in a seriously bizarre way. You'd have to be deliberately pointing the weapon at the model's foot or something...