chaos dreadnought fire frenzy

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.

**Mannahnin**

insaniak wrote:So, as far as I can see, if we're allowing infantry to turn and face their targets in the shooting phase, we have to also allow dreadnoughts to do the same, as their LOS rules essentially function the same way. So 'pivot to face their target' means pivoting to face the unit that you want to select as a target, rather than the unit that you have already selected as a target.

I'll agree with the rest of what you posted (there is some genuine ambiguity, sure), but not this bit. Walkers have 45 degree fire arcs based on their weapons. This is not "essentially" the same as infantry, and I would not be comfortable playing them the same as one another.

**DeathReaper**

insaniak wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Because you've got the order mixed around. Page 15- the FIRST step of shooting is to check LOS & pick a target. You can only every select a unit as a target if it's in your LOS before you select it.

The thing is, that same reasoning would actually lose infantry their perceived 360 degree fire arc... Because they are likewise given permission to turn and face their target (rather than a potential target) in the shooting phase. If you have to establish LOS before a unit can be considered a target, this permission is meaningless... the models in the unit would have to be facing their potential target in order for it to be 'their target' and so have no need to turn and face it in the shooting phase.

The problem is simply that the shooting rules are a little too loosely worded to nail this one down with any real accuracy. GW don't give us a set-in-stone process, because they use the word 'target' a little too loosely throughout the rules. You need LOS to choose a target, but you need to choose your target in order to draw LOS to it.

So, as far as I can see, if we're allowing infantry to turn and face their targets in the shooting phase, we have to also allow dreadnoughts to do the same, as their LOS rules essentially function the same way. So 'pivot to face their target' means pivoting to face the unit that you want to select as a target, rather than the unit that you have already selected as a target.

I agree with this interpretation.

Since the Walker rules tell you to pivot so its guns are aimed at the target and then measure range from the weapon and LoS from the mounting point of the weapon along the barrel.

This would be the more specific rule IMO over the general check LoS and pick a target step 1 in the shooting rules.

**Mannahnin**

I disagree.

While the infantry facing rules are phrased clumsily, the procedure for a vehicle is clear. It can only select targets from those units in LOS. Once a target has been selected from those in LOS, a Dreadnought will pivot to face the chosen target before firing. If he can pick a target in any direction, there's no point whatsoever to its 45 degree fire arcs.

**DeathReaper**

So mann with your interpretation Death Company Dreadnoughts, which have rage, are not limited to moving at the nearest enemy if it is behind them?

**kirsanth**

DeathReaper wrote:So mann with your interpretation Death Company Dreadnoughts, which have rage, are not limited to moving at the nearest enemy if it is behind them?

With the other interpretation, what is the point of the 45 degree firing arc?

**Mannahnin**

DeathReaper wrote:So mann with your interpretation Death Company Dreadnoughts, which have rage, are not limited to moving at the nearest enemy if it is behind them?

Of course. Rage specifies that the unit moves toward the closest visible enemy unit. And Dreads can only see units in a 45 degree arc based on their weapons.

**insaniak**

Mannahnin wrote: If he can pick a target in any direction, there's no point whatsoever to its 45 degree fire arcs.

There's a very big point to the 45 degree arc. It requires the walker to be facing it's target, rather than being able to shoot in a wider arc without exposing weaker armour to flanking enemies.

It also makes a difference when the walker is immobilised.

**Mannahnin**

Facing its target happens when the walker turns to face its target as instructed, not because of its fire arc.

Okay, it matters while immobilized. I still think the walker/vehicle LOS rules are reasonably clear, and the genuine hangup you've identified is sloppy phrasing in the rules for infantry LOS.

**coredump**

It seems Mann's and Nos's postion hinges on equating LoS with 'visible', and I do not see that as being the same. I also see nothing in the rules that make that equivalency.

LoS is the arc of fire that the particular gun is capable of
Visible is being able to be seen by the people/person manning the gun.
If you are in a machine gun nest, the LoS of the gun is about 120 degrees, but you can easily look around and see 360 degrees, you just can't shoot them with the gun oriented that way.

If the Dread is facing north, and there is a model 8" to the East, that model is 'visible' to the dread, it just can't bring the guns to bear unless it pivots.

I see nothing in any of the rules that indicates, directly or indirectly, that the field of vision for all models is anything but 360 degrees. Granted, some *guns* can't be turned that much, but that is a very different issue. The model is visible to the Dread... it doesn't matter what the gun can 'see'.

**Mannahnin**

Line of Sight as the term is used in wargames means exactly that- what is in the model, vehicle, or unit's line of vision. Take another read of page 16. We equate LOS to vision because GW does, and GW does because pretty much every wargame before them did too.

Line of fire and fire arcs are different terms, although GW's use of LOS for vehicles does tend to encapsulate LOF as well for simplicity.

**coredump**

p.16... sure. But that is discussing infantry, the infantry model has a 360 degree vision, and their guns have a 360 degree LoS.

But to equate the LoS for a *gun* as being the same as what is visible to the *model* is a jump.

p. 58 discusses Vehicle *Weapons* and LoS
p.59 distinctly discusses the arc of sight for different types of *weapons*.

There is nothing in the rules that would take into account that a model has anything other than 360 degree 'vision'.

If the rule said you had to fire at the closest unit within the guns LoS, then I would agree. But it mentions it has to be visible to the dread. If the Dread can see it, then you pivot so the target is in the guns LoS, and fire. There is nothing to indicate that the dread can only see what is in the guns LOS.

If the dread doesn't have any ranged weapons, does that mean it can't 'see' anything? So if no ranged weapons, then Rage has no effect??

**insaniak**

While it's veering off into RAI territory, it's possibly worth looking at the reason for the pivot rule, as well...

Walkers supposedly get to pivot and face their target to represent their greater maneouverability compared to other vehicles allowing them to more easily bring their weapons to bear.

However, if you only allow that pivot in the 45 degree arc in which one of its weapons is already facing, what you wind up with is a worse LOS field than almost every non-walker vehicle in the game, since any vehicle that has more than a single hull-mounted weapon is going to have a better chance of actually bringing weapons to bear against any given target due to sponson and turret weapons having a wider fire arc.

Allowing the walker to pivot to face a potential target rather than an already aquired one actually grants it the bonus that the walker entry states the pivot is for.

**Mannahnin**

coredump wrote:p.16... sure. But that is discussing infantry, the infantry model has a 360 degree vision, and their guns have a 360 degree LoS.

But to equate the LoS for a *gun* as being the same as what is visible to the *model* is a jump.

No jump at all. p.16 clearly establishes that LOS = what is visible to the model.

And the vehicle rules clearly establish that LOS for them is based off of their weapons.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:While it's veering off into RAI territory, it's possibly worth looking at the reason for the pivot rule, as well...

Walkers supposedly get to pivot and face their target to represent their greater maneouverability compared to other vehicles allowing them to more easily bring their weapons to bear.

However, if you only allow that pivot in the 45 degree arc in which one of its weapons is already facing, what you wind up with is a worse LOS field than almost every non-walker vehicle in the game, since any vehicle that has more than a single hull-mounted weapon is going to have a better chance of actually bringing weapons to bear against any given target due to sponson and turret weapons having a wider fire arc.

I think we're getting into a subjective judgment about how we determine better. Applying the rule as I have advocated means that a Dreadnought with guns on both arms will be able to bring 100% of its weapons to bear on any target it has LOS on (unless it's immobilized) from either 45 degree arc. As noted, a vehicle with only hull-mounted guns has worse (Vindicator), but remember also that tanks with sponsons (predators, land raiders, leman russes, etc.) have limited arcs per gun. An LR or pred can draw LOS in a 90 degree angle to the side with either sponson gun, but will not be able to get the other sponson (of course) and the land raider and leman russ also can't get their front-mounted weapon to track a large chunk of that arc either. Either of those tanks can only get 1/3 to 1/2 of their guns to bear on a target to the side.

**insaniak**

Yes, the tank doesn't get to bring all of its guns to bear... but it does get a much wider arc in which it can fire something.

Subjective it may be, but being able to pivot the walker a whopping 22 and a half degrees to bring a second weapon to bear on those rare occasions when the two weapons' LOS overlap didn't already include the target anyway does not, IMO, represent '...the vastly superior agility of walkers in comparison to other vehicles.'

YMMV, obviously.

**coredump**

Mannahnin wrote:

No jump at all. p.16 clearly establishes that LOS = what is visible to the model.

And the vehicle rules clearly establish that LOS for them is based off of their weapons.

The vehicle rules establish how to determine the LoS for the *guns*, by looking along the barrel. That is not the same as what is visible to the Dread.

And again, if the Dread can only 'see' what the guns can 'see', how do you handle a dread with no ranged weapons? Does Rage not effect them at all?

**nosferatu1001**

In the exact same way you can simply turn infantry models around to have them entirely ignore Rage.

Models do not have 360 los by default, and this includes walkers. Visible and LOS are synonymous in this ruleset.

**Mannahnin**

Sounds like a question for the FAQ. Since both Dreadnoughts in the game which are or can be subject to Rage have at least two ranged weapons, the question can only arise after at least two WD results.

If you can find a rule telling us how a Dreadnought or any other vehicle "sees" (traces LOS to) an enemy unit other than the ones I've mentioned, please do so.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:Yes, the tank doesn't get to bring all of its guns to bear... but it does get a much wider arc in which it can fire something.

Subjective it may be, but being able to pivot the walker a whopping 22 and a half degrees to bring a second weapon to bear on those rare occasions when the two weapons' LOS overlap didn't already include the target anyway does not, IMO, represent '...the vastly superior agility of walkers in comparison to other vehicles.'

IMO neither does the Dread's vastly slower movement. 12" allows regular vehicles to move around obstacles much more easily than a Dread. But those are our subjective opinions of a line of fluff.

Anyway, it's not 22.5 degrees. If a gun on the right side gets LOS to a target 45 degrees to the right, and the dread pivots to face straight on at said target, then that's 45 degrees of pivot. Actually in many ways the pivot is a liability, and inferior to the 180 degree forward LOS dreads had in 4th ed. Since the pivot is mandatory you've got a real possibility of exposing your rear armor (or at least side armor; which mattes for Furiosos).

**insaniak**

Mannahnin wrote:Anyway, it's not 22.5 degrees. If a gun on the right side gets LOS to a target 45 degrees to the right, and the dread pivots to face straight on at said target, then that's 45 degrees of pivot.

The weapons have a 45 degree arc to the vehicle's front, not to the side. So targets can at most be 22 and a half degrees off the weapon's center line.

**Mannahnin**

Okay, but pivoting the center of the dread's facing to a point 22.5 degrees to the right of the arm is going to be a greater than 22.5 degree pivot.

**DeathReaper**

Mannahnin wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:So mann with your interpretation Death Company Dreadnoughts, which have rage, are not limited to moving at the nearest enemy if it is behind them?

Of course. Rage specifies that the unit moves toward the closest visible enemy unit. And Dreads can only see units in a 45 degree arc based on their weapons.

So Death company dreads, according to you, have rage but it does not effect them if you walk across the field backward?

or if they suffer 2 Weapon Destroyed results they lose rage?

I disagree with that interpretation, Since it does not define visible in the brb.

**Mannahnin**

DeathReaper wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:So mann with your interpretation Death Company Dreadnoughts, which have rage, are not limited to moving at the nearest enemy if it is behind them?

Of course. Rage specifies that the unit moves toward the closest visible enemy unit. And Dreads can only see units in a 45 degree arc based on their weapons.

So Death company dreads, according to you, have rage but it does not effect them if you walk across the field backward?

They can try to circumvent Rage by so doing, although that's not going to help them if they get shot dead in the rear armor, or if the opponent zips a land speeder or drops a drop pod within their LOS and makes them head back toward their own table edge.

DeathReaper wrote:[or if they suffer 2 Weapon Destroyed results they lose rage?

The rules don't tell us what do do in that circumstance; personally I figure it would make more sense to continue drawing LOS from where the weapons were, as that produces a more functional result than acting as if the Dread is now blind. Nothing in the rules suggests that it's possible to blind a unit.

DeathReaper wrote:I disagree with that interpretation, Since it does not define visible in the brb.

Then you haven't been reading the thread. Page 16 clearly and in plain language tells us how we determine what is visible to a model/unit, and that this is synonymous with LOS.

**DeathReaper**

Mannahnin wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:I disagree with that interpretation, Since it does not define visible in the brb.

Then you haven't been reading the thread. Page 16 clearly and in plain language tells us how we determine what is visible to a model/unit, and that this is synonymous with LOS.

I have read the thread, and P. 16 multiple times, no where on P. 16 does it state what is visible to a dreadnought for rage purposes.

It mentions LoS for shooting purposes in the dreadnought entry, but nothing about visibility for rage purposes.

it seems the rule is not clear as usual.

**Mannahnin**

Page 16 makes clear that LOS and visibility are synonymous within 40k. Pages 58-59 explain how vehicles draw LOS, and page 72 adds more specifics for walkers.

Those are the rules for how units see other units.

**DeathReaper**

So any Dreadnought without ranged weapons cant be subject to the rage rule?

and I can use Death company and run where I want to, if i face them away from everything?

RaW seems unclear to me.

**nosferatu1001**

Yes, that is exactly what it means. we've been through this before the first time Rage came up - Rage is, functionally, easy to bypass. Easier for infantry (As facing is irrelevant for shooting them) than walkers, but equally possible to mess about with either.

You're right -t here isnt a rule saying visible == los when running a death company dread with Rage.

However, there isnt one needed, as page 16 tells you that visible IS == LOS. And as such it is true for all cases where you are asked what is "visible"

The RAW is clear, you just dont like it....

**Mannahnin**

DeathReaper wrote:So any Dreadnought without ranged weapons cant be subject to the rage rule?

and I can use Death company and run where I want to, if i face them away from everything?

RaW seems unclear to me.

If you're not going to read the earlier posts in the thread, why are you bothing to participate? Are you trying to troll?

Both dreadnoughts which can be subject to Rage come with at least two ranged weapons. If they lose both of those guns; well, I answered that question two posts ago.

Non-vehicle models functionally have 360 LOS; page 11 "Turning and Facing".

**DeathReaper**

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, that is exactly what it means. we've been through this before the first time Rage came up - Rage is, functionally, easy to bypass. Easier for infantry (As facing is irrelevant for shooting them) than walkers, but equally possible to mess about with either.

You're right -t here isnt a rule saying visible == los when running a death company dread with Rage.

However, there isnt one needed, as page 16 tells you that visible IS == LOS. And as such it is true for all cases where you are asked what is "visible"

The RAW is clear, you just dont like it....

no, it just does not make any sense, since walkers can pivot then shoot.

That would mean I can move my death dread right behind my land raider and not be subject to rage, which, to me, seems like its bending the rule of rage.

and mann I read the posts, but it does not make sense to me because a walker has traits of a vehicle and infantry. and if its guns both go away it can now suddenly not see anything? the pilot can still see...

but I think you guys are going strict RAW and I see it as RaI.

**Mannahnin**

Walkers are vehicles which move like infantry (for the most part). I think the rules for them are reasonably clear and not particularly strange as 40k rules go. We have to suspend disbelief reasonably often when playing this game.

You could put an infantry model with Rage right behind another of your units to block his LOS in a given direction too; I don't see why it's unacceptable with the Dread.

**nosferatu1001**

DR - yes, they can pivot then shoot. And? It still doesnt alter that the ONLY TIME you are told what "visible" means in context to the 400k rules is that it is synonymous with LOS

That's it. The consequences of this are:

1) A chaos dread only has a limited visible arc, and will only shoot those within its arc - pivoting as needfed to make sure both arms can fire

2) Rage is fairly easy to bypass, if you want to play it that way