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.

DeathReaper wrote: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.

'Pivot towards the closest visible unit' requires something visible to pivot towards, no? Why would you figure out what is visible after you pivot when it says it in the other order?

Editing to add:
You DO check afterwards, for firing, but that is the next step. . . .

DR - except how do you know which direction to pivot in?

Your method involves breaking the rules by potentially pivoting away from the closest model, under your interpretation of the OOP

Or, you follow the directive: work out what is the closest visible enemy, then pivot towards it. No rules broken.

You know what direction to pivot because the 'Fire Frenzy' rule does not over-ride the normal walker shooting rules, so those would have to be followed as well.

You can pivot then shoot as normal for walkers. choosing a target is a special case for fire frenzy, but you still can pivot a walker then check LoS. You have to pivot so you can see the closest unit from how Fire frenzy reads.

Edit:
and Kir, it does not require anything to be visible initially because you pivot a walker then check LoS.

kirsanth wrote:Why would you figure out what is visible after you pivot when it says it in the other order?

Because you don't want to break the game when you next try to shoot with your infantry at a target behind them...

DeathReaper wrote:and Kir, it does not require anything to be visible initially because you pivot a walker then check LoS.

Q1: Pivot towards what?
A1: a visible model

Q2: How does one tell if a model is visible?
A2: Check LOS.

Q3: Why would you pivot then check for a visible model, when you are instructed to pivot towards a visible model?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:Because you don't want to break the game when you next try to shoot with your infantry at a target behind them...

Didn't we already cover infantry?

Edited for clarity.

insaniak wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Why would you figure out what is visible after you pivot when it says it in the other order?

Because you don't want to break the game when you next try to shoot with your infantry at a target behind them...

+1


A3: Because the walker rules say you pivot first then check LoS after you pivot, not before.

Q4: Why would they even have you pivot if you are already in LoS?

DeathReaper wrote:A3: Because the walker rules say you pivot first then check LoS after you pivot, not before.

And the fire frenzy rules, which are more specific yet, say . . . what?

DeathReaper wrote: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)"

Oh right.

DeathReaper wrote:4: Why would they even have you pivot if you are already in LoS?

As stated, so that you can bring all weaponry to bear--for example.

Right, Fire frenzy says "pivot on the spot towards the closest visible unit (Friend or foe)"

So you pivot, then check LoS after the Pivot as per normal dread rules, since nothing says to check LoS then pivot the dread in the fire frenzy rule.

its the Pivot towards the closest visible unit that messes people up. since walkers Pivot then check LoS, by your definition if you walk sideways facing the side table edge, your dread will never fire frenzy on anything. and that seems to break RaI imo.

since fire frenzy does not negate the dread rules.

The rule seriously could be written better.

DR -except you cannot pivot UNTIL you have determined what is the closest visible enemy.

there is an order of operation that you are *explicitly* ignoring here

kirsanth wrote:Didn't we already cover infantry?

If, by 'cover' you mean 'choose to ignore the fact that requiring the dreadnought to already have LOS before pivoting completely breaks infantry shooting'... then yes, we already covered that.

You can't have it both ways. If the rule allowing the dreadnought to pivot towards its target requires you to already have LOS to that target, then a rule allowing infantry to turn and face their target has to work the same way.

Frankly, I'm at a loss as to how people can seriously argue for one and not the other. They have the exact same result.

Because the Chaos Dread rule is more specific and only applies to them?

Cf to the blood frenzy rule...

Yes insaniak, I am in agreement, if you have LoS there is no need to pivot, and breaks infantry.

so it has to be one or the other.

1) one way we have the dread only firing at what it can already see and broken infantry.

2) The other way we have walkers and infantry working within the rules.

I choose option #2

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because the Chaos Dread rule is more specific and only applies to them?

How does that make a difference?

It's not who the rule applies to that matters. It's what the rule does. My point is that unless there is a very good reason not to, you should always aim for consistency. If a rule works one way for one type of unit, then a similarly worded rule should work the same way for another.

We have two ways to interpret the LOS rule being argued here in this thread. One way requires an inconsistent application of the rules: Dreadnoughts require LOS before they pivot, while Infantry don't, despite both of them hinging around the same mechanic.

The other way treats both rules the same. You pivot as a part of the process of establishing LOS. The interpretation is consistent, and has the added advantage that, while it makes Chaos Dreads a little more dangerous to your own army, it doesn't mostly nerf every walker (and completely nerf single-weapon walkers) in the game.

Do units block line of sight to themselves? If not, can't infantry see out of the back of their heads, making what way they are facing irrelevant?

frenrik wrote:Do units block line of sight to themselves? If not, can't infantry see out of the back of their heads, making what way they are facing irrelevant?

Other models in the unit don't block LOS. But the way they are facing is theoretically relevant, because the rules tell us to turn them to face their target.

The rulebook FAQ addresses this indirectly, pointing out that weapons on vehicles are blocked by other parts of the vehicle that get in the way... for example, the storm bolter on a razorback would not be able to draw LOS through the turret, despite its arc of fire allowing it to point that way.

So there is confusion as to why an infantry unit can get LOS and thus declare a target and why this is different than a walker falling subject to a special rule?

I must be missing something.



Editing to add:
Units can declare a target visible to any model in the unit. If a rule then allows a change of facing before this, that would be ok.

If the rule asks to change the facing based upon what is seen, that is not the same thing.

Oh lord, this thread again.

Last time I posted in YMDC (MONTHS ago) this stupid thread managed to rack up PAGES of argument about what "visible" means.

When "visible" is clearly defined in the BRB.

What is this I don't even

SaintHazard wrote:Oh lord, this thread again.

Last time I posted in YMDC (MONTHS ago)

Yup. And welcome back.

kirsanth wrote:So there is confusion as to why an infantry unit can get LOS and thus declare a target and why this is different than a walker falling subject to a special rule?

When the special rule has the same requirement as the normal LOS rule, yes, that raises questions as to why people would think it functions differently.

The special rule deals with the dread's choice of target, not how it draws LOS.

Units can declare a target visible to any model in the unit. If a rule then allows a change of facing before this, that would be ok.

If the rule asks to change the facing based upon what is seen, that is not the same thing.

So you don't think that infantry can target a unit that is behind them, then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SaintHazard wrote:Oh lord, this thread again.

Last time I posted in YMDC (MONTHS ago) this stupid thread managed to rack up PAGES of argument about what "visible" means.

When "visible" is clearly defined in the BRB.

What is this I don't even

SO you don't have anything constructive to contribute the thread, and don't like the topic of the discussion, and yet are posting... why, exactly?

I think a unit can draw LOS based upon models in it.
I also think infantry have some allowances vehicles do not.
I think that if infantry cannot get LOS they cannot get a target without other exceptions.

Also, when you say "The special rule deals with the dread's choice of target, not how it draws LOS." why would you then assert that something not within LOS can be targeted?

kirsanth wrote:...why would you then assert that something not within LOS can be targeted?

I'm not. I'm disagreeing with how that LOS is drawn.

It's the difference between checking LOS and then pivoting (the interpretation that breaks infantry) or pivoting as you check LOS (which is how I think it's supposed to work).

Gotcha. Then I agree.

Not with the interpretations, but with the difference.

Infantry checks later iirc. Editing to add: and as MODELS which lets one model 'see' a target allowing a UNIT to target it.

Fire frenzy requires checking to gain LOS.

editing to add:
in case folks miss it, it is timing.
pivot towards LOS is different than LOS and pivot to LOS.

X3
If a unit of chaos dreads had a single model able to draw LOS, the unit would fire on it.
afaik this cannot happen in 40k. Just saying.

kirsanth wrote:infantry checks later iirc.

Nope. This is what I've been trying to explain. Infantry pivot towards their target...

The argument for Chaos Dreads is that a 'visible target' has to be in the dread's current LOS, as it's not a target unless the dread has LOS to it. And that interpretation will likewise prevent infantry from turning in the shooting phase... they can only turn to face their target, which, by the argument being used for the dread, is something that is already in LOS.

Fire Frenzy doesn't redefine the rules for choosing a target. It just removes the player's permission to choose that target, requiring you to fire at the closest target instead.

Strike my last, before I drown in my own knucklehead irony.

insaniak wrote:

Mannahnin wrote: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.

Killa Kans can't get guns on both sides anymore? How about Ork Dreadnoughts? How about a War Walker?

Even if only SM Dreadnoughts could benefit, I wouldn't for a second put it past GW to have them specifically in mind when they came up with the pivot rule. They are the most prominent and visible and commonly-used walkers.

insaniak wrote:

kirsanth wrote:infantry checks later iirc.

Nope. This is what I've been trying to explain. Infantry pivot towards their target...

The argument for Chaos Dreads is that a 'visible target' has to be in the dread's current LOS, as it's not a target unless the dread has LOS to it. And that interpretation will likewise prevent infantry from turning in the shooting phase... they can only turn to face their target, which, by the argument being used for the dread, is something that is already in LOS.

Not at all. You are mistakenly equating two things as being the same despite page 72 specifically telling us that they are different. LOS for vehicles (including walkers) is categorically different than LOS for infantry.

Page 72: "Unlike infantry, a walker has a facing..."

This, despite the clumsy phrasing on page 11 which implies that an infantry unit might conceivably be able to have a target before it has LOS to said target (which implication is in conflict with all the rest of the shooting rules), clarifies the issue by telling us that infantry actually DO NOT have a facing, for LOS purposes. That is, whatever direction an infantry model might happen to be facing is totally irrelevant for its LOS. Page 11 just explains it badly.

In that context, page 11 makes more sense, and pages 15-16 work perfectly. With that interpretation there is absolutely no conflict between the order of operations for targeting. Zero. None. First you check what units are in your LOS, THEN you can select one of them as a target.

Mannahnin,
The situation with Infantry is exactly the same.

1. From page 16, "In order to select an enemy unit as a target, at least one model in the firing unit must have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit. If no models have line of sight then a different target must be chosen."
2. "Infantry models can also be turned to face their targets in the Shooting phase, ..."

Note that the rules, in spite of assurances elsewhere, do not allow Infantry models to spin arbitrarily during the player's turn.

So, no, a lone Infantry model cannot select a target unit behind itself (a unit that it cannot see because it does not have line of sight to, without turning), using the same restricting logic that distinguishes between "currently visible" and "potentially visible" for walkers. And similarly for a unit of models all looking the wrong way.

Edit: Slight edit for clarity.

Mannahnin wrote:This, despite the clumsy phrasing on page 11 which implies that an infantry unit might conceivably be able to have a target before it has LOS to said target (which implication is in conflict with all the rest of the shooting rules), clarifies the issue by telling us that infantry actually DO NOT have a facing, for LOS purposes. That is, whatever direction an infantry model might happen to be facing is totally irrelevant for its LOS. Page 11 just explains it badly.

The problem with that is that you are taking a section that is dealing with LOS for Walkers, and assuming that it over-rides the section of the rules that actually deals with infantry.

Surely, when you're trying to determine how the rules for infantry work, that's a little backwards?


If you're assuming that page 72 takes precedence here, then page 11 doesn't make more sense... it makes absolutely no sense for them to tell us on page 11 that infantry can turn to face their targets if there is no point in actually doing so, or for the rule that explains that to be hidden at the end of the book in the rules for Walkers.

i Have a quick question regarding the chaos dred and this fire frenzy.

If you have dawn of war set up for deployment and before you move your dred on (as you roll before doing anything else) you roll a 1 do you still move your dred on 6inch and fire? or does the dred just stay off the board and goes into reserves we had this come up for the first time this weekend and just put it into reserves as there was no rules for this situation.

You ignroe the rule, as it could cause the dread to not move. See Reserves, page 94 from memory

solkan wrote:So, no, an Infantry model cannot shoot at a target behind itself, using the same restricting logic that distinguishes between "visible" and "potentially visible" for walkers.

Exactly. However, infantry models without LOS in a unit that has LOS can indeed turn once LOS is established. Walkers are a bit more restricted in that the pivot is limited.