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.

Elessar wrote:You're missing the point, I fear. They pivot towards the what now?

The target.

Which is determined by...

...choosing a model to shoot, turning to face it, and then checking LOS and range.

I just quoted the rule for you.

Please, tell me you understand what I'm saying here.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. It's wrong.

Yes, the regular LOS rules require that the enemy unit be in LOS in order to be selected as a target.
The rules for Walkers do not. They change the regular LOS rules by specifically allowing you to turn the walker before determining LOS. As this rule is specific to Walkers, it overides the general rules for choosing a target.

Right, okay, I see.

You are thinking that because it tells you to check LOS AFTER it tells you to pivot, that that overrides page 16.

In that case, why?

Why do you come to the conclusion it isn't ADDITIONAL rules, but that it REPLACES the previous rules.

Apologies for capitalisation as only emphasis, it's far easier using the Quick Reply this way. No increase in volume intended.

Elessar wrote:You are thinking that because it tells you to check LOS AFTER it tells you to pivot, that that overrides page 16.

In that case, why?

Because checking LOS, then pivoting, then checking LOS again would be pointless.

And because forcing you to check LOS on weapons with a mere 45 degree arc of fire before allowing you to pivot completely fails to fit the explanation given as to why the pivot is allowed.


To be honest, I think that a part of the problem is that the rule allowing models to turn in the shooting phase isn't explained in the Shooting rules. The LOS rules simply tell us to choose a target that is within the firing model's LOS. So technically, the rule in the Movement section telling us that infantry can turn to face their targets in the Shooting phase doesn't actually do anything unless at least one model in the unit is already facing the correct direction...

If we assume that rule is actually supposed to work as stated (that facing doesn't matter, as you can turn to face in the shooting phase), the only real conclusion we are left with is that turning on the spot to face the target is simply assumed to be a part of the process of choosing a target. You face the model in the appropriate direction, and then you check LOS based on that facing.

With that assumption made, the Walker rules work exactly the same way, so there's no conflict.

Without that assumption, the Walker rules tell you to pivot first, then check LOS, and being more specific, take precedence.

So either way, Walkers can pivot before actually checking LOS to their chosen target, while regular Infantry doing so is inferred if not explicitly allowed.

I'd just like to say that this is kind of silly, but also that there is no restriction placed turning models in the shooting phase to face enemies.

It also doesn't mean you have to fire that unit.

It just simply says you can turn models to face whatever direction you want in the shooting phase.

It doesnt say, if you turn those models they have to shoot.

Same thing for Walkers, it just says you can pivot it in the shooting phase. nothing about then you gotta fire with it.

There is no sequence associated with the whole deal, it just says it something you can do in the shooting phase.

If I wanted to I could turn all of my models away from the enemy except for one unit, shoot that unit, then I could turn them away from the enemy, then turn the other army toward them.

Turning your models to face stuff in the shooting phase doesn't initiate the Shooting Sequence. Its just something you can do.

insaniak wrote: So technically, the rule in the Movement section telling us that infantry can turn to face their targets in the Shooting phase doesn't actually do anything unless at least one model in the unit is already facing the correct direction...

It is actually my view that this is correct.

In the case if squads, no big deal. For ICs and MCs though...

@Hollismason: Actually, turning to face the target is part of the shooting process, since target declaration is the first part (either way) - with that as the case, you ARE then forced to shoot that way with any model who you did not exclude from shooting.

Elessar wrote:

insaniak wrote: So technically, the rule in the Movement section telling us that infantry can turn to face their targets in the Shooting phase doesn't actually do anything unless at least one model in the unit is already facing the correct direction...

It is actually my view that this is correct.
In the case if squads, no big deal. For ICs and MCs though...

It's an interpretation, certainly... but it does seem to contradict the statement that facing in the Movement phase doesn't matter. Doing it your way, it does matter, for at least one model.

So that, to me, says that it's not the right interpretation.

YMMV, obviously.

@Hollismason: Actually, turning to face the target is part of the shooting process, since target declaration is the first part (either way) - with that as the case, you ARE then forced to shoot that way with any model who you did not exclude from shooting.

But since you declare who is shooting (or which weapons your walker is firing) in between choosing a target and measuring range, you can simply declare that everybody is choosing to not shoot, or the walker is choosing to not fire all of its weapons.

I dont think your understanding what that rule says.

All it says models may be turned in any direction to face their targets during the shooting phase.
This is not the same reference to target in shooting phase , that is the plural form of target, meaning multiple targets that the unit has available to them.


Your adding stuff that is not there.

Gonna face all my duders away from you

Okay its my shooting phase.

Kay gonna run these duders.

Kay gonna turn all my models to the east.

Kay this squad is gonna face you and shoot.

Doesnt matter its just something you the player can do.

You looking at it in a different way. nothing about that statement say " face target and then fire at it."

Yes, because you may only turn "to face a target" (paraphrased, cos it's half 3 in the morning) - you don't declare a target, then choose to Run, that would be cheating.

Its just to illustrate that its not a start up of events in the shooting phase to turn your models to face their targets(plural).

The plural form of that is important.

If I have no targets behind my models, I most certainly can run a unit, then turn another unit to east as it prepares to face targets.


What people are reading that as

" Pick a target( singular) then turn the model to face it "

That's not correct that is what creates the Catch 22 which is not there.

What it states is that models may be turned to face their TARGETS which is plural.

The opponents models are my targets, if I pick a unit from my opponents targets I have made that unit my target, I have not made that unit my targets because to say

This is my targets<----- Incorrect
This is my target <---- Correct
These are my target <--- incorrect
These are my targets <---- correct

It says targets because the statement includes the word models. Plural models can have plural targets because models can be divided up into multiple units.

I don't think that anyone is saying that it isn't stupid, but it is RAW - a 'target' is very clearly defined (see my previous posts for BRB references) and since you can only ever turn to face your target, we're only debating RAI.

Yes, it's a sloppy use of the same word for slightly different cases - Ideally we would have distinctions between 'potential targets' and 'valid targets,' but we don't. Thanks GW!

Now, IMHO, the way I would play it normally (as I stated before), is that yes, walkers can turn to fire in the shooting phase, at any 'potential target' the owner wishes, as this is indicated by the supporting text to the actual rules. The problem comes in with the CSM Fire Frenzy, where you have to determine what constitutes a 'visible' target.

But again, 'visible' means 'that which can be seen' which strictly refers to 'that which is in your line of sight' and there are no 'arcs of sight' in this edition that are not directly linked to a weapon's mounting as far as I can find. So RAW indicates that you measure LOS from it's weapons to see what it can see (to find it's 'valid targets') however this does increase the usefulness of CSM dreadnoughts a lot, since it virtually eliminates their chances of firing on their own units, if a player is careful.

So, now the house rule discussion begins: If I allow one interpretation in my games 'walkers can turn to choose any 'potential target' to shoot at,' should I also then force CSM dreads to do the same when selecting a 'valid target' for Fire Frenzy? Well, this makes them a lot more useless in this edition, since they would often be spinning directly around to their own side, leaving side and rear armour exposed, so it's the other extreme. There doesn't appear to be an easy answer, since CSM either get shafted, or a windfall. Both ways are easy to justify through the fluff, so it's not a great deal of help here. Though by inclination I would lean to the more advantageous (for CSM) interpretation at my table, because it would lead to less arguing at the table, and frankly make for a friendlier game.

As unistoo said, a target isn't a target until you have checked LOS to it. Doing so, then Running is indeed cheating.

Hollismason, you are ignoring RAW here.

unistoo wrote:The problem comes in with the CSM Fire Frenzy, where you have to determine what constitutes a 'visible' target.

But again, 'visible' means 'that which can be seen' which strictly refers to 'that which is in your line of sight' and there are no 'arcs of sight' in this edition that are not directly linked to a weapon's mounting as far as I can find. So RAW indicates that you measure LOS from it's weapons to see what it can see (to find it's 'valid targets') however this does increase the usefulness of CSM dreadnoughts a lot, since it virtually eliminates their chances of firing on their own units, if a player is careful.

So, now the house rule discussion begins: If I allow one interpretation in my games 'walkers can turn to choose any 'potential target' to shoot at,' should I also then force CSM dreads to do the same when selecting a 'valid target' for Fire Frenzy? Well, this makes them a lot more useless in this edition, since they would often be spinning directly around to their own side, leaving side and rear armour exposed, so it's the other extreme. There doesn't appear to be an easy answer, since CSM either get shafted, or a windfall. Both ways are easy to justify through the fluff, so it's not a great deal of help here. Though by inclination I would lean to the more advantageous (for CSM) interpretation at my table, because it would lead to less arguing at the table, and frankly make for a friendlier game.

I think you have to be consistent. If a loyalist dread can pivot to face any target, then a CSM dread must be able to do that as well. And in the case of frenzy must do so to fulfill the requirements of the fire frenzy rule. For me that means that you pivot to face the available targets and check LOS to each one starting with the closest unit. the dread then fires at the closest one that he can get LOS to. I'm not terribly concerned about how disadvantageous this is for a CSM player because it has the potential to benefit him as well as hurt him, the dread is 15 points cheaper than a loyalist one, and has one extra attack. It doesn't strike me as the CSM player getting shafted.

When you fire a Plasma Cannon twice at your own Plague Marines, maybe you'll feel differently. Playing 'my way' is the only way to take Chaos Dreads seriously.

Elessar wrote:When you fire a Plasma Cannon twice at your own Plague Marines, maybe you'll feel differently.

Or maybe you'll just stop putting your Plague Marines so close to your Dreadnought...

insaniak wrote:

Elessar wrote:When you fire a Plasma Cannon twice at your own Plague Marines, maybe you'll feel differently.

Or maybe you'll just stop putting your Plague Marines so close to your Dreadnought...

Or stop giving them Plasma Cannons.

insaniak wrote:
Or maybe you'll just stop putting your Plague Marines so close to your Dreadnought...

Exactly.

I don't understand this objection based on the potential catastrophic damage nightmare scenario. If you are a CSM player you know your dread has the potential to do something bad. You have plenty of ways to minimize this. You don't have to give him a plasma cannon. You can give him two DCCWs instead. You can keep pricy units like your plague marines away from him. You can spread them out so that two plasma cannon shots will likely only take out 2 marines. You can run dreads in pairs so they will always shoot each other.

What started this debate in „Orks...3rd tier“ was, so I understand, Elessar's statement that units do not have a 360° field of vision. Now, this phrasing is correct but, at the same time, a tad misleading.

Models – infantry models – have a field of vision of less than 360°. Although no absolute number can be found in the rules, two things prove this: The statement that models can turn, as it would never be necessary to do so other than for aesthetic reasons otherwise, and the para on p. 16 (right column). This paragraph tells us that „[t]his means getting down to the level of your warriors, taking in the view from behind...“. That phrase should make it amply clear that it is not possible for a model to „look back“ without actually turning.

A different but closely related aspect is that models CAN turn. If the player wishes to shoot at something outside of their current field of vision, he is explicitly allowed to do just that in his shooting phase.

Sed contra: It has been said that models are only allowed to be turned towards their target, and that they cannot chose a target that they cannot see. This is not true. Apart from – obviously – barrage weapons, everyone else can select a target that they cannot see, although the ruleshere are a pretty inconsistent mess. The last line on p. 16, left column, says that „If no models have line of sight then a different target must be chosen.“ Ergo, this unit in question has already picked/chosen/selected a target before finding out that it did not have LoS to it, or there could not possibly be a different target. What the designers actually meant here was that they cannot fire upon such a target; instead they used 'target', which simply makes no sense.

Elessar wrote:
They pivot towards the what now?

The target.

Which is determined by...

Simply declaring your intent to shoot at it. After this declaration, you check LoS. Please, the rules are jumbled but there is only a single reading that makes sense. All it takes is to insert "viable" before "target" on p. 16. Otherwise it is exactly as insaniak has said.

Elessar wrote:
@Hollismason: Actually, turning to face the target is part of the shooting process, since target declaration is the first part (either way) - with that as the case, you ARE then forced to shoot that way with any model who you did not exclude from shooting.

Actually, it reads Check LoS and pick a target...twice.