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.

Alright, something that is an issue just in that it is kinda a grey area and I was looking for opinions. Now the commen judgement is a vehicle uses it;s weapons for LOS. Now it was pointed out to me that the actual wording for it is

“When firing a vehicle’s weapons, … line of sight is determined from the weapon’s mounting point and along its barrel …” On page 56 of our big book of rules. Now this is well and good, but what happens when your model is not firing weapons per say. This is coming up with a local player whom is doing a death company army with Dreads. You charge towards the closest enemy unit due to rage. His oppenent ran a jet bike squad behind him. He turned and fired at them as the closest enemy Now the oppenent said no, he had to run forward because the closest visible enemy is in front of him to which Dread Player said and I quote "I am not shooting, so the weapon mount line of sight does not apply. They argued, and almost got kicked out of the FLGS before they finally rolled off on it. So what say you, is this a case of rules laywering or does someone actually have a point.

You seem to have misinterpreted the Rage Rules. Rage does not force you to shoot at the closest enemy, nor does it force to assault. It only forces you to MOVE towards the closest enemy.

There is no problem here because he is not forced to assault or shoot anything.

That being said, it is not determined how you decide what is visible or not. Do models have a 360* Vision arc? Are vehicles restricted by their weapons? Who knows. RaW Rage is actually broken, but in this case, there is not an issue because he isn't forced to shoot them.

doubled wrote: is this a case of rules laywering or does someone actually have a point.

Why not both?

The rules for using the barrel DO 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.

So. . .

Both people are correct?


Editing to add:
+ What Gwar! said about rage.

kirsanth wrote:Otherwise you must check LOS from a (non-vehicle) model's eyes (page 16). Which dreads do not have.

he sees you!! alot of dreads actually do (most of the forgeworld ones, both venerable models) while the other marine ones has a vison slit EXACTLY where the eyes would be on a venerable dread.



as for the orks, they also either have eyes or the obvious vision slit.



this really isn't much of an issue. applying a bit of common sense to a strict RAW blunder goes a long way.

So I should assume the rules are based on forgeworld models? Or that a line carved on the front of a vehicle is "eyes"?

Also, a fair number of Tyranid weapons have eyes.

Going to make LOS issues fun. . . .

If the debate here is the fact that the dread could not have seen the enemy that then became the closest, if it helps people comprehend the situation then why not assume the dread heard the jetbikes coming in behind, that would still fit with the rage rule cos as soon as the dread heard the bikes he reacted and the rage was focused towards the bikes.

kirsanth wrote:So I should assume the rules are based on forgeworld models? Or that a line carved on the front of a vehicle is "eyes"?

you mean something that is obviously modelled as a vehicle view port for those inside to look outside and is placed exactly where the SAME model (see the plastic venerable dread kit) can put an included head with actual eyes? then yes... i do assume you are capable of doing that. as for basing it on forgeworld, i'd recommend you read the other 90% of the post where i comment on GW's models. you commented that dreads don't have eyes; i simply showed you that every dread does have them or an easy to recognize equivalent.

warboss wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Otherwise you must check LOS from a (non-vehicle) model's eyes (page 16). Which dreads do not have.

he sees you!! alot of dreads actually do (most of the forgeworld ones, both venerable models) while the other marine ones has a vison slit EXACTLY where the eyes would be on a venerable dread.



as for the orks, they also either have eyes or the obvious vision slit.



this really isn't much of an issue. applying a bit of common sense to a strict RAW blunder goes a long way.

kirsanth wrote:So I should assume the rules are based on forgeworld models? Or that a line carved on the front of a vehicle is "eyes"?

Also, a fair number of Tyranid weapons have eyes.

Going to make LOS issues fun. . . .

All of the models posted by Warboss were GW models, not Forgeworld. Also, a "vision slit" is nothing else if not a place to "see" from?

For people wondering why I mentioned ForgeWorld.

warboss wrote:[(most of the forgeworld ones, both venerable models)

As for some slits being for vision, 100% agree.

However, that does not make them viable for drawing LOS, as that actually states "eyes" are used.

line of sight is 360 degrees. There is no mention anywhere that LOS is only in the front arc.

tgf wrote:line of sight is 360 degrees. There is no mention anywhere that LOS is only in the front arc.

Did you even read the vehicle LOS rules?
You know, the rules to use when LOS involves a vehicle?
Page 58, Vehicle weapons and Line of Sight.

Or read this thread, most of the relevant rules are posted.

Editing to add:
Actually did you read ANY of the LOS rules?
Normal LOS is not drawn through the models head, it's from the eyes to a target.
Infantry models can also turn in the shooting phase to see 360 degrees.
Walkers are not infantry.

did you read the walker rules, they can spin in shooting phase.

Exactly like Infantry. Meaning thy have the same allowance as infantry - thy have to turn to look.

tgf wrote:did you read the walker rules, they can spin in shooting phase.

Which has exactly zero bearing on what was being discussed.

doubled wrote:“When firing a vehicle’s weapons, … line of sight is determined from the weapon’s mounting point and along its barrel …” On page 56 of our big book of rules. Now this is well and good, but what happens when your model is not firing weapons per say.

Also, please point out where your claim of models having 360 degree vision comes from in the rules?

kirsanth wrote:

tgf wrote:did you read the walker rules, they can spin in shooting phase.

Which has exactly zero bearing on what was being discussed.
...

It actually does have bearing in the argument. It says that you can pick a target and turn the dreadnought so that it's weapons are pointing at the target. If the dreadnought was already pointing at the target (LoS arcs from the weapon as you say), why would it need to pivot? It makes perfect sense if you look at the rules logically. The dreadnought can pick a target outside of it's firing arcs, turn towards it, and shoot upon it.

Rephistorch wrote:If the dreadnought was already pointing at the target (LoS arcs from the weapon as you say), why would it need to pivot?

So that any other potential weapons are also in line, so that flamers can hit more of the target, etc.

kirsanth wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:If the dreadnought was already pointing at the target (LoS arcs from the weapon as you say), why would it need to pivot?

So that any other potential weapons are also in line, so that flamers can hit more of the target, etc.

are actually trying to say a dread can not shoot something behind it in the shooting phase?

kirsanth wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:If the dreadnought was already pointing at the target (LoS arcs from the weapon as you say), why would it need to pivot?

So that any other potential weapons are also in line, so that flamers can hit more of the target, etc.

Why would it specifically say to determine LoS AFTER selecting your target and pivoting? Infantry models are specifically allowed to turn towards the unit they are firing on. Walkers move as infantry do. They have a special rule saying that they can pivot during the shooting phase, just like infantry do. Why wouldn't they be able to choose a target the way infantry can?

" Now this is well and good, but what happens when your model is not firing weapons per say (sic). "

This is what I was responding to originally.

I understand the way dreadnoughts fire.

tgf wrote:are actually trying to say a dread can not shoot something behind it in the shooting phase?

Does it matter? You've got an entire Movement phase to get into position, during which you can spin about all you want.

SaintHazard wrote:

tgf wrote:are actually trying to say a dread can not shoot something behind it in the shooting phase?

Does it matter? You've got an entire Movement phase to get into position, during which you can spin about all you want.

It matters a lot for the argument at hand. It also matters during the shooting phase for target priority. If you killed a unit in front of the dreadnought with other shooting units, why shouldn't the dreadnought be able to turn around as per it's rules to shoot what's behind it?

Rephistorch wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

tgf wrote:are actually trying to say a dread can not shoot something behind it in the shooting phase?

Does it matter? You've got an entire Movement phase to get into position, during which you can spin about all you want.

It matters a lot for the argument at hand. It also matters during the shooting phase for target priority. If you killed a unit in front of the dreadnought with other shooting units, why shouldn't the dreadnought be able to turn around as per it's rules to shoot what's behind it?

Because the rules don't let you...

Gwar! wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

tgf wrote:are actually trying to say a dread can not shoot something behind it in the shooting phase?

Does it matter? You've got an entire Movement phase to get into position, during which you can spin about all you want.

It matters a lot for the argument at hand. It also matters during the shooting phase for target priority. If you killed a unit in front of the dreadnought with other shooting units, why shouldn't the dreadnought be able to turn around as per it's rules to shoot what's behind it?

Because the rules don't let you...

The rules do let you. They say to pick a target, and then turn the walker towards that unit so that it's weapons are pointing at them. The rules tell you to do that.

So how do you pick a target for something that can't pick a target?

If the Dread cannot draw LOS, it cannot pick a target.

SaintHazard wrote:So how do you pick a target for something that can't pick a target?

If the Dread cannot draw LOS, it cannot pick a target.

How do you pick a target for infantry that aren't facing a unit that is behind them?

Rephistorch wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:So how do you pick a target for something that can't pick a target?

If the Dread cannot draw LOS, it cannot pick a target.

How do you pick a target for infantry that aren't facing a unit that is behind them?

Infantry don't have a firing arc like Dreads do. Infantry have 360 degrees of LOS.

Dreads, on the other hand, only have 45 degrees.

Is it just me or do some of these posts come across as mixed signals from the fire frenzy thread?

The walker rules say that you pivot on the spot, then measure range and LoS. in that order.

so you are allowed to pivot, then measure range and LoS.

DeathReaper wrote:The walker rules say that you pivot on the spot, then measure range and LoS. in that order.

so you are allowed to pivot, then measure range and LoS.

And the fire frenzy rules tell you to do otherwise.

Specific > General.

SaintHazard wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:So how do you pick a target for something that can't pick a target?

If the Dread cannot draw LOS, it cannot pick a target.

How do you pick a target for infantry that aren't facing a unit that is behind them?

Infantry don't have a firing arc like Dreads do. Infantry have 360 degrees of LOS.

Dreads, on the other hand, only have 45 degrees.

It does not say in the rulebook that infantry have 360 degree LoS. It does say that infantry models can turn to face their targets in the shooting phase, very similar to the way walker rules are written. Coincidence? Not in my opinion. The only difference is that the walker rules remind you that you facing matters, you MUST face your target, and afterwords, your rear armor may be exposed. That's the price you pay for aiming at a target behind your own lines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The walker rules say that you pivot on the spot, then measure range and LoS. in that order.

so you are allowed to pivot, then measure range and LoS.

And the fire frenzy rules tell you to do otherwise.

Specific > General.

Wrong thread perhaps?