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.

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.