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.

Had a small debate with someone the other day.

Had a dreadnaught standing right behind a rhino such as the dread was about 50% covered but you can still see over the rhino pretty easily with the weapon arms. As we understood it, shooting at the dreadnaught would give him the 4+ cover and is quite clear from the book

Our question thn became, if the target of the dreadnaught was out in the open and fully visible, like a distant rhino or infantry. Does the dread who is still very much right behind his covering rhino but can "see" over it, count as having a clear LOS?

i.e. does the intervening models rule apply in this scenario? vs vehicles it seems like it would not apply since the target vehicle is fully visible but we weren't sure and how about for infantry?

If you have clear LOS over another unit, you have clear LOS.

If both weapon arms are clear, I would look carefully to see whether the dreadnought is indeed 50% covered. most of its mass/surface frontage is in the body and arms; the legs are quite small.

There is no requirement in 40k for cover saves, or indeed TLOS, to be reciprocal. Just because I receive a cover save in X position does not automatically mean that my shooting at you will alos give you a cover save.

So in this situation as long as the barrels can see enough of the target, and they are not obscured by the rhino, then no cover save is given from the rhino being in front of the dreadnought. However note that the recetn rhino kits and non-scenic based dreads have a *hard* time seeign "over" eachother, especially at non0vehicle targets on the ground. When you take a LOS *along* the barrel you often find you are skimming over the top of the heads of the mdels.

TLOS works from the head of the model, or in the case of vehicles, from the turret fireing.

Therefore if your guns have a clear view of the entire enemy model even though you are behind the Rhino, the enemy wont get cover but you will since from thier point of View they can only see half your Dread.


Red and blue Rectangles are Dreads in a shootout.
Orange Rectangle is a Rhino
Yellow dot = Dreads Gun level

using this crumby diagram you can see by drawing sightlines that the dread on the left has an obcured view of the dread on the right. While the dread on the right can clearly see almost the entire dread on the left.

Dread on left has no cover.
Dread on right has cover save.

Edited to say I am wrong.

No evidence but…

I just tried this and the standard, unchanged space marine dreadnought with a assault cannon can not see over a standard, unchanged rhino
So the dred can NOT use this technique!

I think the other guy must be using the old Rhino. It is smaller and lower.

Also, autocannon arms (typically the Aegis set) have the barrels higher up, which means it's easier to trace LoS over things.

The Assault Cannon arm has the gun pretty low on the model.

His dreadnought probably is on a cork board too.

The rhinos and dreads that I use are older editions and when the dread is mounted on a base it has enough "lift" to see over the older, shorter rhino. However, as a result of it's smaller profile, I don't think the rhino would provide the dread cover unless additional cover was being taken advantage of.

The autocannon arms are indeed higher up on the dread. Wierd things also start happening when you bring contemptor dreads into this thing.

Guess this ties into the other thread but how are old rhinos perceived/allowed in tourny play?

I think in tournament, all old and new models are allowed. If I were a TO though, I would specifically forbid certain older models due to their advantage.

Also, conversion for unavailable models need to have pre-defined muzzle point.

Otherwise, I can mount my autocannon on top of the dreadnought (just like hunter killer missles of the Ironclad Dreadnought). Hmm this gives me an idea, pushing Razorback forward and letting my Ironclad shooting 2 HK missles.

I don't use my old Carnifexes and Hive Tyrants because they're just too small. When a unit of Warriors not only gives a cover save, but could 100% block LoS - there's a problem.

In a friendly game, if the opponent doesn't mind, I'm totally going to use them however - because I love those old models.

Everything is TloS.

Its entirely possable for a dreadnought to itself have cover from the rhino but its target have none.

With a few exceptions here and there, my army is composed of mostly 2nd edition models. I've never been prevented from using any models at tournament or had anyone cry foul. Most opponents I face are impressed with the older models and the work I've invested in them.

Here's the situation, my enemy's dread is a little higher than the chimera but the auto cannons are not.

He claims that since the dread has base contect with the chimera it can ignor the chimera and has a clear shot.

I don't think so, but I still allowed him to do that --- to make the game continue.

And tabled his henchmen with Draigo and, my dreads


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Psyflemen's autocannons maybe a little higher than a rhino's hull but still lower than a chimera's, unless the dreadnought has a really high base.....that's my opinion.

apple1988218 wrote:Psyflemen's autocannons are a little higher than a rhino's hull but still lower than a chimera's, unless the dreadnought has a really high base.....that's my opinion.

Its hard to say as there are so much scratch build or kitbashed psyflemen everywhere >.<

LunaHound wrote:

apple1988218 wrote:Psyflemen's autocannons are a little higher than a rhino's hull but still lower than a chimera's, unless the dreadnought has a really high base.....that's my opinion.

Its hard to say as there are so much scratch build or kitbashed psyflemen everywhere >.<

Maybe next time i should put the 2 autocannons on the top of the dreads, just like an autocannon weapon station......

Apple - no such rule exists. Next time get them to shwo you the rule.

A stock GW dreadnought, with FW autocannon arms, CANNOT see over a rhino chassis - at least not to a target roughly the size or less of the rhino, and too close in, on the same level as the dread. It just cannot do so.

the only way to be able to see "over" a rhino is using scenic bases to add a few mm to the dread, and using non-standard weapon mounts to raise the level of the autocannon.

apple1988218 wrote:Maybe next time i should put the 2 autocannons on the top of the dreads, just like an autocannon weapon station......

Maybe found a few tall ones. Though the new comtemptor makes it easier! xD



This space is reserved for mods. Because to you guys, obviously the concept of "a picture of a thousand words never applies to Lunahound"
No matter how on topic, and how precise the picture conveys the topic of the discussion. and you'll take any dumb reason ( yes I asked ) to ban me with.

those contemptors actually look pretty sweet, I'm gonna have to pick up some of those one of these days

sudojoe wrote:those contemptors actually look pretty sweet, I'm gonna have to pick up some of those one of these days

Don't do it in a tournament.......

apple1988218 wrote:

sudojoe wrote:those contemptors actually look pretty sweet, I'm gonna have to pick up some of those one of these days

Don't do it in a tournament.......

nooooo I musssttttt. They are legal right?

Ask the TO, they have final say. Our general rule is that models aer treated as GW standard, if it becomes an issue

apple1988218 wrote:Here's the situation, my enemy's dread is a little higher than the chimera but the auto cannons are not.

He claims that since the dread has base contect with the chimera it can ignor the chimera and has a clear shot.

Ask your opponent for a page number and make him show you where the underlined ''Rule" is.

sudojoe wrote:

apple1988218 wrote:

sudojoe wrote:those contemptors actually look pretty sweet, I'm gonna have to pick up some of those one of these days

Don't do it in a tournament.......

nooooo I musssttttt. They are legal right?

They are completely legal.

The real problem is when people use the weapons articulation to draw LoS over a vehicle hull. There is no problem, unless the person glued it in place, pointing the weapons up and drawing LoS over the hull of the vehicle. Is that legal? I think so, a lot of TOs have ruled it is, but I don't have my brb near me to look it up atm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:

apple1988218 wrote:Here's the situation, my enemy's dread is a little higher than the chimera but the auto cannons are not.

He claims that since the dread has base contect with the chimera it can ignor the chimera and has a clear shot.

Ask your opponent for a page number and make him show you where the underlined ''Rule" is.

Also... this

Overwatch - no, theyre not. they are not WYSIWYG, as they are "contemptor dreadnoughts", not "dreadnoughts". A TO could perfectly justify banning these as counts-as as well, based on the size discrepancies between the two.

Simply pointing the weapon "up" wont help you draw LOS over a rhino - as you draw LOS *along* the barrel, meanig your LOS will also go "up" and away from the table. Unless your target is much higher than the dreadnought, youre still not going to see it!

Nos is right. Per the rules you draw LOS "along" the barrel, so you have to be able to point it at the target. You can't point the barrel up in the air like a periscope and then claim to draw LOS in whatever direction you like at any angle from the tip.

Generally speaking, IME if the dread is tall enough to get clear LOS over the Rhino with autocannon arms to a unit which is on the ground (not up on a hill or on a Valkyrie base), then most or all of its torso is going to be exposed and it probably won't have cover itself either. If the dread has been specially-converted with its arms up high to get clear LOS with them, while still hiding part of the body and claiming cover from a Rhino, it's probably going to constitute modeling for advantage.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Overwatch - no, theyre not. they are not WYSIWYG, as they are "contemptor dreadnoughts", not "dreadnoughts". A TO could perfectly justify banning these as counts-as as well, based on the size discrepancies between the two.

Simply pointing the weapon "up" wont help you draw LOS over a rhino - as you draw LOS *along* the barrel, meanig your LOS will also go "up" and away from the table. Unless your target is much higher than the dreadnought, youre still not going to see it!

Good point! The along the barrel part I had been misinterpreting this whole time .

As far as the Contemptor goes though I think the player fielding it as a regular dread will have a significant disadvantage coupled with their slight advantage. Namely the Contemptor is easier to see and shoot, and will be much less likely to gain a cover save as well. That being said ime most TOs have been allowing Contemptors as regular dreads in tournaments, and I wouldn't tell someone not to in a casual game or a game against me in a tournament. The advantage gained just doesn't seem as big a deal, plus if they have the actual FW weapons the arms sit, depending on basing, at about the same height as a normal dreads arms (This is the experience I have had with my Contemptor but mine has a normal 60mm base without huge rocks etc.). So your point about "drawing LoS along the barrel" will negate that advantage pretty easily.

also, Autocannon dreds can have LoS over a Rhino if they used the Aegis defense line Autocannons as the upper barrel will most certaintly have a clear visual to the target.

and double barreled weapons are not covered by the rules so only one needs to have clear LoS for no cover to be given.