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.

Grakmar wrote: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.

There are plenty of times where such "inconsistency" is deliberate. Given the fact that a number of "remove from play"/"dies automatically"/etc. abilities are very recent, it would be assinine to assume they were meant to be Instant Death instead.

This is why many folks tend to err on the side of RAW when things like this come up.

I have never heard even the die-hard RAI folks claiming Jaws of the World Wolf, for example, should make not affect models with Eternal Warrior--depite the fact that it reads very much like what you are suggesting.

Rephistorch wrote: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!

I see a paragraph that says, "Unlike infantry, a walker has a facing , which influences where it can fire..."

Then I see right under it under "Walkers Shooting" that they fire like a stationary vehicle.

Then I see that they can pivot to get its guns on a target and to assume the weapons have a 45 degree arc of sight like hull mounted weapons.

This does not interfere or conflict with what I wrote - sure, they can pivot but only within their 45 degree "arc of sight" and even the "Fire Frenzy" rule states the same thing.

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.

The rule book says the Dreadnaught has a facing, it fires like a stationary vehicle and can only pivot if it sees something within 45 degrees.

Nothing I see implies it can turn 180 degrees and disregard everything the rule book says. A Dreadnaught acts like infantry in the movement phase and in the assault phase but nowhere does it say it shoots like infantry in the shooting phase.

Why do people insist on making an only moderately effective CSM unit completely useless by assuming that it's only special rule is nothing but a total drawback, rather than a risk-reward ability (like damn near every other special rule, barring a few)?

The RAW is very clear here, as many have pointed out. The Dread shoots the closest target it can see, which we define as the LOS traced down the barrels of its guns, via the vehicle shooting rules (as it is a vehicle, and follows those rules specifically). I won't explain this any more, as I would be beating a dead horse, but the following is my opinion of why this confusion happens:

People who say the dread must shoot at the absolute nearest guys strike me as not wanting a fair game... since if the dread is supposed to turn and fire at the absolute nearest thing, it will damn near always fire at its allies. It seems to me that people are assuming that just because the dread is 'crazy' that it must hurt its own allies (because that's what crazy people do). These people then twist their interpretation of the actual wording of the rules, to fit the assumed function.

Since this assumption is based on fluff, I'm going to go out on a limb here (although fluff != rules) and say that nowhere does it say that the "crazy, psychotic" Chaos Dreadnoughts go out of their way to kill their own allies. They're just nutcases, plain and simple. So throw out that assumption that it must hurt its allies if it goes crazy. By that logic, Blood Rage should make it assault its own guys too.

Once people let go of that, they should see that the wording of the rule is very clear in this instance. Certainly, the RAW interpretation makes the rule much better, because it gives the CSM player the chance to hit very hard with a Plasma Cannon or Missile Launcher, but it absolutely doesn't make it over powered. The dread will still shoot its own allies in the back if the CSM player is dumb enough to put them in its front arc. Thus, it will often force the CSM player to keep units out of its fire arc, limiting their movement options.

Just my 2 cents on this. This gigantic argument is also why I never run Chaos Dreadnoughts against strangers...

Xca|iber wrote:Why do people insist on making an only moderately effective CSM unit completely useless by assuming that it's only special rule is nothing but a total drawback, rather than a risk-reward ability (like damn near every other special rule, barring a few)?

The RAW is very clear here, as many have pointed out. The Dread shoots the closest target it can see, which we define as the LOS traced down the barrels of its guns, via the vehicle shooting rules (as it is a vehicle, and follows those rules specifically). I won't explain this any more, as I would be beating a dead horse, but the following is my opinion of why this confusion happens:

People who say the dread must shoot at the absolute nearest guys strike me as not wanting a fair game... since if the dread is supposed to turn and fire at the absolute nearest thing, it will damn near always fire at its allies. It seems to me that people are assuming that just because the dread is 'crazy' that it must hurt its own allies (because that's what crazy people do). These people then twist their interpretation of the actual wording of the rules, to fit the assumed function.

Since this assumption is based on fluff, I'm going to go out on a limb here (although fluff != rules) and say that nowhere does it say that the "crazy, psychotic" Chaos Dreadnoughts go out of their way to kill their own allies. They're just nutcases, plain and simple. So throw out that assumption that it must hurt its allies if it goes crazy. By that logic, Blood Rage should make it assault its own guys too.

Once people let go of that, they should see that the wording of the rule is very clear in this instance. Certainly, the RAW interpretation makes the rule much better, because it gives the CSM player the chance to hit very hard with a Plasma Cannon or Missile Launcher, but it absolutely doesn't make it over powered. The dread will still shoot its own allies in the back if the CSM player is dumb enough to put them in its front arc. Thus, it will often force the CSM player to keep units out of its fire arc, limiting their movement options.

Just my 2 cents on this. This gigantic argument is also why I never run Chaos Dreadnoughts against strangers...

So do you think BA DC dreadnoughts can move backwards or sideways towards the enemy? As long as their weapon arc isn't on an enemy, they can move of their own volition in any direction they want? Side armor is the same as front armor, so "marching sideways" is a perfectly good strategy according to you.

Xca|iber wrote:People who say the dread must shoot at the absolute nearest guys strike me as not wanting a fair game...

I can see how you might think that, if you take the Chaos dread as a single, isolated situation. However, while I can't speak for everybody, I play it as the dread shooting the 'absolute nearest guys' not to make the game unfair but to keep things consistent, and avoid Raging models running backwards around the battlefield.

As I've said before in similar topics, the whole LOS/pivoting issue is quite a lot less clear cut than some people try to make out. I personally feel that 'visible' is supposed to include anything the model could see as it pivots, not just things in its immediate LOS. The pivoting happens as you choose your target, not afterwards. Allowing walkers to only pivot up to 45 degrees to bring their weapons to bear (despite the rules not explicitly imposing such a restriction) is, IMO, much less fair than forcing a unit that has a special rule requiring it to target friendly units if they are closer than the enemy to actually do so.

Which is clear if you played 4th edition where Dreadnoughts had a 360 degree line of sight, but incorrect under the 5th edition rules.

Mind you, there was a Deff Rolla petition that seemed to work (at least the FAQ was amended to comment on Deff Rollas) so it might be something to solicit GW to amend the Chaos Space Marine FAQ and comment on how Crazed (and Rage) works in 5th edition.

Rephistorch wrote:
So do you think BA DC dreadnoughts can move backwards or sideways towards the enemy? As long as their weapon arc isn't on an enemy, they can move of their own volition in any direction they want? Side armor is the same as front armor, so "marching sideways" is a perfectly good strategy according to you.

A fair point, but technically correct. I would have no problem with an opponent doing so.

insaniak wrote:I can see how you might think that, if you take the Chaos dread as a single, isolated situation. However, while I can't speak for everybody, I play it as the dread shooting the 'absolute nearest guys' not to make the game unfair but to keep things consistent, and avoid Raging models running backwards around the battlefield.

Another fair point, and I respect your opinion on this. I have to say though, under that ruleset, I would almost never take a Chaos Dreadnought (I barely use them as it is). 100+ points for a unit basically guaranteed to hurt your own guys ~16% of the game (or be limited to a couple builds) rather than just risking hurting them is a waste of points imho.

But I guess that's just what CSM get for having a terrible codex.

Xca|iber wrote:100+ points for a unit basically guaranteed to hurt your own guys ~16% of the game ...

Only if your own guys are closer than the enemy. A situation which is easily remedied.

insaniak wrote:

Xca|iber wrote:100+ points for a unit basically guaranteed to hurt your own guys ~16% of the game ...

Only if your own guys are closer than the enemy. A situation which is easily remedied.

I've never had a Chaos Dread fire frenzy without a friendly unit somewhere closer (but behind it). A first or second turn FF will almost surely be at your own units. If you try and stay away from the Dreadnoughts, you waste points on an easy kill for your opponent. (Any effective Mechdar player or Chaos Daemons player will annihilate a lone dreadnought or 2 without having to isolate any part of their own army).

I'm not trying to bash on your opinion here. I'm just saying that at least in my experience, Chaos Dreadnoughts are worthless if they always shoot the nearest thing. (It also forces them into 2 builds: ML or 2 DCCW, because anything else will basically shoot you in the foot - with ML/2DCCW, you can negate FF with vehicles).

Meh, just my 2 cents. I know a lot of people disagree with (arguable) RAW, and that's pretty much why nobody uses Chaos Dreads.

This thread is why I avoid this unit in its entirety.

Not only is the question hard to answer due to nebulous definitions of "visibility," but the intent of the rule is confusing as well.

Without digging into semantics, my first impression was that the Dreadnought finds the closest visible (ie not completely obscured by terrain) unit, pivots, and fires at it.

This is the knee-jerk reaction/interpretation of the rule. However, it makes more sense for the Dread to berzerk and shoot where it's currently facing (given the minor adjustment to bring both weapons to bear).

Final solution? Don't take Dreadnoughts in lists.

Or, take Dreadnoughts in lists and play it according to the rules...

I'm pretty sure visibility has nothing to do with it.

The dreadnought shoots twice at the nearest unit

If it can't see it, then it does nothing because it can't shoot it, but it doesn't then turn to the next nearest one. It just shoots at something it can't see. As I've always seen it being played, you just shoot at the nearest unit regardless of any form of visibility. The dread turns around to face the nearest unit. Not turning at a unit so that's closest.

geza55 wrote:
I'm pretty sure visibility has nothing to do with it.

The dreadnought shoots twice at the nearest unit

If it can't see it, then it does nothing because it can't shoot it, but it doesn't then turn to the next nearest one. It just shoots at something it can't see. As I've always seen it being played, you just shoot at the nearest unit regardless of any form of visibility. The dread turns around to face the nearest unit. Not turning at a unit so that's closest.

How about actually quoting the codex as it's written, not as you wish it was written?

Page 40:

"At the beginning of the Shooting phase it must pivot on the spot towards the closest visible unit (friend or foe!) and fire all of its weapons against it - twice!"

Wow, look at that! The word "visible," exactly where you omitted it!

You can't edit the codices just because they contain words you don't like, you know.

This is simple. You must pivot towards the closest unit, then shoot. You don't check to see if anything is visible then pivot.

Well, why does it say visible then? You can't excactly declare something visable without checking.
But to be honest I'm not sure how it should be played. I would probably not argue with the opponent much, aslong as I know how we will play it from the beggining.

Not that this matters from a RAW standpoint, but I also happen to feel that my interpretation (the Dread can only shoot at what's in its 45 degree arc of fire, "visible" doesn't mean 360 degrees) is also the most fair interpretation for the CSM player. I mean, the Chaos Dread is nothing more than a liability by any other interpretation. At least my interpretation makes the Dread slightly less bad for the CSM player.

SaintHazard wrote:Not that this matters from a RAW standpoint, but I also happen to feel that my interpretation (the Dread can only shoot at what's in its 45 degree arc of fire, "visible" doesn't mean 360 degrees) is also the most fair interpretation for the CSM player. I mean, the Chaos Dread is nothing more than a liability by any other interpretation. At least my interpretation makes the Dread slightly less bad for the CSM player.

This is basically what I was saying too. It's already an underused, not extremely effective choice. Making it worse via a house rule seems silly to me (even with the Raging Dreadnoughts issue).

I tend to play it that "visible" is anything in a 180 degree arc in front, so as long as my units are behind it cannot pivot to them as they are not visible before the pivot.

Rules wise it probably should be the 45 degree arc, this just feels like a good compromise - I STILL make my army less competitive by taking them, but at least it doesnt screw me over entirely....

In other words it feels just like it did during 4th edition?

Pretty much - its such a mess of a rule that quite frankly I go with whtever the opponent says - if they are adamant one way or the other I will just go with the flow, as I cant really pin any specific ruling down, in my mind at least.

So far I've not had any complaints at all, in quite a few tourneys (40 - 80 people events, 100 person campaign weekend) and planningon taking them to 2 more soon (longest day in Bristol - 4 games, 2 @ 1500, 2 @ 2000!, ONE day) so will see how it goes. We have quite an easy going bunch though, to be fair - most are savvy enough to recognise that taking dreadnoughts isnt really a WAAC move, along with my PM-less army, wth units of 8 'zerkers in rhinos and ONE DP (as two would fight...) and no sorcerors, of course.

Alright I've read this whole thread and have come to the following conclusion:

At the start of the shooting phase, the dreadnought pivots on the spot towards the closest visible unit (using the normal rules for vehicle LOS) and shoots it twice.

This means that since the dreadnought doesn't have turret weapons, his LOS is static and cannot change, however the pivot seems to be included so that all the weapons fire.

However in the instance where pivoting brings another unit closer to the dreadnought, it does not pivot again since the rules do not say it can do so, thus it follows the normal dreadnought shooting rules.

I fail to see how anyone can really argue with this. Sound rules are presented, you only need to reveal what you can and cannot do. You cannot draw LOS from a vindicators demolisher cannon from anywhere other than it's 45 degree arc, the same thing applies here.

This rule went from complicated to impossible

From my experience at a local club and FLGS we just pivot it to the closest unit (doesn't matter which direction, just the closest unit capable of being visible by pivoting to it) in the shooting phase, friend or foe! (if only we had drop pods... *sigh*)

If I had to drag in all this hubabaloo into it the game would never end. And the arguments.. dear lord.

We HAVE drop pods - Dreadclaws. Unfortunately the rules for them are terrible and in IA. To give you an idea they are more epensive than the marine dreadnought drop pod that lets you assault on landing, yet doesnt come in first turn and spends 1 turn as a flyer before it lands...sigh.

SaintHazard wrote:

geza55 wrote:
I'm pretty sure visibility has nothing to do with it.

The dreadnought shoots twice at the nearest unit

If it can't see it, then it does nothing because it can't shoot it, but it doesn't then turn to the next nearest one. It just shoots at something it can't see. As I've always seen it being played, you just shoot at the nearest unit regardless of any form of visibility. The dread turns around to face the nearest unit. Not turning at a unit so that's closest.

How about actually quoting the codex as it's written, not as you wish it was written?

Page 40:

"At the beginning of the Shooting phase it must pivot on the spot towards the closest visible unit (friend or foe!) and fire all of its weapons against it - twice!"

Wow, look at that! The word "visible," exactly where you omitted it!

You can't edit the codices just because they contain words you don't like, you know.

However this is actually how the RaW works. The visible part becomes irrelevant because it never states that the models have to be visible to the dread just visible. As far as I'm aware GW don't make any invisible models, so all models and units are all always visible. So yes you turn the Dread to the nearest unit and it fires at it. If there is no LoS then those shots are wasted. This is the RaW.

Though it is pretty obvious what the rule is meant to do.

This is why I take 2 CCW arms. At this version is better than the 3.5th ed one where it fired on the spot the moment you rolled it, now you have a chance to get the hell out of dodge.

FlingitNow wrote:The visible part becomes irrelevant because it never states that the models have to be visible to the dread just visible. As far as I'm aware GW don't make any invisible models, so all models and units are all always visible.

What?!? Why put the word "visible" in the rule, then, if it's completely irrelevant?

Ian Sturrock wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:The visible part becomes irrelevant because it never states that the models have to be visible to the dread just visible. As far as I'm aware GW don't make any invisible models, so all models and units are all always visible.

What?!? Why put the word "visible" in the rule, then, if it's completely irrelevant?

I think the better question would be why include the word "visible" at all if vehicles don't have defined viability arcs other than for weapons LOS.

What?!? Why put the word "visible" in the rule, then, if it's completely irrelevant?

Maybe GW intend to make some invisible models in the future. I don't know I'm not speculating on intent (because that is totally clear) I'm just stating what the RaW is. It is 100% clear he fires at the nearest visible unit, all units in the game currently are visible therefore he fires at the nearest unit regardless of LoS.

The actual rules were covered already, thank you for thoughtful ways to change them, though.

Unless you are joking, which I keep hoping to be the case.

See page 16 for what makes a model "not visible".

Pages 58-60 also may be relevant if you want to reference vehicles.

Your own personal field of view as a player is largely irrelevant.

Your own personal field of view as a player is largely irrelevant.

Yes this is correct. However the rule makes no mention of what the Dread can or can not see, it just states visible. All units in the game are visible as none are invisible, this has no bearing on what I can see or what you can see or what anyone else can see at any given moment. It says visible, not in LoS, not even Visible to the dread (which would imply in LoS). So until GW start making invisible units everything is visible.