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.

For anyone who cares, the INAT FAQ changed it's ruling to say that the target of the fire frenzy already has to be in LoS.

unbeliever87 wrote:
For what it's worth, I think the "closest visible unit" part is just making sure that the dreadnought cannot target units which actually cannot be seen, such as those 2" away behind a solid wall.

That may very well have been the intent, but alas.

unbeliever87 wrote:"Visibility" does not equal LOS. Visibility doesn't have a rulebook entry, which indicates that we don't need to use a specific rule to interpret its meaning.

*snip*

My point still stands i think.

Visible= Within LOS

My reasoning is this:

The only time LOS or visibility is needed or even mentioned is when the intent is to fire at something.
(correct me if i'm wrong)

It's my understanding that it's never your eyesight that is needed, but always the models.
(You might see that unit lurking behind your tank, but the tank is unaware of it, so cannot declare it as a target)
Is it not true that you may not even try to fire at something that can't be targeted?



etc etc, round and round we go (somebody let me off this merrygoround)
Very well i have stated my point as hard as i dare, take it for what you will.


P.s
I could have sworn the havoclauncher on the dread still counted as a pintlemount with 360 arc of fire.. oh well.

Well pure RAW states the Dread *must pivot* toward the closest *visible* target.

As everyone stated, it all hinges on what visible (and order of events) means. Does it mean what it can trace LOS too currently (before pivot) or does it mean it pivots first and then whatever it can trace LOS too and is the closest is the target.

I am chaos player also and own 2 dreads. I play by the latter. I always shove my dread as far forwards as possible and as close to the enemy I can get it, yet sometimes it still bites me in the butt.

EDIT: The current Dreadnought rules state the Dread pivots to face its target and then fire, I see this rule as an 'extension' to the RB one in that you are simply pivoting to 'find' a target and then letting it have it.

I would say that you pivot (360deg) and as your pivoting you determine which is the closest visible target.

I would say this, because as you pivot, our LOS to visible targets is changing.

Dreadnoughts do not solely pivot at the torso. The torso pivot is representative of the 45deg arc of fire. The walker does have legs and like a tracked vehicle gets a free 360deg pivot move not counted as movement.

I think the problem is a Walker combines infantry characteristics (takes difficult tests as infantry, CC as infantry, moves as infantry sorta) and Vehicles (Armor value, vehicle weapons).

One could assume it has a field of vision from the "eyes" much like a Wraithlord or other monstrous creature would, but also must acknowledge the weapons must trace LOS from their mounts.

The rulebook is falling down here so the simple answer is "nobody knows what the field of vision is on a Dread because the rulebook doesn't describe what 'visible' means".

arachnid wrote:Is it not true that you may not even try to fire at something that can't be targeted?

That's correct... but as I pointed out just before, it stops your Dreadnought (or any other model, for that matter) from ever pivoting to shoot a model that isn't already in its line of sight.

Trying to use the "measure from the eyes" rule just makes things weird, not clearer. There's a rule a few lines down that says "models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit".

Now, in an infantry squad your model has no facing so you just turn and measure. But a Dreadnought with a facing has to measure from his 'eyes' to the target ignoring members of his own unit... including himself. So it could be said he's incapable of blocking his own line of sight.



The more interesting note for the "visible" vs "line of sight" discussion is that the ork example on page 17 seems to use the word 'visible' to refer to something being in line of sight. If you took that as a clear definition of visible equalling line of sight, it would solve that part of the discussion.

Raern wrote:Trying to use the "measure from the eyes" rule just makes things weird, not clearer.

It also completely ignores the rules for drawing LOS from vehicles.

Now, in an infantry squad your model has no facing

Not actually true. Infantry have no defined facing... but they have to be facing their target for LOS. We just aren't told what that actually means in rules terms, as regards how far they can turn their heads or eyes in the direction they are facing.

arachnid wrote:
The only time LOS or visibility is needed or even mentioned is when the intent is to fire at something.
(correct me if i'm wrong)

So following on from the OP point, where does this leave the Marker Beacon for the Tau Pathfinder Devilfish?

If visibility can only be determined from the point of view of a weapon then the aforementioned DF can't use the beacon if the burst cannon is destroyed? Does it mean that I can reroll any DS if it is a warfish? since my weapon doesn't need LOS.

Andrew

@arachnid, not picking on you, you just had the most quoteable line.

I think it is pretty clear that the dreadnaught pivots to the closest unit and fires twice.

As much as I would like it to shoot at the closest unit within it's 45 degree arc to the front, the fact is if a unit is in the 45 degree arc then it doesn't need to pivot to shoot it.

Morls Balls wrote:I think it is pretty clear

It it was clear, why are we arguing?

Morls Balls wrote:I think it is pretty clear that the dreadnaught pivots to the closest unit and fires twice.

As much as I would like it to shoot at the closest unit within it's 45 degree arc to the front, the fact is if a unit is in the 45 degree arc then it doesn't need to pivot to shoot it.

Actually, as long as it's not pointed directly at the closest visible unit (as that's what the rule says, not closest unit) then you will still pivot a slight degree.

Gwar! wrote:

Morls Balls wrote:I think it is pretty clear

It it was clear, why are we arguing?

Yeah, poor choice of words on my part.

I'll rephrase - In my opinion the dreadnaught pivots to the closest unit and fires twice.

I agree with Morls.

You could pivot to what is the closest visbile target in your 45deg arc and suddenly you have a new target in your new 45deg arc LOS that is closer. So it would be a 360deg pivot to find the closest target within LoS and then fire.

I'll ask my question again, if 'visible' only refers to the LoS of a weapon, where does that leave equipment that requires visibility but is not a weapon. ie Marker Beacon?

It's only qualification is any point visible to the DF.

Andrew

Does anyone else think we try and read too much into the rules and lose playability sometimes. I mean in just one day we have had arguments over whether anywhere means anywhere whether something that is in line of sight is visible and if a unit embarked in a transport is actually in the transport. Its kinda like using the card game War to try and simulate Napoleon's battle at Waterloo.

Part of the confusion seems to stem from the changes in walkers from 4th ed to 5th ed. In 4th ed (when the Chaos Codex was written) walkers had a 180 degree firing arc. This is not true in 5th.

It seems like there is a camp that believes you just turn to the nearest model and blast away. I don't think that is correct. All my references are to the BGB. The key is visible. In 5th, we use "true" line of sight traced from a model's eyes (p.16) or a vehicles weapons (p. 56). Because the rule says nearest "visible" target, the dread must be able to see the intended target *before* pivoting. Since the dread is a vehicle, you must trace LOS from the weapon's firing arc. Walker weapons count as hull mounted (p.72) and hull mounted weapons are assumed to have a firing arc of 45 degrees from the mounting point (p.59). This is VERY different from 4th ed where walkers had a 180 degree firing arc (p. 64 of the old BGB ) and I think where people are getting messed up. It is also a change from the normal walker shooting process where you may pivot first, then determine LOS.

Some may point out that this means the pivot is largely irrelevant. Not really as it can make rear armor more accessible and also ensures the secondary ranged weapon (if any) can also be brought to bear. It is possible a target may be in LOS to one weapon and not the other- this pivot prevents a situation where one weapon could not fire.

IF a person holds the position that walkers can't pivot to target a unit outside of their current fire arc, then the fire frenzy ruling is okay to me.

Really, the question is what the INAT FAQ ruling on "Can a walker pivot to fire on a unit behind itself?" is.

arachnid wrote:A vehicle always sees with its weapons.

could you provide us with a page in the brb or codex:csm that states something to that effect? I've always played it pivot towards the closest target irregardless of fire arcs, because no where that I've read does it say that fire arcs have ANYTHING to do with where a model can see. As far as I can tell the entire "only shoots at what's in front of it" argument hinges on the point that fire arc=visibility arc.. which I cannot find anywhere. Lacking that (and since the entry specifically says to pivot) i would be somewhat put off to play someone who thought they could just keep their guys behind their dread to be safe. Unless we had agreed to INAT beforehand.

Adamah wrote:could you provide us with a page in the brb or codex:csm that states something to that effect?

Page 58, Vehicle Weapons & Line of Sight

When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them against the target and then trace the line of sight from each weapons' mounting and along its barrel, to see if the shot is blocked by terrain or models.

ok, so that still doesn't prove your point. It says right there in the entry to "point them against the target". Seems pretty clear to me the dread is bound to point his weapons at all the targets to see which is closest (and visible) since the entry says it is to pivot. I'm actually kind of surprised Gwar! this is the first time upon further review I'm still convinced your still wrong.

jmurph wrote:Part of the confusion seems to stem from the changes in walkers from 4th ed to 5th ed. In 4th ed (when the Chaos Codex was written) walkers had a 180 degree firing arc. This is not true in 5th.

This is the main source of the problem methinks. The fire frenzy rule makes much more sense in 4th, with the dread planting its feet and looking around for the nearest thing to blast away at. But, due to the rule with a walkers LOS, i would say that it does have a 45 degree arc. As a compromise, outside of tournaments i would give the dread a 180 arc for fire frenzy- mainly so Dreads dont go crab walking about

jmurph wrote:It seems like there is a camp that believes you just turn to the nearest model and blast away. I don't think that is correct. All my references are to the BGB. The key is visible. In 5th, we use "true" line of sight traced from a model's eyes (p.16) or a vehicles weapons (p. 56). Because the rule says nearest "visible" target, the dread must be able to see the intended target *before* pivoting.

So do you apply this same reasoning to normal shooting? Since, as pointed out earlier, the normal shooting rules also (technically) require the dreadnought to have LOS to the target before it can pivot...

Adamah wrote: I've always played it pivot towards the closest target irregardless of fire arcs,

Whilst I don't generally play Grammar Nazi, I do feel compelled to point out that 'irregardless' isn't a real word... it's a double negative hybrid word that would technically mean the exact opposite of how people use it.

insaniak wrote:

jmurph wrote:It seems like there is a camp that believes you just turn to the nearest model and blast away. I don't think that is correct. All my references are to the BGB. The key is visible. In 5th, we use "true" line of sight traced from a model's eyes (p.16) or a vehicles weapons (p. 56). Because the rule says nearest "visible" target, the dread must be able to see the intended target *before* pivoting.

So do you apply this same reasoning to normal shooting? Since, as pointed out earlier, the normal shooting rules also (technically) require the dreadnought to have LOS to the target before it can pivot...

This too is a nail in the coffin IMO. It states the dread cannot move during the turn it has FF, and the rulebook defines pivoting as moving, and you cannot pivot the dread during the shooting phase...

Jihallah wrote:

insaniak wrote:So do you apply this same reasoning to normal shooting? Since, as pointed out earlier, the normal shooting rules also (technically) require the dreadnought to have LOS to the target before it can pivot...

This too is a nail in the coffin IMO. It states the dread cannot move during the turn it has FF, and the rulebook defines pivoting as moving, and you cannot pivot the dread during the shooting phase...

Sorry, but what does that have to do with what I posted?

I'm saying since you cannot move in a FF, and pivoting is a kind of moving, and you the LOS of a walker is 45 degrees, you fire at the nearest closest unit within that 45 degrees, your line of sight.

I'm rather tired and not good at making sense when tired tbh ><

Jihallah wrote:I'm saying since you cannot move in a FF, and pivoting is a kind of moving, and you the LOS of a walker is 45 degrees, you fire at the nearest closest unit within that 45 degrees, your line of sight.

I'm rather tired and not good at making sense when tired tbh ><

The prohibition against moving or assaulting has nothing to do with pivoting for the dreadnought, and by extension the line of sight of the dreadnought, because immediately after that sentence the rules state that it MUST pivot on the spot.

The issue is still whether 'visible' means 'potentially in LOS after pivoting' or 'currently in LOS without pivoting'.

Jihallah wrote:I'm saying since you cannot move in a FF, and pivoting is a kind of moving, and you the LOS of a walker is 45 degrees, you fire at the nearest closest unit within that 45 degrees, your line of sight.

Since the FF rules specifically allow the Dreadnought to pivot towards the closest target, I'm not sure what you think is happening here.

It's simple, the dread pivots on the spot, firing all of its weapons twice at the closest available target.
I've had a game where my Chaos dread killed my vindicator, and immobilized my rhino, but also killed about 20 ard boyz, a warboss w/ power klaw, and several nobs.
He was my last surviving unit.

insaniak wrote:
Whilst I don't generally play Grammar Nazi, I do feel compelled to point out that 'irregardless' isn't a real word... it's a double negative hybrid word that would technically mean the exact opposite of how people use it.

Note the American flag on my all my posts. in America, proper grammar is whatever is in common usage. Irregardless is much more likely to be used than "without regard too" in America, and thus, the proper word. I would never dream of complaining if somebody from Germany sounded a little stilted in their post or if you used the word "colour". So please don't judge me on my American grammer, or spelling, but rather the content of my post.

(*edit* I'm not really mad lol)