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

When a chaos dread equipped with a missile launcher rolls a can you choose which ammo it uses?
Also is the target only in the 45 degree arc or does the whole thing turn to find the target?

Thank You

1. The Fire Frenzy rule puts no restriction or requirement on which ammo to use. So yeah, use whatever's more advantageous to you.

2. Fire Frenzy forces the dread to shoot at the closest visible unit.
Page 16 tells us that visible = LOS.
Page 72 tells us that walker LOS is a 45 degree arc from each of their weapons.

So when your Dread fire frenzies, check what units are in the 45 degree arc for each of its weapons. The closest visible unit is your target.

This does make Chaos Dreads a little easier to control than in 4th ed, when they had a flat 180 degree LOS to the front.

I would presume that since it is still you who is rolling for the shot, you have every decision available to you other than your choice of target. I reckon you can choose your type of ammo, although a 4+ might be a bit more fun (a bit more random for the frenzied dread)!

When you roll a 1 the dreadnought must 'pivot on the spot', which is unsurprising exactly how any other vehicle changes its facing in the phrasing for vehicle movement.

The Fire Frenzy rules says it must "pivot on the spot" toward the closest VISIBLE unit in the shooting phase. Just like every other walker pivots to face toward its target in the shooting phase, per page 72 of the rulebook. If GW had not included the word "visible", then fire arcs wouldn't matter.

Since they did include the word "visible", then we must reference pages 16 and 72 of the rulebook to see what that means.

And what it means is that chaos dreads don't turn around to shoot at things behind them.

I didn't refute that, you're perfectly correct. I also didn't see your post even though I posted 11 minutes later... I must have had the window open for a while.

Until you bring the walker rules in where it says to: "Pivot the walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target then measure range from the weapon itself and Line of Sight from the mounting along its barrel, as normal for vehicles"

Some say that the walkers can pivot towards the nearest visible target then check range and LoS for the weapons.

It must be a house rule at my store then cause, if your dread rolls fire frenzy then you have to use krak. That really sucks since its the only way around the fire frenzy drawback. ill have to fight this next time im there.
Thanks for the information.

Mannahnin wrote:2. Fire Frenzy forces the dread to shoot at the closest visible unit.
Page 16 tells us that visible = LOS.
Page 72 tells us that walker LOS is a 45 degree arc from each of their weapons.

Page 72 also tells us to pivot the walker towards the chosen target, and then check LOS.

The pivot is not restricted to targets already in the dread's LOS. It can't be, because you don't check LOS until after you pivot.

The pivot is after the LOS pivot, as you cannot pivot towards the object that is visible to you - it HAS to be vbisib le to you in order to pivot to it.

So no, it checks what is in LOS (with no pivot, as it is not given permission to pivot first) THEN pivots to that unit in order to ensure both weapons are able to fire at it.

Hence the disgreement as to how it works. As I pointed out last time this discussion came up, the LOS rules are a little muddled. You have to select a target before you can determine if it is visible... but you have to determine what is visible before choosing a target.

I very firmly believe that the intention of the rule is for the dreadnought to pivot towards the nearest target, and that the 'visible' is intended to mean 'not blocked from view by other obstacles' rather than 'in the dreadnought's current LOS'... but YMMV, obviously.

I read it the same way as you do Insaniak, though the rules do contradict themselves in this case.

insaniak wrote:Hence the disgreement as to how it works. As I pointed out last time this discussion came up, the LOS rules are a little muddled. You have to select a target before you can determine if it is visible... but you have to determine what is visible before choosing a target.

IMO your contention that there is a conflict requires ignoring page 16. Page 16 tells us that to select a target, that target must be in LOS of the firer. Page 72 tells us that AFTER a walker selects a target, it pivots toward that target.

I don't see any support for the bit I've highlighted in red in the rules at all.

insaniak wrote:Hence the disgreement as to how it works. As I pointed out last time this discussion came up, the LOS rules are a little muddled. You have to select a target before you can determine if it is visible... but you have to determine what is visible before choosing a target.

I very firmly believe that the intention of the rule is for the dreadnought to pivot towards the nearest target, and that the 'visible' is intended to mean 'not blocked from view by other obstacles' rather than 'in the dreadnought's current LOS'... but YMMV, obviously.

I concur. The Shooting Sequence on page 15 shows as the first step to pick a unit, check it's LoS and select a target.
Infantry can turn to face their targets in the shooting phase, so when you check their LoS you are checking 360° around them.
Same for walkers. The walker can pivot 360° on the spot in the shooting phase as well so that it's guns can be aimed at the target.
The reason it has the 45° swivel for its weapons is because if it didn't and it was firing at a single model, it could never hit it with both weapons.

T



__BBBBB__
WBBBBBW
__BBBBB__


Where "T" is the target, "W" the walker's weapons and "B" the body of the walker, if the walker's weapons could not swivel, then only the left hand weapon could fire at the target, the right hand one would not be able to draw LoS to it (from the mounting point and along the barrel).
That is the reason you are told to assume that the weapons can swivel the 45°.

The walker is given permission to pivot in the shooting phase so it can target the enemy.
For example, I have a walker facing north at a target. In the shooting phase, another of my units destroys that target before the walker fires.
There is another target to the east of the walker that it could draw LoS to if it pivoted.
Can I pivot the walker in the shooting phase to the east to target that unit? Of course I can, the target is visible to the walker, it is allowed pivot to face it in the Shooting phase and it can then draw LoS to the target.
It has to work the same for fire frenzy. The chaos dread pivots towards the closest visible unit (friendly or enemy), draws LoS to it and then brings its weapons to bear and fires.
You can't have it one way and not the other.

Timewizard, I really think you've got this one wrong.

Page 72.: "When firing a walker's weapons, pivot the walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target."

Note that this pivot is done "when firing" and implictly requires you to have already selected a target.

Per page 15-16, you can only select a unit you have LOS to as a target in the first place.

Per page 11, Infantry models are permitted to turn and face in the shooting phase.

But per page 58, vehicles have more restricted LOS than infantry models, based on the arc of fire/LOS of the vehicle's weapons.

So for a walker...

1. In order to select a target you must use the 45 degree arcs of fire for its weapons to determine what units are visible to it. (p.15-16, p.58, p.72)
2. Once you have done this, you may select a target among those visible units. (p.15-16)
3. Once you have selected your target, when you resolve the Walker's fire, it will pivot to face toward the target to bring all guns to bear. (p.72)

The LOS from weapon interpretation of "visible" does make Fire Frenzy pretty much no drawback at all, unless you really want that dreadnought to get into assault. Funny thing is then Blood Angels DC dreads can advance backwards in order to ignore Rage, and so can any infantry with Rage.

Mannahnin wrote:So for a walker...

1. In order to select a target you must use the 45 degree arcs of fire for its weapons to determine what units are visible to it. (p.15-16, p.58, p.72)
2. Once you have done this, you may select a target among those visible units. (p.15-16)
3. Once you have selected your target, when you resolve the Walker's fire, it will pivot to face toward the target to bring all guns to bear. (p.72)

So if I have a walker that is facing north after moving, and there is a target directly in front of it and another 90° to its right, and the target to its north gets destroyed, then the walker cannot select a target and cannot fire that turn?

Spetulhu wrote:The LOS from weapon interpretation of "visible" does make Fire Frenzy pretty much no drawback at all, unless you really want that dreadnought to get into assault.

It's most certainly still is a drawback. It restricts where your other stuff moves- don't put anything in front of (or 22.5 degrees to either side of his weapon arms) the Dreadnought! This can be particularly problematic considering that much of a Chaos army is usually Rhino-borne squads moving aggressively forward, and the Dread moves slower than they do. So unless you put the Dreadnought on a flank somewhere, he's still looking at and possibly shooting your own stuff. You can't safely advance the Dread up the middle in support of your other units. You can't hold him back in the center of your DZ guarding your Havocs or Oblits from assault, unless you want him shooting your Rhinos in the backside. Even with the more restricted LOS rules of 5th edition, Chaos Dreads still have to be used carefully and are more tactically-limited than loyalist dreads. Not even accounting for the fact that on any given turn that you want/need him to shoot or assault there's a 1/6 chance he'll do the opposite!

If you play with dreadnoughts which will spin around backwards to shoot things behind them, no one ever uses Chaos Dreads. Heck, I practically never saw them fielded in 4th, with 180 degree forward LOS. It was just too much of a pain to keep friendly units out of their front arc.

Spetulhu wrote:Funny thing is then Blood Angels DC dreads can advance backwards in order to ignore Rage, and so can any infantry with Rage.

Infantry LOS is functionally 360, per pages 11 & 16.

Feel free to turn your DC dread around to try to get around Rage. I can zip a landspeeder or Venom into his front arc easily enough. Or just shoot him much more easily in his rear armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

time wizard wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:So for a walker...

1. In order to select a target you must use the 45 degree arcs of fire for its weapons to determine what units are visible to it. (p.15-16, p.58, p.72)
2. Once you have done this, you may select a target among those visible units. (p.15-16)
3. Once you have selected your target, when you resolve the Walker's fire, it will pivot to face toward the target to bring all guns to bear. (p.72)

So if I have a walker that is facing north after moving, and there is a target directly in front of it and another 90° to its right, and the target to its north gets destroyed, then the walker cannot select a target and cannot fire that turn?

Exactly right. Same thing that would happen to any other vehicle with a limited fire arc (not a turret) in that situation.

Mannahnin wrote:Per page 11, Infantry models are permitted to turn and face in the shooting phase.

They are permitted to turn and face their target in the shooting phase. Which drops them squarely into the same camp as your Chaos Dreadnought, only being able to shoot what is in front of them, as in order for something to be 'their target' they have to have established LOS to it already.


That's the contradiction I was talking about. The rules tell us that infantry can turn and face their target... but require the unit to have established LOS in order for something to be a target.

So we are left with two choices:
1 - When the rules say that the model can turn and face its 'target' they actually mean 'prospective target' and so turning to face is a part of the process of establishing LOS...
or
2 - The model can only be turned to face something that has already been established as a target... which for infantry makes turning and facing them completely pointless, since they're facing them already. It also leaves us with the majority of models in the game having no clear arc of sight, and so we'll have to try to establish from the design of the models just how good their peripheral vision might be...


If we're assuming that turning to face is a part of the normal process of establishing LOS (which is where the 'effective 360 degrees' comes from), I see no reason not to make the same assumption (for the sake of consistency) for Walkers.

Infantry are allowed to turn to face their target... so you choose the unit you want to shoot at, turn to face, and check LOS.
Walkers are allowed to turn to face their target... so you choose the unit you want to shoot at, turn to face, and check LOS.

Fire Frenzy changes only one thing: the choice of target. Specifically, it takes it out of the player's hands, forcing you to target the nearest unit in LOS. But in order to establish that LOS, as we already assumed that pivoting is a part of the process, you will have to pivot the dreadnought to face potential targets in order to check LOS to them.

insaniak wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Per page 11, Infantry models are permitted to turn and face in the shooting phase.

They are permitted to turn and face their target in the shooting phase. Which drops them squarely into the same camp as your Chaos Dreadnought, only being able to shoot what is in front of them, as in order for something to be 'their target' they have to have established LOS to it already.


That's the contradiction I was talking about. The rules tell us that infantry can turn and face their target... but require the unit to have established LOS in order for something to be a target.

You've misquoted. It's a little thing, but the phrase on page 11 is "can also be turned to face their targets". IMO this implies that they are not just talking about the formal act of targeting, here, as you only ever target a singular unit. I think the phrasing is a bit sloppy, but I believe the intent is clear. Infantry don't have fire arcs or facing, for the purposes of 40k.

Perhaps I am wandering a little into "rules as played" territory, but I think the precedent is well-established that facing for infantry models is irrelevant. Just as we are not too bothered by and disregard claims that a model with no eyes cannot draw LOS, even if saying so is strictly in accordance with page 16's instruction to trace LOS from the model's eyes. So, too, we never worry about the exact facing of infantry models or restrict ourselves to adjusting their facing in the movement or shooting phases. I frequently pivot them, for example, in the assault phase to help facilitate base contact. Infantry, however, are categorically different from vehicles in this regard.

insaniak wrote:If we're assuming that turning to face is a part of the normal process of establishing LOS (which is where the 'effective 360 degrees' comes from), I see no reason not to make the same assumption (for the sake of consistency) for Walkers.

Infantry are allowed to turn to face their target... so you choose the unit you want to shoot at, turn to face, and check LOS.
Walkers are allowed to turn to face their target... so you choose the unit you want to shoot at, turn to face, and check LOS.

IMO, however, this is NOT consistent. The way the game is actually played, Infantry do not care about facing, but vehicles most certainly DO. Walkers employ a carefully-specified sub-set of the vehicle LOS rules. Vehicles are designed and intended to have limited LOS and arcs of fire, based on their weapons. They are only allowed to select targets within those fire arcs. The procedure for Walkers shooting given in their own rules supports this- they have a limited arc of fire per weapon. A dreadnought can no more select as a target or fire at a unit behind itself than can a Vindicator (sans pintle-mounted bolter, of course ).

You've misquoted. It's a little thing, but the phrase on page 11 is "can also be turned to face their targets". IMO this implies that they are not just talking about the formal act of targeting, here, as you only ever target a singular unit.

They use the plural because they're talking about infantry as a group, rather than a specific unit's action.

At the end of the day, facing is indeed irrelevant for infantry... but that is so because they can turn and face their targets. The fact that a lot of the time people don't bother to actually turn the models doesn't change that basic mechanic.


Normal vehicles are limited to firing in their specific fire arcs, yes. Walkers, however, are granted a bonus due to their 'extra agility' compared to other vehicles. And the wording of that extra ability is functionally the same as for infantry. If infantry can be turned to face a potential target due to the rules stating that they can turn and face their target, then the Walker rules stating that the Walker can turn and face their target has to result in the same allowance.

Functionally, unless they are immobilised, Walkers have the same 360 degree arc of sight that infantry have. The only reason that Walkers have specified fire arcs is that they can be immobilised, at which point they can no longer turn and face potential targets.

insaniak wrote:Normal vehicles are limited to firing in their specific fire arcs, yes. Walkers, however, are granted a bonus due to their 'extra agility' compared to other vehicles. And the wording of that extra ability is functionally the same as for infantry. If infantry can be turned to face a potential target due to the rules stating that they can turn and face their target, then the Walker rules stating that the Walker can turn and face their target has to result in the same allowance.

Functionally, unless they are immobilised, Walkers have the same 360 degree arc of sight that infantry have. The only reason that Walkers have specified fire arcs is that they can be immobilised, at which point they can no longer turn and face potential targets.

I don't think your conclusions here are supported by the text.

If Walkers were intended to have the same (or even similar) shooting/LOS rules to infantry, I think that section would say so. "Walkers Shooting", however, makes no reference to or comparison with how infantry draw LOS, which is at stark contrast to the "Moving Walkers" section directly above. There are four short paragraphs in that section. Three of them tell you explictly that walkers move "just as infantry", "in exactly the same way as infantry", and "just as it does for infantry". The other one tells you "Unlike infantry, a walker has a facing, which influences where it can fire (see below), and its Armour Value when fired at."

So the text specifically tells us that,"unlike infantry", Walkers have facing and this influences where they can fire. As opposed to the "Moving Walkers" section, which repeatedly tells us how Walkers move almost exactly like Infantry, the only comparison to Infantry as regards LOS for walkers is to tell us that they are not alike.

I also don't think your "unless they are immobilized" concept works. Nothing in the "Walkers shooting" section makes their fire arcs contingent on being immobilized.



/quote]

The Walker shooting section says that the facing influences where they can fire, yes... because it does. Note that it says 'influences' rather than 'restricts'.

The key point of difference between walkers and infantry, and the reason that the rules don't make a bigger deal about turning infantry models to face their targets, is that ultimately the way an infantry model is facing makes absolutely no difference, at least if you allow a little leeway with drawing LOS 'from the model's eyes'... Shooting a Space Marine in the back is no different to shooting him in the front.

A walker, on the other hand, has to be facing its target in order to bring weapons to bear. So while the rule allowing it to pivot functionally grants it a 360 degree arc of fire in the same way as infantry, you have to turn the vehicle to face, resulting in tactical decisions revolving around what armour you're showing off to whom.

So the facing influences where the walker can fire, not by limiting its fire arc (unless it is immobilised) but by requiring it to turn and face the target in order to shoot at it.

At this point I cannot follow the train of logic by which you are deriving the conclusions you are from the text in question.

In the context of pages 72, 58-59, and 15-16, IMO "influences" can only mean "restricts".

The comparison of the two sections on page 72 which I just did seems to make your earlier contention and continuing equivocation of the infantry and walker LOS rules a non-starter. If they were intended to be the same, or the same with a couple of minor differences, the section on shooting would tell you so, just like the section on movement does.

p.72 wrote:Unlike infantry, a walker has a facing

I'm sorry, Insaniak, but we may just have to agree to disagree.

To me, it seems like the walker rules are more specific than the general shooting rules.

We all know Specific > General.

So if we go by this, we check the walker rules for turning to face Then check range and LoS.

Dr - and the chaos codex is more specific still, in that you only turn to pivot AFTER You have worked out what is "visible"

So you determine visible, which we know is = LOS
You then pivot to face that target, ready to shoot in the shooting phase

Any other way ignores the chaos codex...

Note the contrast in phrasing, too, between the Fire Frenzy and Blood Frenzy results. In Fire Frenzy the dread only attacks the closest visible unit. In Blood Frenzy it goes after the closest enemy unit, regardless of what's visible. With Blood Frenzy there's no question that it can wind up going after a unit behind it.

Mannahnin wrote:At this point I cannot follow the train of logic by which you are deriving the conclusions you are from the text in question.

In the context of pages 72, 58-59, and 15-16, IMO "influences" can only mean "restricts".

And when you add page 11 back in, we're back at the fact that GW are inconsistent with their use of the word 'target'

That was the whole point all along. We can't unequivocally state that the dreadnought can only pivot to face targets already in LOS unless we also apply that same logic to infantry, because they have the exact same 'restriction'.

Either the enemy unit (so far as the rules talking about pivoting to face are concerned) is only a 'target' after you have established LOS, in which case walkers can only pivot up to 22.5 degrees to face a target they already have LOS to, and infantry can likewise only be turned to face an enemy they already have LOS to... which we're not given any practical rules to determine...

or

The enemy unit (in regards to the aforementioned rules bit) is a 'target' because you want to shoot at it, in which case walkers pivot as a part of establishing LOS, just the same as infantry.

I don't see the fact that the walker rules don't just say 'they shoot like infantry' to have a lot of bearing on it, because they don't shoot just like infantry. Their facing does matter... just not in the way that you're claiming, because restricting them in that fashion makes no sense. It makes the walker's ability to pivot practically useless, and breaks the game where infantry are concerned due to them not having set fire arcs.

Functionally, it's only the arc of sight that is the same between walkers and infantry... and that only while the walker is mobile.


However, I'm happy to accept that we are just approaching this from two very different views on the rules, and leave it at that. At least until GW get around to giving some sort of official word on how they think it's supposed to work

insaniak wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:In the context of pages 72, 58-59, and 15-16, IMO "influences" can only mean "restricts".

And when you add page 11 back in, we're back at the fact that GW are inconsistent with their use of the word 'target'

Only very slightly, and only in the phrasing on page 11. Page 11 is sloppily phrased (though thankfully page 72 helps clarify it). Everywhere else usage appears to be consistent. LOS restricts choice of target; target selection is limited to what's in LOS (though some weapons have specific exceptions). The only thing that's at all unclear is the degree to which infantry are permitted to freely pivot to use their 360 degree LOS. And page 72 helpfully clarifies that.

insaniak wrote:Either the enemy unit (so far as the rules talking about pivoting to face are concerned) is only a 'target' after you have established LOS, in which case walkers can only pivot up to 22.5 degrees to face a target they already have LOS to, and infantry can likewise only be turned to face an enemy they already have LOS to... which we're not given any practical rules to determine...

or

The enemy unit (in regards to the aforementioned rules bit) is a 'target' because you want to shoot at it, in which case walkers pivot as a part of establishing LOS, just the same as infantry.

I don't think those two conclusions are our only options at all. Page 15 and 16 clearly establish that an enemy unit must be visible, in LOS, to be selected as a target in the first place.

With Infantry we can pivot them freely, because page 11 and page 72 together make clear that, for infantry, facing is irrelevant.

With vehicles, we cannot, because pages 58-59 and 72 make clear that facing and fire arcs for vehicles (including walkers) do restrict their choice of targets.

A walker can pivot more than 22.5 degrees, as well. Because it's 22.5 degrees to either side of either arm. Pivoting to center the walker directly facing at a target 22.5 degrees to the right of his right arm is a greater than 22.5 degree pivot.

insaniak wrote:I don't see the fact that the walker rules don't just say 'they shoot like infantry' to have a lot of bearing on it, because they don't shoot just like infantry. Their facing does matter... just not in the way that you're claiming, because restricting them in that fashion makes no sense. It makes the walker's ability to pivot practically useless, and breaks the game where infantry are concerned due to them not having set fire arcs.

It's not "useless" by any means; it very clearly facilitates shooting both arms of a Dreadnought at the same target, even if that target was only in the arc of one arm before the pivot. That makes perfect sense. Page 72 tells us that "unlike infantry", a walker has a facing which influences where it can fire. If it were allowed to pivot freely to select a target in any direction, this statement would not be true.

This doesn't "break the game" for infantry in any way.

Mannahnin wrote:With Infantry we can pivot them freely, because page 11 and page 72 together make clear that, for infantry, facing is irrelevant.

That's just it, though... page 11 and page 72 don't make anything clear.

Page 11 tells us that you can pivot your infantry to face their target. Which as I've already explained is functionally useless.
And page 72 tells us that infantry don't have facings... which is nonsense in light of the rules earlier telling us to point them at their targets. Infantry do have facings... It's just that the actual angle of that facing isn't supposed to matter, because you can freely turn them to face their target. Supposedly.

It's not "useless" by any means; it very clearly facilitates shooting both arms of a Dreadnought at the same target, even if that target was only in the arc of one arm before the pivot.

Ok. Now replace the dreadnought with a Sentinel or Killa Kan.

This doesn't "break the game" for infantry in any way.

Claiming that a target has to be in LOS in order to pivot towards it does, because we don't have a defined LOS arc for infantry. Regardless of what the Walker rules on page 72 tell us, the rules previous that actually deal with infantry LOS, tell us to draw LOS from the model's eyes. If you go with the interpretation that the 'target' that you are pivoting towards is something that you already have LOS to, then we have no rules covering just what infantry can actually see. So yes, it does break the game for infantry, as it restricts them to shooting at enemies immediately to their front and some unspecified distance around to the sides.

In Fire frenzy on P.40 of the CSM codex, it says to "pivot on the spot towards the closest visible unit (Friend or foe)"

It reads to me, that you pivot as you do for normal walker shooting, and you are forced to shoot the closest unit that is visible after you make your pivot. aka the closest unit that is not totally hidden by intervening terrain/models.