I was shown this by a friend, am curious what you guys think about it. All the credit for it goes to www.ruleslawyers.com.

"ISSUE:

How does the chaos dreadnought’s fire frenzy result work in 5th edition?

HOLDING:

A fire frenzying dreadnought may pivot during the movement phase, then must target the closest model within any of its 45 degree firing arcs, before any pivoting takes place, at the beginning of the shooting phase.


ANALYSIS:

Justicar GiantKiller delivers the opinion of the court.

Approximately one out of every six turns, a Chaos Dreadnought will go crazier than a pet ‘[see forum posting rules] and start shooting the first thing unlucky enough to wander into its crosshairs. Since that’ll probably happen at least once in every average-length game, it’s important to know how this rule interacts with the 5th edition rules.

As always, we start with the text of the rule.

“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! If the Chaos Dreadnought cannot fire any ranged weapons, treat this result as a ‘2-5 Sane’ result instead.” Codex:Chaos p. 40

So, assuming the Dreadnaught is capable of firing at least one ranged weapon, to comply with this rule, the dreadnaught must:
1. Not move in the movement phase
2. Go first in the shooting phase
3. Determine which is the closest visible unit
4. Pivot toward that unit
5. Shoot all guns at that unit twice
6. Not assault in the assault phase

This rule’s first effect comes in the movement phase. The Fire Frenzied Dread can’t move. It isn’t immobilized permanently, but it must remain stationary in that phase. But according to the 5th edition rules, as long as the dread isn’t immobilized, it can still pivot, because pivoting doesn’t count as movement.

“Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as stationary (however, immobilised vehicles may not even pivot).” BGB p.57 (Note that this language was not present in 4th edition See 4th ed. BGB p. 61. A fire frenzying dreadnought could not have pivoted in a 4th edition movement phase.)

Then we move on to the shooting phase, where the first thing we must do is determine which is the “closest visible unit”. To do that, we have to know what the Dreadnought can and can’t see.

One very significant addition to 5th addition was true line of sight. What a model can see is no longer an abstract concept, instead players are instructed to get down to a model’s level and find out what the model can actually “see” from its point of view. For infantry models, line of sight is drawn from “the eyes of the firing model”. See BGB p. 16. But what about vehicles? The rules tell us that vehicles “see” from their weapon mountings:

“When firing a vehicle’s weapons, … line of sight is determined from the weapon’s mounting point and along its barrel …” BGB p. 56

So if we’re determining line of sight from the mounting point and along the barrel, the vehicle can “see” anything that is within its weapon’s firing arc. For hull mounted weapons, that’s 45 degrees from its mounting point. See BGB p.59, incl. diagram. Walkers’ weapons are all considered hull-mounted. See BGB p.72. That means a dreadnought can only “see” a model if it is within a 45 degree arc from the mounting point of any of its ranged weapons. Note this is a major shift from 4th edition, when walkers had a 180 degree firing arc. See 4th ed. BGB p. 64. If there are units within any of the Dreadnought’s 45 degree Line-of-Sight arcs, we choose the closest one. That will be the dreadnought’s target. If there isn’t a unit in those arcs, the dreadnought cannot fire this turn. Obviously the dreadnought cannot pivot to face its target until after a target is selected (as we can’t turn to face something if we don’t know what it is we’re trying to face).

This is a definite change from the normal shooting process for walkers. Ordinarily, a walker pivots first, then determines range and line of sight:

“When firing a walker’s weapons, pivot the walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target and then measure the range from the weapon itself and line of sight from the mounting point of the weapon …” BGB p.72

The fire frenzy rule, on the other hand, instructs us to determine range and line of sight (to find out which is the closest model) and then pivot toward that model to fire. When rules conflict, The Specific > General Canon tells us that the more specific rule controls. In this case, it is the fire frenzy rule that governs because it is the more specific rule (specific only to dreadnaughts afflicted by fire frenzy). The result is, the fire-frenzied dreadnought is stuck with its 45 degree arcs as they exist at the beginning of the shooting phase. It may not pivot so that a closer unit, or any unit, becomes visible. It must target the closest unit that is already in line of sight at the beginning of the shooting phase, and then pivot to face that unit, and then fire all weapons at that target twice.

But if the target is already within line of sight, why pivot at all? Is this interpretation rendering Fire Frenzy’s “pivot on the spot” language superfluous in violation of The Superfluous Language Canon? We find that it is not. Chaos Dreadnoughts may have ranged weapons on both arms. See Codex:CSM p. 95. It is entirely possible then, that a target may be within the firing arc of one weapon (and therefore visible) but not within the firing arc of the other weapon. The purpose of the pivot is to ensure that, once a target is selected, both weapons may be brought to bear against it.

Putting it all together, this means that a Chaos player does maintain some limited control over a fire-frenzying dreadnought. By being aware of the dreadnought’s 45 degree firing arcs, the player can pivot the frenzied Dreadnought in the movement phase so that the most desireable target becomes the closest visible target at the beginning of the shooting phase. However, if the player fails to bring a target into any of the 45 degree firing arcs by pivoting during the movement phase, the Dreadnought will not be able to fire at all that turn and will miss its opportunity to “double tap” a target."

- www.ruleslawyer.com

Please help me determine the validity of the argument.

Whut...


A fire frenzying dreadnought may pivot during the movement phase, then must target the closest model within any of its 45 degree firing arcs, before any pivoting takes place, at the beginning of the shooting phase.

This is correct.

Although technically it is possible to 'pivot the dread' to control who/what it fires at, I think most people play this as the dread pivots and shoots and the target with the closest euclidean distance to the dread.

There is a reason that showed up at the 'Rules Lawyer' site...

calypso2ts wrote:Although technically it is possible to 'pivot the dread' to control who/what it fires at, I think most people play this as the dread pivots and shoots and the target with the closest euclidean distance to the dread.

There is a reason that showed up at the 'Rules Lawyer' site...

The reason is that people get confused.

The RaW is clear if you read it.

Gwar! wrote:The RaW is clear if you read it.

Where does it define what visible means?

Arschbombe wrote:

Gwar! wrote:The RaW is clear if you read it.

Where does it define what visible means?

Where does it define what "and" means? Where does it define what "1" means?

It's called English, and the book is written in it.

Gwar! wrote:Where does it define what "and" means? Where does it define what "1" means?

It's called English, and the book is written in it.

Funny.

You know what I mean. Where do the rules say that visible in the Fire Frenzy rule means "to which the dread has Line of Sight in one of its current weapon arcs"? It doesn't and that's the root of the argument.

The walker shooting rules tell you to pivot to face a target and then check to see if they have LOS. It doesn't say to check LOS and then pivot. So you can't know if a target directly behind the frenzied dread is visible to the dread until you pivot and check LOS.

Arschbombe wrote: It doesn't say to check LOS and then pivot.

The fire frenzy rules do, however.

"At the begining of the Shooting phase it must pivot on the spot towards the closest visible unit"

This is NOT the same as walker rules for targeting.

kirsanth wrote:The fire frenzy rules do, however.

"At the begining of the Shooting phase it must pivot on the spot towards the closest visible unit"

This is NOT the same as walker rules for targeting.

Are we reading the same rules?

The crux is still the word visible. Pivot is clear. Closest is clear. The problem is what they mean by visible. Your side says visible must mean something the dread has LOS to with one of it's weapons before it pivots. I say you don't know what is visible to the dread without pivoting and checking LOS as per the walker rules. There's nothing in the fire frenzy rule that changes how walkers check LOS to targets. If you don't use the walker rules for targeting how can you possibly know what's visible to the walker?

Arschbombe wrote:

kirsanth wrote:The fire frenzy rules do, however.

"At the begining of the Shooting phase it must pivot on the spot towards the closest visible unit"

This is NOT the same as walker rules for targeting.

Your side says visible must mean something the dread has LOS to with one of it's weapons before it pivots.

My side? I was pointing out that what you were stating as not in the rules, actually is in the rules.

The argument is both valid and sound.

Here's some excellent diagrams that Arschbombe posted in another thread.



In this first diagram the closest visible unit is A, as it is within line of sight of the Dreadnought's left arm. The Dreadnought would pivot left to bring the unit into the overlap of both its weapons.



In this second diagram there are no visible units, as none of them are within a line of sight of either of the Dreadnought's weapons. With no target within line of sight, the Dreadnought cannot fire its weapons and is therefore Sane for the following turn.

Just to point out something else point 2 of your list is incorrect. There is nothing that states that the dreadnaught must be the 1st unit to fire in the shooting phase.
The diagrams above are very pretty but moot. The rules say that the dreadnaught must target the closest visible target. The unit 6" away, unless it is behind some object that blocks LoS is the closest visible target. The rule clearly says that the dreadnaught must pivot before firing at the closest unit. That is the unit that would be in the LoS of the dreadnaught with the least amount of space between it and the dreadnaught.

I thought a lawyers job was to make up laws and convince people they were true?

And yes, excellent Diagrams, though they lack the Skulls and pauldrons to be GRIMDARK level excellent.

I thought it was to take your money so that you do not have to follow the laws?

(ie you have a speeding ticket, Wait a lawyer! Now I had a headlight that was out...)

Read the Codex. Fire Frenzy states that "At the beginning of the Shooting phase..."

kirsanth wrote:
My side? I was pointing out that what you were stating as not in the rules, actually is in the rules.

Yes, your side. There are two camps for this argument. You fall into one of them.

You have shown nothing of the sort. Nowhere does the fire frenzy rule define how to determine what is visible to the dreadnought. You are making an assumption that the normal walker rules for determining that "visibility" are ignored and you only choose from the targets the dread is facing at the time fire frenzy is rolled. That's how it worked in 4th edition when walkers had 180 degree firing arcs but couldn't pivot in the shooting phase. Now in 5th they have narrow firing arcs, but can pivot to face any direction. Walkers now pivot first and then check LOS they don't have to check LOS before they pivot.

Here's another diagram built based on how you see the rules.



Dread has one target within one of its arcs so that's the closest "visible" unit is unit A. It pivots to face A, but now B is visible. Does it still shoot A or has B become the closest visible unit? If it switches to B and C comes into view does it then have to target C?

Arschbombe wrote:Yes, your side. There are two camps for this argument. You fall into one of them.

Sure, but I have not stated anything that relates to how I think this should be ruled, nor anything about how I play it.

I just pointed out that you were wrong in saying something was not in the rules.

/shrug

Justicar GiantKiller wrote:1. No move in the movement phase
2. Go first in the shooting phase
3. Determine which is the closest visible unit
4. Pivot toward that unit
5. Shoot all guns at that unit twice
6. Not assault in the assault phase

Easy, the closest visible unit is determined at the beginning of the movement phase. You don't iterate step 3 after step 4.

kirsanth wrote:
I just pointed out that you were wrong in saying something was not in the rules.

No, you didn't.

This is all very Monty Python.

Nurglitch is correct, you don't go backwards in the steps, you only go forwards.

Let me go ahead and go out on a limb here and provide (gasp!) real world logic.

Now, because the term "visible" and "visibility" are not explicitly defined in the BRB (and only because they're not explicitly defined) the way terms like "Disembark" and "Line of Sight" are, it's not difficult to imagine "visible" meaning "within line of sight."

If "visibility" was defined in the BRB, we'd know what it means. As it is, it is not. Therefore, we have to infer based on the idea that line of sight equals visibility, that "visible" means "in line of sight."

That, or the entire Fire Frenzy rule does exactly nothing.

Arschbombe wrote:

kirsanth wrote:
I just pointed out that you were wrong in saying something was not in the rules.

No, you didn't.

To save you the effort of scrolling up, here was what I posted initially, correcting your assertion something was not in the rules.

kirsanth wrote:

Arschbombe wrote: It doesn't say to check LOS and then pivot.

The fire frenzy rules do, however.

"At the begining of the Shooting phase it must pivot on the spot towards the closest visible unit"

10 goto 20
20 goto 10

Nope, not seeing anything like that in the specified order of operations.

I think he's trying to say this is starting to go around in circles.

I have to disagree, I think Kirsanth's got it nailed down.

Nuh uh.

Yup, kirsanth has given the correct reading.

I'd agree with Kirsanth's interpretation.

However, in regards to "visible": When do you determine if a unit is visible due to night fighting or harlequin cloaking?

Grakmar wrote:I'd agree with Kirsanth's interpretation.

However, in regards to "visible": When do you determine if a unit is visible due to night fighting or harlequin cloaking?

Well, it's gotta be in line of sight first.

If it's in line of sight, you roll to see how far your d00dz can see. If it's within the range determined by your roll, they can see it.

But before that happens, you have to be able to see it at all under any circumstances, and if you have no line of sight, you cannot.

Grakmar wrote:I'd agree with Kirsanth's interpretation.

However, in regards to "visible": When do you determine if a unit is visible due to night fighting or harlequin cloaking?

It doesn't interact.

A Unit protected by Nightfight/VoT/Shrouding is still "Visible" from a LoS point of view, but you will need to test to "see" them, and end up wasting your shots if you fail the roll.

I sent an email to GW, will post their response when I get it.

Slarg232 wrote:I sent an email to GW, will post their response when I get it.

Seriously, READ THE DAMN STICKIES:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

For the record, the people who answer those emails are just box packers or customer service reps. They generally have little to no rules knowlege.

Meh, still might as well have their opinion on it.

Ugh... I used to rely on GW Askyourquestion. Sadly, they can't be relied on. Ask your same question again a month (or even a day) from now, and you'll get a totally different answer depending on the rep that responds.

I personally don't agree with this interpretation, because I find the leap from drawing a line down the barrel "to see if the shot is blocked by terrain and models" and a WEAPON having a 45 degree arc of sight (note the arc belongs to the weapon not the vehicle), to suddenly saying "well that means we know without a doubt that the vehicle can only see in whatever arcs it's weapons have" is a bit obtuse.

There's a massive piece of information missing there, and that's the rules ever defining what a vehicles ability to see is like, the vehicle itself, not the weapons.


Also, just for those who like me might be interested, side-effects of the arc of fire = vision ruling include:

Units may infiltrate within 12" of a vehicle, in the open, as long as it can't point any of it's weapons at them.
Tau Pathfinder Devilfish with no weapons left no longer allow the scatter re-roll, and are much more restricted in where they let you deep strike ("to a point visible to the devilfish")

There may be more, this is all I could spot.

Drunkspleen wrote:I personally don't agree with this interpretation, because I find the leap from drawing a line down the barrel "to see if the shot is blocked by terrain and models" and a WEAPON having a 45 degree arc of sight (note the arc belongs to the weapon not the vehicle), to suddenly saying "well that means we know without a doubt that the vehicle can only see in whatever arcs it's weapons have" is a bit obtuse.

There's a massive piece of information missing there, and that's the rules ever defining what a vehicles ability to see is like, the vehicle itself, not the weapons.


Also, just for those who like me might be interested, side-effects of the arc of fire = vision ruling include:

Units may infiltrate within 12" of a vehicle, in the open, as long as it can't point any of it's weapons at them.
Tau Pathfinder Devilfish with no weapons left no longer allow the scatter re-roll, and are much more restricted in where they let you deep strike ("to a point visible to the devilfish")

There may be more, this is all I could spot.

Exactly. Personally, I play with the 360* arc rule for all models. It can be abused to no end if you don't interpret the rules this way. For example: black rage, just turn your models around and then you have no LOS to enemy units next turn. Guess what? Now you can control your death company just as if they didn't have the black rage, neat-o! Same with Death Company Dreadnoughts.

I'm not saying it's necessarily RaW, but it opens up too many loopholes if you don't play that way. The closest visible enemy, as I play it, is the closest unit not behind cover.

From another thread. . .

kirsanth wrote:The rules for using the barrel state "When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them against the target and then trace line of sight from each weapons' mounting and along its barrel".
Which could imply they need to fire--and have a weapon with a barrel. There are no other rules for vehicles LOS that I see.

Otherwise you must check LOS from a (non-vehicle) model's eyes (page 16). Which dreads do not have.

Or did I miss something?

kirsanth wrote:From another thread. . .

kirsanth wrote:The rules for using the barrel state "When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them against the target and then trace line of sight from each weapons' mounting and along its barrel".
Which could imply they need to fire--and have a weapon with a barrel. There are no other rules for vehicles LOS that I see.

Otherwise you must check LOS from a (non-vehicle) model's eyes (page 16). Which dreads do not have.

Or did I miss something?

No, you're good. I'm just saying that while RaW you may very likely be correct, playing that way is just game breakingly silly. Usually, I side with RaW but, in certain circumstances, playing that way is going to cause too many "loopholes" to be fun or practical. If someone tried any of the tricks I mentioned, it's not likely that I would play them again. I play a lot of Blood Angels myself, and I don't feel the need to try to gain the advantage that way. If you can't win/play the game without trying to use every loophole you can find, why bother?

In the case of the OP, the chaos player was just mad that he failed a 1/6 roll of a die. He should have just taken it and kept playing like a normal person would, instead of trying to find a way out of shooting his own (probably) closer troops. My friend plays CSM and plays it the way that seems most logical and least game-breaking.

Rephistorch wrote: If someone tried any of the tricks I mentioned, it's not likely that I would play them again.

So, if this hypothetical person was doing this because they thought it was the rules, not for being some trick, how would you know? Or does it not matter?

kirsanth wrote:

Rephistorch wrote: If someone tried any of the tricks I mentioned, it's not likely that I would play them again.

So, if this hypothetical person was doing this because they thought it was the rules, not for being some trick, how would you know? Or does it not matter?

I said it wasn't likely. I would probably get the opinion of whatever FLGS I was at, and ask to play that way. If that was in their favor, that's alright. If they were doing intentionally to get an advantage and being a jerk about it, it wouldn't be a very fun game to play. Also, my death company would see ALOT of usage if they agreed to play that way, because they would never be subject to the black rage.

No worries.
I just find it strange when folks say things like "I would not play that guy again because he is following the rules!"

I realize that is not what you wrote, but I think it perhaps as strange since you started by acknowledging it may very well be correct.

All that said, I am not 100% sure the rules back either interpretation as both lead to some issues.

Honestly, I do not think my requoted self (?) post was backing EITHER side.

I am nitpicking more than picking sides in this one.

kirsanth wrote:No worries.
I just find it strange when folks say things like "I would not play that guy again because he is following the rules!"

I realize that is not what you wrote, but I think it perhaps as strange since you started by acknowledging it may very well be correct.

All that said, I am not 100% sure the rules back either interpretation as both lead to some issues.

Honestly, I do not think my requoted self (?) post was backing EITHER side.

I am nitpicking more than picking sides in this one.

I would go even a step further and say I am almost certain the rules fail to back either interpretation, I don't mind so much if people want to play it as the way suggested in the OP of this thread by any means, but I think neither side is actually fully supported by RAW, which I suppose is a bit nicer than having both sides have valid RAW arguments from contradictory rules.

kirsanth wrote:No worries.
I just find it strange when folks say things like "I would not play that guy again because he is following the rules!"

I realize that is not what you wrote, but I think it perhaps as strange since you started by acknowledging it may very well be correct.
...

It's not that they are "following the rules". It's that they are exploiting a particularly gray area of the rules to gain an advantage. Clearly, if they need to use these "exploits", they either need all the help they can get, or they just like playing dirty. It's never fun that way.

I feel the same way about real-life issues. People break the law but get away with it on technicality (weren't read their Miranda rights in the USA for example). Even though they may have openly admitted something to the police officer, it's inadmissible as evidence. It's annoying that people exploit the system to benefit themselves. It's human nature, but I wouldn't want to have anything to do with someone like that.

Rephistorch wrote:

It's not that they are "following the rules". It's that they are exploiting a particularly gray area of the rules to gain an advantage. Clearly, if they need to use these "exploits", they either need all the help they can get, or they just like playing dirty. It's never fun that way.

Couldn't the exact same be said for anyone insisting they play it the other way??

Timmah wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:

It's not that they are "following the rules". It's that they are exploiting a particularly gray area of the rules to gain an advantage. Clearly, if they need to use these "exploits", they either need all the help they can get, or they just like playing dirty. It's never fun that way.

Couldn't the exact same be said for anyone insisting they play it the other way??

Possibly, but generally it's the person gaining the advantage that is "using" the exploits. The chaos player who doesn't want to shoot their own troops, the blood angels player who doesn't want to be bound by the rules of the black rage or the USR rage, or the infiltrators that can get into 12" because you're not facing them. In all these cases, it benefits the controlling player to play this way. Inversely, I guess it does benefit your opponent to not play this way.

The fact is, I'm pretty sure GW wasn't intending for armies to be able to march backwards to gain an advantage. Several Polish jokes come to mind, but that's another story.

Rephistorch wrote:Possibly, but generally it's the person gaining the advantage that is "using" the exploits.

Which would be you in the situation of claiming your opponent should have to follow the rules as you read them, as much as it would be your opponent if he was claiming the rules read as others do.
That was my point.

I generally (advocate) play with the weakest side for myself--when there are vague and undiscussed rules.
In this case, I would say my opponent's Fire Frenzy could be avoided by not being able to see a target (when called for in FF, not LoS).
If in this case, I had a dread fall to FF, I would volunteer to turn it.


Not that anyone asked.

kirsanth wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:Possibly, but generally it's the person gaining the advantage that is "using" the exploits.

Which would be you in the situation of claiming your opponent should have to follow the rules as you read them, as much as it would be your opponent if he was claiming the rules read as others do.
That was my point.

I generally (advocate) play with the weakest side for myself--when there are vague and undiscussed rules.
In this case, I would say my opponent's Fire Frenzy could be avoided by not being able to see a target (when called for in FF, not LoS).
If in this case, I had a dread fall to FF, I would volunteer to turn it.


Not that anyone asked.

That's a good way of playing so that you're fair for your opponent. I'm sure playing a game with you would be a very fun experience.

I just feel that if you're going to play one way, you need to stay consistent. Whereas, if I had an opponent who used the LoS in the way I find abusive, I would make sure to play that way myself for the rest of the game as an example of how it's silly. If he's OK with me having control over rage units, all the better. If he disagrees with the rage being "controllable", then he should also disagree with his dreads not being able to "see" the real closest unit to him (not ignoring cover, of course).

Nurglitch has it spot on - the diagram is perfect and applies exactly as written (there are no conflicts with the rule book).

And here is the funny thing:

Fire Frenzy on does 2 things to the rules for firing a Dreadnaught

1. Allows the Dreadnaught to fire at his own team

2. Allows the Dreadnaught to fire twice

That's it when it comes to firing with Fire Frenzy, this debate about what it can see applies to all dreadnaughts not just the chaos ones.


So I am guessing is we are seeing all the non-chaos Dreadnaught users defending their right to spin their Dreadnaught around like a turret in the shooting phase?

Kwi wrote:And here is the funny thing:

Fire Frenzy on does 2 things to the rules for firing a Dreadnaught

1. Allows the Dreadnaught to fire at his own team

2. Allows the Dreadnaught to fire twice

That's it when it comes to firing with Fire Frenzy.



What I think gets overlooked is that this applies to ALL dreadnaughts - the direction you leave them in after the movement phase determines their "arc of sight".

So I am guessing is we are seeing all the non-chaos Dreadnaught users defending their right to spin their Dreadnaught around like a turret in the shooting phase.

Sorry, but that sentence in bold is just wrong. Please re-read page 72 in the BRB under the section "Walkers Shooting". They are allowed to pivot towards their target in the shooting phase without counting as moving. In fact, they are forced to face the unit they wish to fire upon!

In fact, maybe settling the argument, you determine LoS AFTER pivoting the walker towards it's target. This would imply that the units behind the walker are still "visible targets", and thus subject to this CSM rule.

Firstly, at NO POINT does either the rulebook or the codex define "visible". There are some rules for something called "line of sight", but there is no reason to assume that they're the same, RAW.

If you define "visible" as "whatever the dreadnought can see at the end of the movement phase", then NO dreadnought would EVER be able to shoot at something that wasn't already in it's front arc (yes, you can turn to pivot, but you can't turn to pivot to attack a target that you can't see). If you define "visible" as "whatever a dreadnought can see after it gets its free pivot" that means that dreadnoughts can always turn to attack targets, and then check for LOS. In this case, clearly the fire frenzy dreadnought pivots like crazy for a second until it finds it's closest target, friend or foe, and attacks it twice.

Clearly ROI favors the latter. As RAW is actually not clear on this, it lapses to ROI. If you, the chaos player across from me insisted that you didn't have to attack the closest unit (your own) because of the above shenanigans, I'd insist a 4+ rolloff. That is, unless the player had, the entire time, been ignoring the pivoting rules for dreadnoughts (and even then...)

Maybe it's been mentioned, but did you know that at no point does the rulebook or the codex define "the" and "and"? There's a couple of definite articles in the rules, and perhaps a conjunction or two, but there is no reason to assume these words mean anything RAW...

If we define 'visible' as being in line of sight of the Dreadnought's weapons at the end of the Movement phase, then we would be right to conclude that no Dreadnought would ever be able to shoot at something that wasn't already in the arc of its weapons, and that wouldn't be a problem. That wouldn't be a problem because the Dreadnought can ends its Movement phase facing in any direction the player chooses. The ability to pivot in the Shooting phase simply means that, unlike other vehicle, it's not as easy to remove any eligible targets within line of sight of Walker weapons prior to shooting with those weapons.

There's a very definite order to the actions described by Fire Frenzy. Movement and Assault phases aside, the beginning of the Chaos Space Marine Shooting phase requires that you check the closest visible units to your Chaos Dreadnought(s) and then pivot towards them. The pivot is clearly the action, the closest visible target is the condition that needs to be filled for the action to occur, and although the rulebook does not define English grammar, the meaning should be simple, straightforward, and unambiguous.

Rephistorch wrote:

Exactly. Personally, I play with the 360* arc rule for all models. It can be abused to no end if you don't interpret the rules this way. For example: black rage, just turn your models around and then you have no LOS to enemy units next turn. Guess what? Now you can control your death company just as if they didn't have the black rage, neat-o! Same with Death Company Dreadnoughts.

I'm not saying it's necessarily RaW, but it opens up too many loopholes if you don't play that way. The closest visible enemy, as I play it, is the closest unit not behind cover.

Don't non-vehicle units have 360 degree LOS anyway? And if you want to point the nice juicy AV 10 towards your opponent on your dread, go right ahead.

Irdiumstern wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:

Exactly. Personally, I play with the 360* arc rule for all models. It can be abused to no end if you don't interpret the rules this way. For example: black rage, just turn your models around and then you have no LOS to enemy units next turn. Guess what? Now you can control your death company just as if they didn't have the black rage, neat-o! Same with Death Company Dreadnoughts.

I'm not saying it's necessarily RaW, but it opens up too many loopholes if you don't play that way. The closest visible enemy, as I play it, is the closest unit not behind cover.

Don't non-vehicle units have 360 degree LOS anyway? And if you want to point the nice juicy AV 10 towards your opponent on your dread, go right ahead.

I don't believe it is ever stated how LoS works for any model. LoS arcs are covered for vehicle weapons, but that's all I am aware of.

Furthermore, when shooting from a vehicle, you always move the guns towards the target (if able). The model's facing doesn't matter, and as far as I'm aware, most guns can't actually "see". A walker can turn 180* to shoot a target behind him, as he is more mobile than a tank is. "This pivoting in the shooting phase does not count as moving and represents the vastly superior agility of walkers in comparison with other vehicles." Instead of moving his guns, the walker can move his body. That's how I interpret it at least.

Drunkspleen wrote:Units may infiltrate within 12" of a vehicle, in the open, as long as it can't point any of it's weapons at them.

This is how I've always played it. And it's basically why you usually want to be careful with your infantry and vehicle deployment, so that you cover LOS around your deployment zone. But if the vehicle can't see you (can't draw LOS) you can legally infiltrate within 12" of it - so long as there's nothing else that CAN see you within 18".

Drunkspleen wrote:Tau Pathfinder Devilfish with no weapons left no longer allow the scatter re-roll, and are much more restricted in where they let you deep strike ("to a point visible to the devilfish")

...are there Tau players who don't play it like this? If the 'fish has no weapons, it has no means for drawing LOS, therefore it cannot allow rerolls on deep-striking scatter dice. As a Tau player, this is how I've always played it.

Nurglitch wrote:If we define 'visible' as being in line of sight of the Dreadnought's weapons at the end of the Movement phase, then we would be right to conclude that no Dreadnought would ever be able to shoot at something that wasn't already in the arc of its weapons, and that wouldn't be a problem.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I don't actually agree with your definition of "visible". I think "visible" means capable of being seen, not currently being seen. My mouse is still visible even if I'm not looking at it.

In game terms, "visible" should mean any unit that is capable of being seen by the dread if it pivoted to look in that direction, i.e. not behind a wall.

If "visible" really was totally equivalent to "in line of sight", wouldn't the rules use that specific term which has an in-game definition. It's like "killed outright" being different from "instant death".

Grakmar wrote:I think "visible" means capable of being seen, not currently being seen.

Unless you are refering to what is visible to a model, which we are.

kirsanth wrote:

Grakmar wrote:I think "visible" means capable of being seen, not currently being seen.

Unless you are refering to what is visible to a model, which we are.

To be fair, the rule doesn't say "determine the closest unit that is visible to the dreadnaught", it just says "the closest visible unit". I think both interpretations are valid and the RAW are too vague to say one is right over the other.

40k really needs to take a page from Magic and standardize all their terminology and stay consistent!

Grakmar wrote:To be fair, the rule doesn't say "determine the closest unit that is visible to the dreadnaught", it just says "the closest visible unit".

To be fair, using your interpretation anything on the table and not embarked, is 100% visible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rephistorch wrote:

kirsanth wrote:I generally (advocate) play with the weakest side for myself--when there are vague and undiscussed rules.

That's a good way of playing so that you're fair for your opponent. I'm sure playing a game with you would be a very fun experience.

I just feel that if you're going to play one way, you need to stay consistent.

Thank you for the first bit! I hope the same is true for all my opponents.

The second bit I tried to address with the bolded part. I agree about consistency. Most of the folks I play, I play regularly and we discuss the rules almost daily--we have come to agreements about a massive number of rulings.
For tourneys or new opponents, I try to discuss as many vague issues with my opponent/TO prior to any game as possible. So things like this rarely occur in actual game play.

Speaking of consistency:

Grakmar wrote:40k really needs to take a page from Magic and standardize all their terminology and stay consistent!

So it seems you acknowledge that the Warhammer 40k rules are not written in a formalized language with a consistent terminology. But previously you were assuming that it was:

Grakmar wrote:If "visible" really was totally equivalent to "in line of sight", wouldn't the rules use that specific term which has an in-game definition. It's like "killed outright" being different from "instant death".

So no, they wouldn't, because we've already established that they don't.

Nurglitch wrote:Speaking of consistency:

Grakmar wrote:40k really needs to take a page from Magic and standardize all their terminology and stay consistent!

So it seems you acknowledge that the Warhammer 40k rules are not written in a formalized language with a consistent terminology. But previously you were assuming that it was:

Grakmar wrote:If "visible" really was totally equivalent to "in line of sight", wouldn't the rules use that specific term which has an in-game definition. It's like "killed outright" being different from "instant death".

So no, they wouldn't, because we've already established that they don't.

To clarify: I'm saying currently the rules are not written with consistent terminology, and I think GW needs to remedy this. However, they haven't, and people (myself included) tend to interpret the same concept being worded in 2 different terms as behaving differently.

For example, see this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/317325.page

Dire Swords cause "the victim dies automatically and is removed regardless of remaining wounds" (assuming failed check). EW does not prevent this, because the description on Dire Sword doesn't use the words Instant Death even though the game effect is identical.

Now, I fully recognize that I tend to believe in RAI, and I personally believe that Fire Frenzy is meant to represent the Dread going crazy and firing at the closest unit that isn't hidden behind a wall. I can see that I'm the only one arguing this side, so I'm probably letting that influence my RAW interpretation. Sorry.

Grakmar wrote:Dire Swords cause "the victim dies automatically and is removed regardless of remaining wounds" (assuming failed check). EW does not prevent this, because the description on Dire Sword doesn't use the words Instant Death even though the game effect is identical.

There are plenty of times where such "inconsistency" is deliberate. Given the fact that a number of "remove from play"/"dies automatically"/etc. abilities are very recent, it would be assinine to assume they were meant to be Instant Death instead.

This is why many folks tend to err on the side of RAW when things like this come up.

I have never heard even the die-hard RAI folks claiming Jaws of the World Wolf, for example, should make not affect models with Eternal Warrior--depite the fact that it reads very much like what you are suggesting.

Rephistorch wrote:Sorry, but that sentence in bold is just wrong. Please re-read page 72 in the BRB under the section "Walkers Shooting". They are allowed to pivot towards their target in the shooting phase without counting as moving. In fact, they are forced to face the unit they wish to fire upon!

I see a paragraph that says, "Unlike infantry, a walker has a facing , which influences where it can fire..."

Then I see right under it under "Walkers Shooting" that they fire like a stationary vehicle.

Then I see that they can pivot to get its guns on a target and to assume the weapons have a 45 degree arc of sight like hull mounted weapons.

This does not interfere or conflict with what I wrote - sure, they can pivot but only within their 45 degree "arc of sight" and even the "Fire Frenzy" rule states the same thing.

In fact, maybe settling the argument, you determine LoS AFTER pivoting the walker towards it's target. This would imply that the units behind the walker are still "visible targets", and thus subject to this CSM rule.

The rule book says the Dreadnaught has a facing, it fires like a stationary vehicle and can only pivot if it sees something within 45 degrees.

Nothing I see implies it can turn 180 degrees and disregard everything the rule book says. A Dreadnaught acts like infantry in the movement phase and in the assault phase but nowhere does it say it shoots like infantry in the shooting phase.

Why do people insist on making an only moderately effective CSM unit completely useless by assuming that it's only special rule is nothing but a total drawback, rather than a risk-reward ability (like damn near every other special rule, barring a few)?

The RAW is very clear here, as many have pointed out. The Dread shoots the closest target it can see, which we define as the LOS traced down the barrels of its guns, via the vehicle shooting rules (as it is a vehicle, and follows those rules specifically). I won't explain this any more, as I would be beating a dead horse, but the following is my opinion of why this confusion happens:

People who say the dread must shoot at the absolute nearest guys strike me as not wanting a fair game... since if the dread is supposed to turn and fire at the absolute nearest thing, it will damn near always fire at its allies. It seems to me that people are assuming that just because the dread is 'crazy' that it must hurt its own allies (because that's what crazy people do). These people then twist their interpretation of the actual wording of the rules, to fit the assumed function.

Since this assumption is based on fluff, I'm going to go out on a limb here (although fluff != rules) and say that nowhere does it say that the "crazy, psychotic" Chaos Dreadnoughts go out of their way to kill their own allies. They're just nutcases, plain and simple. So throw out that assumption that it must hurt its allies if it goes crazy. By that logic, Blood Rage should make it assault its own guys too.

Once people let go of that, they should see that the wording of the rule is very clear in this instance. Certainly, the RAW interpretation makes the rule much better, because it gives the CSM player the chance to hit very hard with a Plasma Cannon or Missile Launcher, but it absolutely doesn't make it over powered. The dread will still shoot its own allies in the back if the CSM player is dumb enough to put them in its front arc. Thus, it will often force the CSM player to keep units out of its fire arc, limiting their movement options.

Just my 2 cents on this. This gigantic argument is also why I never run Chaos Dreadnoughts against strangers...

Xca|iber wrote:Why do people insist on making an only moderately effective CSM unit completely useless by assuming that it's only special rule is nothing but a total drawback, rather than a risk-reward ability (like damn near every other special rule, barring a few)?

The RAW is very clear here, as many have pointed out. The Dread shoots the closest target it can see, which we define as the LOS traced down the barrels of its guns, via the vehicle shooting rules (as it is a vehicle, and follows those rules specifically). I won't explain this any more, as I would be beating a dead horse, but the following is my opinion of why this confusion happens:

People who say the dread must shoot at the absolute nearest guys strike me as not wanting a fair game... since if the dread is supposed to turn and fire at the absolute nearest thing, it will damn near always fire at its allies. It seems to me that people are assuming that just because the dread is 'crazy' that it must hurt its own allies (because that's what crazy people do). These people then twist their interpretation of the actual wording of the rules, to fit the assumed function.

Since this assumption is based on fluff, I'm going to go out on a limb here (although fluff != rules) and say that nowhere does it say that the "crazy, psychotic" Chaos Dreadnoughts go out of their way to kill their own allies. They're just nutcases, plain and simple. So throw out that assumption that it must hurt its allies if it goes crazy. By that logic, Blood Rage should make it assault its own guys too.

Once people let go of that, they should see that the wording of the rule is very clear in this instance. Certainly, the RAW interpretation makes the rule much better, because it gives the CSM player the chance to hit very hard with a Plasma Cannon or Missile Launcher, but it absolutely doesn't make it over powered. The dread will still shoot its own allies in the back if the CSM player is dumb enough to put them in its front arc. Thus, it will often force the CSM player to keep units out of its fire arc, limiting their movement options.

Just my 2 cents on this. This gigantic argument is also why I never run Chaos Dreadnoughts against strangers...

So do you think BA DC dreadnoughts can move backwards or sideways towards the enemy? As long as their weapon arc isn't on an enemy, they can move of their own volition in any direction they want? Side armor is the same as front armor, so "marching sideways" is a perfectly good strategy according to you.

Xca|iber wrote:People who say the dread must shoot at the absolute nearest guys strike me as not wanting a fair game...

I can see how you might think that, if you take the Chaos dread as a single, isolated situation. However, while I can't speak for everybody, I play it as the dread shooting the 'absolute nearest guys' not to make the game unfair but to keep things consistent, and avoid Raging models running backwards around the battlefield.

As I've said before in similar topics, the whole LOS/pivoting issue is quite a lot less clear cut than some people try to make out. I personally feel that 'visible' is supposed to include anything the model could see as it pivots, not just things in its immediate LOS. The pivoting happens as you choose your target, not afterwards. Allowing walkers to only pivot up to 45 degrees to bring their weapons to bear (despite the rules not explicitly imposing such a restriction) is, IMO, much less fair than forcing a unit that has a special rule requiring it to target friendly units if they are closer than the enemy to actually do so.

Which is clear if you played 4th edition where Dreadnoughts had a 360 degree line of sight, but incorrect under the 5th edition rules.

Mind you, there was a Deff Rolla petition that seemed to work (at least the FAQ was amended to comment on Deff Rollas) so it might be something to solicit GW to amend the Chaos Space Marine FAQ and comment on how Crazed (and Rage) works in 5th edition.

Rephistorch wrote:
So do you think BA DC dreadnoughts can move backwards or sideways towards the enemy? As long as their weapon arc isn't on an enemy, they can move of their own volition in any direction they want? Side armor is the same as front armor, so "marching sideways" is a perfectly good strategy according to you.

A fair point, but technically correct. I would have no problem with an opponent doing so.

insaniak wrote:I can see how you might think that, if you take the Chaos dread as a single, isolated situation. However, while I can't speak for everybody, I play it as the dread shooting the 'absolute nearest guys' not to make the game unfair but to keep things consistent, and avoid Raging models running backwards around the battlefield.

Another fair point, and I respect your opinion on this. I have to say though, under that ruleset, I would almost never take a Chaos Dreadnought (I barely use them as it is). 100+ points for a unit basically guaranteed to hurt your own guys ~16% of the game (or be limited to a couple builds) rather than just risking hurting them is a waste of points imho.

But I guess that's just what CSM get for having a terrible codex.

Xca|iber wrote:100+ points for a unit basically guaranteed to hurt your own guys ~16% of the game ...

Only if your own guys are closer than the enemy. A situation which is easily remedied.

insaniak wrote:

Xca|iber wrote:100+ points for a unit basically guaranteed to hurt your own guys ~16% of the game ...

Only if your own guys are closer than the enemy. A situation which is easily remedied.

I've never had a Chaos Dread fire frenzy without a friendly unit somewhere closer (but behind it). A first or second turn FF will almost surely be at your own units. If you try and stay away from the Dreadnoughts, you waste points on an easy kill for your opponent. (Any effective Mechdar player or Chaos Daemons player will annihilate a lone dreadnought or 2 without having to isolate any part of their own army).

I'm not trying to bash on your opinion here. I'm just saying that at least in my experience, Chaos Dreadnoughts are worthless if they always shoot the nearest thing. (It also forces them into 2 builds: ML or 2 DCCW, because anything else will basically shoot you in the foot - with ML/2DCCW, you can negate FF with vehicles).

Meh, just my 2 cents. I know a lot of people disagree with (arguable) RAW, and that's pretty much why nobody uses Chaos Dreads.

This thread is why I avoid this unit in its entirety.

Not only is the question hard to answer due to nebulous definitions of "visibility," but the intent of the rule is confusing as well.

Without digging into semantics, my first impression was that the Dreadnought finds the closest visible (ie not completely obscured by terrain) unit, pivots, and fires at it.

This is the knee-jerk reaction/interpretation of the rule. However, it makes more sense for the Dread to berzerk and shoot where it's currently facing (given the minor adjustment to bring both weapons to bear).

Final solution? Don't take Dreadnoughts in lists.

Or, take Dreadnoughts in lists and play it according to the rules...

I'm pretty sure visibility has nothing to do with it.

The dreadnought shoots twice at the nearest unit

If it can't see it, then it does nothing because it can't shoot it, but it doesn't then turn to the next nearest one. It just shoots at something it can't see. As I've always seen it being played, you just shoot at the nearest unit regardless of any form of visibility. The dread turns around to face the nearest unit. Not turning at a unit so that's closest.

geza55 wrote:
I'm pretty sure visibility has nothing to do with it.

The dreadnought shoots twice at the nearest unit

If it can't see it, then it does nothing because it can't shoot it, but it doesn't then turn to the next nearest one. It just shoots at something it can't see. As I've always seen it being played, you just shoot at the nearest unit regardless of any form of visibility. The dread turns around to face the nearest unit. Not turning at a unit so that's closest.

How about actually quoting the codex as it's written, not as you wish it was written?

Page 40:

"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!"

Wow, look at that! The word "visible," exactly where you omitted it!

You can't edit the codices just because they contain words you don't like, you know.

This is simple. You must pivot towards the closest unit, then shoot. You don't check to see if anything is visible then pivot.

Well, why does it say visible then? You can't excactly declare something visable without checking.
But to be honest I'm not sure how it should be played. I would probably not argue with the opponent much, aslong as I know how we will play it from the beggining.

Not that this matters from a RAW standpoint, but I also happen to feel that my interpretation (the Dread can only shoot at what's in its 45 degree arc of fire, "visible" doesn't mean 360 degrees) is also the most fair interpretation for the CSM player. I mean, the Chaos Dread is nothing more than a liability by any other interpretation. At least my interpretation makes the Dread slightly less bad for the CSM player.

SaintHazard wrote:Not that this matters from a RAW standpoint, but I also happen to feel that my interpretation (the Dread can only shoot at what's in its 45 degree arc of fire, "visible" doesn't mean 360 degrees) is also the most fair interpretation for the CSM player. I mean, the Chaos Dread is nothing more than a liability by any other interpretation. At least my interpretation makes the Dread slightly less bad for the CSM player.

This is basically what I was saying too. It's already an underused, not extremely effective choice. Making it worse via a house rule seems silly to me (even with the Raging Dreadnoughts issue).

I tend to play it that "visible" is anything in a 180 degree arc in front, so as long as my units are behind it cannot pivot to them as they are not visible before the pivot.

Rules wise it probably should be the 45 degree arc, this just feels like a good compromise - I STILL make my army less competitive by taking them, but at least it doesnt screw me over entirely....

In other words it feels just like it did during 4th edition?

Pretty much - its such a mess of a rule that quite frankly I go with whtever the opponent says - if they are adamant one way or the other I will just go with the flow, as I cant really pin any specific ruling down, in my mind at least.

So far I've not had any complaints at all, in quite a few tourneys (40 - 80 people events, 100 person campaign weekend) and planningon taking them to 2 more soon (longest day in Bristol - 4 games, 2 @ 1500, 2 @ 2000!, ONE day) so will see how it goes. We have quite an easy going bunch though, to be fair - most are savvy enough to recognise that taking dreadnoughts isnt really a WAAC move, along with my PM-less army, wth units of 8 'zerkers in rhinos and ONE DP (as two would fight...) and no sorcerors, of course.

Alright I've read this whole thread and have come to the following conclusion:

At the start of the shooting phase, the dreadnought pivots on the spot towards the closest visible unit (using the normal rules for vehicle LOS) and shoots it twice.

This means that since the dreadnought doesn't have turret weapons, his LOS is static and cannot change, however the pivot seems to be included so that all the weapons fire.

However in the instance where pivoting brings another unit closer to the dreadnought, it does not pivot again since the rules do not say it can do so, thus it follows the normal dreadnought shooting rules.

I fail to see how anyone can really argue with this. Sound rules are presented, you only need to reveal what you can and cannot do. You cannot draw LOS from a vindicators demolisher cannon from anywhere other than it's 45 degree arc, the same thing applies here.

This rule went from complicated to impossible

From my experience at a local club and FLGS we just pivot it to the closest unit (doesn't matter which direction, just the closest unit capable of being visible by pivoting to it) in the shooting phase, friend or foe! (if only we had drop pods... *sigh*)

If I had to drag in all this hubabaloo into it the game would never end. And the arguments.. dear lord.

We HAVE drop pods - Dreadclaws. Unfortunately the rules for them are terrible and in IA. To give you an idea they are more epensive than the marine dreadnought drop pod that lets you assault on landing, yet doesnt come in first turn and spends 1 turn as a flyer before it lands...sigh.

SaintHazard wrote:

geza55 wrote:
I'm pretty sure visibility has nothing to do with it.

The dreadnought shoots twice at the nearest unit

If it can't see it, then it does nothing because it can't shoot it, but it doesn't then turn to the next nearest one. It just shoots at something it can't see. As I've always seen it being played, you just shoot at the nearest unit regardless of any form of visibility. The dread turns around to face the nearest unit. Not turning at a unit so that's closest.

How about actually quoting the codex as it's written, not as you wish it was written?

Page 40:

"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!"

Wow, look at that! The word "visible," exactly where you omitted it!

You can't edit the codices just because they contain words you don't like, you know.

However this is actually how the RaW works. The visible part becomes irrelevant because it never states that the models have to be visible to the dread just visible. As far as I'm aware GW don't make any invisible models, so all models and units are all always visible. So yes you turn the Dread to the nearest unit and it fires at it. If there is no LoS then those shots are wasted. This is the RaW.

Though it is pretty obvious what the rule is meant to do.

This is why I take 2 CCW arms. At this version is better than the 3.5th ed one where it fired on the spot the moment you rolled it, now you have a chance to get the hell out of dodge.

FlingitNow wrote:The visible part becomes irrelevant because it never states that the models have to be visible to the dread just visible. As far as I'm aware GW don't make any invisible models, so all models and units are all always visible.

What?!? Why put the word "visible" in the rule, then, if it's completely irrelevant?

Ian Sturrock wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:The visible part becomes irrelevant because it never states that the models have to be visible to the dread just visible. As far as I'm aware GW don't make any invisible models, so all models and units are all always visible.

What?!? Why put the word "visible" in the rule, then, if it's completely irrelevant?

I think the better question would be why include the word "visible" at all if vehicles don't have defined viability arcs other than for weapons LOS.

What?!? Why put the word "visible" in the rule, then, if it's completely irrelevant?

Maybe GW intend to make some invisible models in the future. I don't know I'm not speculating on intent (because that is totally clear) I'm just stating what the RaW is. It is 100% clear he fires at the nearest visible unit, all units in the game currently are visible therefore he fires at the nearest unit regardless of LoS.

The actual rules were covered already, thank you for thoughtful ways to change them, though.

Unless you are joking, which I keep hoping to be the case.

See page 16 for what makes a model "not visible".

Pages 58-60 also may be relevant if you want to reference vehicles.

Your own personal field of view as a player is largely irrelevant.

Your own personal field of view as a player is largely irrelevant.

Yes this is correct. However the rule makes no mention of what the Dread can or can not see, it just states visible. All units in the game are visible as none are invisible, this has no bearing on what I can see or what you can see or what anyone else can see at any given moment. It says visible, not in LoS, not even Visible to the dread (which would imply in LoS). So until GW start making invisible units everything is visible.

Or perhaps everything is already invisible!

Not even ork facepalm goes far enough. . .

Or perhaps everything is already invisible!

Prove it show me some invisible models .

Not even ork facepalm goes far enough. . .

What playing by the RaW?

FlingitNow wrote:

Or perhaps everything is already invisible!

Prove it show me some invisible models .

I can't find my picture of the invisible stealth suit someone made for golden daemon. :(

This package of Lictors just so everyone could play the way laid out by previous posters.
There are these options for anyone else who wants to use a different. . .model.

I could not find the Golden Daemon of either the Lictor or the Stealth Suit, but I have seen them as well.

Despite being invisible.

There's a reason McDonald's coffee comes with warnings on the cup these days....

The term visible is used because if instead it said closest then there could be a unit behind a wall out of LOS but still the dreadnought would have to fire/waste shots at them. GW wasn't putting too much thought here but enough to the fact they wanted that moment the dread fire frenzied to be one where everyone face palms.

Well It may have been intended to mean closest unit [that is not 100% obscured behind terrain after pivioting in every direction] or if they had said closest visible unit in LoS.

Either way would have cleared things up.

GW writes vague rules and they cant cover every situation.

RAW is not clear :-(

I personally interpret it to mean:

closest unit [that is not 100% obscured behind terrain after pivioting in every direction]

but thats just conjecture.

Nurglitch wrote:There's a reason McDonald's coffee comes with warnings on the cup these days....

Actually do some research on the details of this case - it seems like a 'duh' lawsuit, but in fact McDonald's deliberately made the decision to brew coffee they knew was too hot and the cost benefit analysis showed it was worth paying out X in lawsuits to obtain Y in profits from their coffee. The final verdict on the case was punitive damages for a single days coffee profits by McD's (which kind of makes sense). The warning on cups now is more to cover their butts, but they really were negligent...

With that in mind I find Gwar's invisible miniatures to be some of his most compelling work.

We appear to be done here.