Torrent

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.

**Kevlar**

Dreadnought comparisons don't really apply as walkers have much different rules than standard vehicles.

**Bausk**

Boneblade wrote:
Okay.

Because the interpretation of the Dreadnaught pivot rule may be different than what I originally considered, lets drop it. I'm not sure whether the intention was to allow dreadnaught's to target units that are outside of its Line of Sight, or to allow it to target units inside ONE of it's weapons Line of Sight and therefor pivot to include ALL of its weapons. One scenario has the dreadnaught with a 360 line of sight, awarded by being a Model according to Pg 8. The other dictates that the Dreadnaught is a vehicle, and therefor its eyes are its weapons and their respective firing arcs.

So I present you this:

The Armless Dreadnaught Theory.

I have Timmy the Dreadnaught. In an unlucky shooting phase, Timmy loses both of his arms to Weapon's Destroyed results. Being a dreadnaught, any weapons Timmy may have had are also destroyed.

But, Timmy has 3 hullpoints! Yay! Timmy is still alive.

In the next turn, Timmy is ready for some pay back. Some of the nasty model's that helped blow off his arms are right in front of him, and Timmy wants to charge in and beat them all to a pulp. They are 3" inches away from Timmy, directly in front of him.

But wait.. Timmy can't assault them anymore, because he has no more arm-eyes!

Pg 20, left side.
"A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit it cannot see."

So suddenly, a Dreadnaught that has no inherent Line of Sight (from being a model, Pg 8) is prohibited from even declaring a charge because Timmy-haters have said that his only eyes are his weapons and their firing arcs. It wouldn't even matter if Timmy was a Hellbrute, and had an angry face in the middle of his torso with its own eyes.

So.. I don't know about you, but that doesn't seem right to me. But lets clear up a few loose strings before we do anything else.

Hey! Wait! If Timmy was a normal Dreadnaught, those only have 2 Attacks on their profile. When a dreadnaught loses an arm, it would be reduced to 0 attacks! What then?

Well, technically, it might not be a very good idea for Timmy to charge anything. But that doesn't mean he can't. Zero Characteristic rules for the "Attacks" characteristic only states he cannot swing in close combat, not that he can't engage in one. Furthermore, he gets +1 attacks on the charge, anyways. (Ref. Pg 3, Zero-level Characteristics). And that's ignoring the fact Timmy, or Timmy wannabes, might have more than just 2 attacks on the profile.

And actually.. now that I'm trying to find it.. I don't even see the part where losing a weapon reduces his attacks on the profile? Huh.

You're fun.

As stated on page 72, when vehicle fire weapons they use the weapons LoS, not the models. The model still has a LoS, but in the instance for firing its weapons its superseded by the weapons LoS instead. The walker would still be able to charge. As the weapons LoS is the only consideration when you fire a weapon, like say a bale flamer, then its LoS is used for all shooting rules, not the models.

The whole point to the pivot rule, and pretty much all the exceptions the walkers have like being able to fire an overwatch, is to emulate a infantry model while still allowing enemy's to have a definitve facing then they come to shoot at it. It loses an attack only if its a bonus attack from an addtional close combat weapon. if it loses the original close combat weapon it only loses the weapons rules, not an attack.

**Happyjew**

Boneblade wrote:
Pg 20, left side.
"A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit it cannot see."

Huh, I guess I should stop charging with my Wraithlord then. It is even more useless now as not only can it not shoot, it can't charge either. OC Wraithlords aren't vehicles....wait a sec, my War Walkers have pilots, surely they could see the unit right in front of them, right?

**rigeld2**

Page 72 also defines "Arc of Sight" which is not traced along a weapon.

You keep coming up with situations that have odd interactions, but haven't yet cited a rule nor defended your assertion that a Heldrake would not be able to see behind it using your interpretation.

Please do so.

**Boneblade**

Bausk wrote:

You're fun.

As stated on page 72, when vehicle fire weapons they use the weapons LoS, not the models. The model still has a LoS, but in the instance for firing its weapons its superseded by the weapons LoS instead. The walker would still be able to charge. As the weapons LoS is the only consideration when you fire a weapon, like say a bale flamer, then its LoS is used for all shooting rules, not the models.

Thank you.

So, the Vehicle has its own Line of Sight, as described on Pg 8.

When firing the Bale Flamer, I wholeheartedly agree with you - its in the Shooting phase, and you use the weapon's own Arc of Fire to determine it's Line of Sight. This is completely fair. If it were a normal weapon without any extra special rules, and no target were available within 45 degrees, that would be the end of our long, hard story.

But the Bale Flamer is a Torrent weapon. As such, and as previously established in this thread, it can generate "hits" on models outside of the 45 degree firing arc. So what's left?

Pg 16, Out of Sight.

"If no models in the FIRING UNIT can see a particular model, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be allocated to the nearest visible models in the target unit."

Nowhere does it say that it must be within the line of sight of the weapon's firing arc, OR that when considering a Vehicle in the context of a shooting attack, it can only "see" units as determined by the weapon-in-question's Firing Arc.

Pg 72 directly addresses how to fire the weapon. Then you consider Torrent, and generating Hits and Wounds to fill the Wounds Pool.

Then, you consider Pg 8 and 16 to determine whether or not it is valid to allocate wounds to models within YOUR models Line of Sight.

**Bausk**

Boneblade wrote:
Bausk wrote:

You're fun.

As stated on page 72, when vehicle fire weapons they use the weapons LoS, not the models. The model still has a LoS, but in the instance for firing its weapons its superseded by the weapons LoS instead. The walker would still be able to charge. As the weapons LoS is the only consideration when you fire a weapon, like say a bale flamer, then its LoS is used for all shooting rules, not the models.

Thank you.

So, the Vehicle has its own Line of Sight, as described on Pg 8.

When firing the Bale Flamer, I wholeheartedly agree with you - its in the Shooting phase, and you use the weapon's own Arc of Fire to determine it's Line of Sight. This is completely fair. If it were a normal weapon without any extra special rules, and no target were available within 45 degrees, that would be the end of our long, hard story.

But the Bale Flamer is a Torrent weapon. As such, and as previously established in this thread, it can generate "hits" on models outside of the 45 degree firing arc. So what's left?

Pg 16, Out of Sight.

"If no models in the FIRING UNIT can see a particular model, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be allocated to the nearest visible models in the target unit."

Nowhere does it say that it must be within the line of sight of the weapon's firing arc, OR that when considering a Vehicle in the context of a shooting attack, it can only "see" units as determined by the weapon-in-question's Firing Arc.

Pg 72 directly addresses how to fire the weapon. Then you consider Torrent, and generating Hits and Wounds to fill the Wounds Pool.

Then, you consider Pg 8 and 16 to determine whether or not it is valid to allocate wounds to models within YOUR models Line of Sight.

You can generate hits, roll to wound and they can even fail their saves. But you can't allocate unsaved wounds outside of LoS, which is the weapons LoS when dealing with shooting attacks reguardless if its a torrent weapon or not. The only allocation of wounds outside of LoS occur with Look out sir and, because its technically not from the weapon, barrage weapons.

**Boneblade**

Bausk wrote:
Boneblade wrote:
Bausk wrote:

You're fun.

As stated on page 72, when vehicle fire weapons they use the weapons LoS, not the models. The model still has a LoS, but in the instance for firing its weapons its superseded by the weapons LoS instead. The walker would still be able to charge. As the weapons LoS is the only consideration when you fire a weapon, like say a bale flamer, then its LoS is used for all shooting rules, not the models.

Thank you.

So, the Vehicle has its own Line of Sight, as described on Pg 8.

When firing the Bale Flamer, I wholeheartedly agree with you - its in the Shooting phase, and you use the weapon's own Arc of Fire to determine it's Line of Sight. This is completely fair. If it were a normal weapon without any extra special rules, and no target were available within 45 degrees, that would be the end of our long, hard story.

But the Bale Flamer is a Torrent weapon. As such, and as previously established in this thread, it can generate "hits" on models outside of the 45 degree firing arc. So what's left?

Pg 16, Out of Sight.

"If no models in the FIRING UNIT can see a particular model, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be allocated to the nearest visible models in the target unit."

Nowhere does it say that it must be within the line of sight of the weapon's firing arc, OR that when considering a Vehicle in the context of a shooting attack, it can only "see" units as determined by the weapon-in-question's Firing Arc.

Pg 72 directly addresses how to fire the weapon. Then you consider Torrent, and generating Hits and Wounds to fill the Wounds Pool.

Then, you consider Pg 8 and 16 to determine whether or not it is valid to allocate wounds to models within YOUR models Line of Sight.

You can generate hits, roll to wound and they can even fail their saves. But you can't allocate unsaved wounds outside of LoS, which is the weapons LoS when dealing with shooting attacks reguardless if its a torrent weapon or not. The only allocation of wounds outside of LoS occur with Look out sir and, because its technically not from the weapon, barrage weapons.

The weapon's Line of Sight, as defined on page 72

IS DIFFERENT

Than the model's Line of Sight, as defined on Pg 8.

Pg 16, Out of Sight rules, refers to the FIRING UNIT.

Pg 72 describes how you fire the weapon, not how you allocate wounds.

**Brometheus**

Let's take a break:

**rigeld2**

Page 8 is overruled by page 70. As I've said before.
And you still haven't answered the question of where the rule is that tells you how to draw LoS with a vehicle.

Please do so.

**DeathReaper**

In 6th, by strict RAW, dreadnoughts can not charge. This is because you can not charge models out of LoS, and vehicles are not allowed to draw LoS outside of the shooting phase.

**martian_jo**

Vehicles cannot assault. They can perform a special tank shock move which is done differently than a charge. Walkers are granted the permission to charge by the special rules for walkers.

That aside, the walker issue seems moot in regards to the torrent weapon firing issue.

I don't have the new CSM dex but does it specifically state that it's a hull mounted weapon?

If it's specifically stated to be hull mounted then yes it has a 45 degree LOS from the mouth, though I'd still be inclined to say the FAQ ruling on blast markers inflicting wounds out of LOS would also pertain to torrent templates though RAW doesn't specifically allow it.

**rigeld2**

The codex doesn't say either way.

**DeathReaper**

martian_jo wrote:
Vehicles cannot assault. They can perform a special tank shock move which is done differently than a charge.

Why was this included? It has nothing to do with the topic at hand...

**martian_jo**

Weapons with no listed mounting are subject to the limits of the model. I second the motion for someone to cut the neck up and make it fully articulated to solve this issue. +40,000 internets to anyone who accomplishes this feat.

Also I would like to suggest that until this FAQed (if ever) if you're running a Helldrake you consult with your opponent (or TO) before shooting as to what the LOS should be, rolling off if you can't come to a mutual resolution.

Edit:

DeathReaper wrote:
martian_jo wrote:
Vehicles cannot assault. They can perform a special tank shock move which is done differently than a charge.
Why was this included? It has nothing to do with the topic at hand...

In retrospect you're right. Included out of my own sense of completeness while trying to get rid of the Dread mess.

**jdjamesdean@mail.com**

martian_jo wrote:
Weapons with no listed mounting are subject to the limits of the model. I second the motion for someone to cut the neck up and make it fully articulated to solve this issue. +40,000 internets to anyone who accomplishes this feat.

Also I would like to suggest that until this FAQed (if ever) if you're running a Helldrake you consult with your opponent (or TO) before shooting as to what the LOS should be, rolling off if you can't come to a mutual resolution.

Than a fully articulated neck would be MFA? Oh joy to the person that asks what LOS will be at our local shop. 30 minute speech about why aren't dwarves in 40k and he'll just wind up asking me what I think >.<

**MarkyMark**

I would say it has 90deg being a neck an all,

**nosferatu1001**

Boneblade - again, page 70 tells you to ignore the rules for non-vehicle models. So yes, RAW a dreadnought can NEVER charge.

Does this silly RAW mean you get to pretend it has 360 LOS in general? No. Not at all.

So, again, you have no rules support, none, allowing you to allocate wounds to models outside of the weapons firing arc

And, given that neither the assembly nor gluing has causing the model to be fixed for firing arc, but the design of the model itself, this firing arc is a hull mount

**Bausk**

DeathReaper wrote:
In 6th, by strict RAW, dreadnoughts can not charge. This is because you can not charge models out of LoS, and vehicles are not allowed to draw LoS outside of the shooting phase.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Boneblade - again, page 70 tells you to ignore the rules for non-vehicle models. So yes, RAW a dreadnought can NEVER charge.

Does this silly RAW mean you get to pretend it has 360 LOS in general? No. Not at all.

So, again, you have no rules support, none, allowing you to allocate wounds to models outside of the weapons firing arc

And, given that neither the assembly nor gluing has causing the model to be fixed for firing arc, but the design of the model itself, this firing arc is a hull mount

Reads all relevant pages;

8 states you use the 'models eye' view, any model can do that and its pedantic to presume they literally mean the model needs eyes to draw LoS.
70 has nothing to do with page 8s use of LoS
72 states when firing a vehicles weapons we use the weapons LoS, so only when we are firing weapons are we using these rules.
and page 84 lists walkers as being able to assault and be assaulted like infantry

Now I don't read anywhere in these rules that we are to assume the LoS of a walker is anything but from its 'model eye' view unless its firing a weapon. Am I missing where it says walkers and vehicles must always use the weapons LoS or is it just used when they are firing a weapon?

**rigeld2**

Bausk wrote:

8 states you use the 'models eye' view, any model can do that and its pedantic to presume they literally mean the model needs eyes to draw LoS.
70 has nothing to do with page 8s use of LoS

Not true. 70 says that all the rules before it are for non-vehicles, and the rules for vehicles are contained in that section.
Therefore the LoS rules on page 8 do not pertain to vehicles.

**nosferatu1001**

"Such vehicles do not fight in the same manner as creatures of flesh and blood - that's why their rules have been compliled in this section"

Means page 8 does not apply, as vehicles have their own rules, self contained unless explicitly stated otherwise

**Brometheus**

MarkyMark wrote:
I would say it has 90deg being a neck an all,

**Bausk**

rigeld2 wrote:
Bausk wrote:

8 states you use the 'models eye' view, any model can do that and its pedantic to presume they literally mean the model needs eyes to draw LoS.
70 has nothing to do with page 8s use of LoS

Not true. 70 says that all the rules before it are for non-vehicles, and the rules for vehicles are contained in that section.
Therefore the LoS rules on page 8 do not pertain to vehicles.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Such vehicles do not fight in the same manner as creatures of flesh and blood - that's why their rules have been compliled in this section"

Means page 8 does not apply, as vehicles have their own rules, self contained unless explicitly stated otherwise

One; It does not state that 'All the rules before do not apply'

Two; Page 8 does not state that it is for a flesh and blood model or a vehicle model, just that it applies to models. They still follow all the rule before with the exceptions and amendments listed in the vehicle section They still move, just a bit differently. They still shoot, just with slightly amended rules. Some still assault, and they assault just like infantry if they do but with some differences because it has no toughness or wounds.

**rigeld2**

Bausk wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Bausk wrote:

8 states you use the 'models eye' view, any model can do that and its pedantic to presume they literally mean the model needs eyes to draw LoS.
70 has nothing to do with page 8s use of LoS

Not true. 70 says that all the rules before it are for non-vehicles, and the rules for vehicles are contained in that section.
Therefore the LoS rules on page 8 do not pertain to vehicles.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Such vehicles do not fight in the same manner as creatures of flesh and blood - that's why their rules have been compliled in this section"

Means page 8 does not apply, as vehicles have their own rules, self contained unless explicitly stated otherwise

One; It does not state that 'All the rules before do not apply'

Two; Page 8 does not state that it is for a flesh and blood model or a vehicle model, just that it applies to models. They still follow all the rule before with the exceptions and amendments listed in the vehicle section They still move, just a bit differently. They still shoot, just with slightly amended rules. Some still assault, and they assault just like infantry if they do but with some differences because it has no toughness or wounds.

"their rules have been compiled in this section." That looks, to me, like the rules for vehicles are in that section. Looking outside that section for rules related to vehicles without being told to isn't correct.

**Bausk**

rigeld2 wrote:
Bausk wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Bausk wrote:

8 states you use the 'models eye' view, any model can do that and its pedantic to presume they literally mean the model needs eyes to draw LoS.
70 has nothing to do with page 8s use of LoS

Not true. 70 says that all the rules before it are for non-vehicles, and the rules for vehicles are contained in that section.
Therefore the LoS rules on page 8 do not pertain to vehicles.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Such vehicles do not fight in the same manner as creatures of flesh and blood - that's why their rules have been compliled in this section"

Means page 8 does not apply, as vehicles have their own rules, self contained unless explicitly stated otherwise

One; It does not state that 'All the rules before do not apply'

Two; Page 8 does not state that it is for a flesh and blood model or a vehicle model, just that it applies to models. They still follow all the rule before with the exceptions and amendments listed in the vehicle section They still move, just a bit differently. They still shoot, just with slightly amended rules. Some still assault, and they assault just like infantry if they do but with some differences because it has no toughness or wounds.

"their rules have been compiled in this section." That looks, to me, like the rules for vehicles are in that section. Looking outside that section for rules related to vehicles without being told to isn't correct.

Just like the rules for units other than infantry are covered in an earlier section, they still use all the rule before just differently or with alterations listed. Vehicles get their own fuller section because the change is more radical, they have a base unit type change to vehicle (which covers the stat line change on the very same page) and expanded unit types listed there after. To say they don't use a single rule from before page 70, which again it does not say, is madness as they would not follow the rules for turns or phases. They don't roll to wound can't or hit because those rules are covered before page 70.

The biggest issue I have is your assertion that its an absolute statement that precludes the rules before rather than a an additive statement covering how do deal with vehicles in the rules before. Your inferring that everything that came before has no bearing, which could not be because they could not actually participate in a turn as they don't have and can't use rules for a turn, player or game.

**HawaiiMatt**

Bausk wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

"their rules have been compiled in this section." That looks, to me, like the rules for vehicles are in that section. Looking outside that section for rules related to vehicles without being told to isn't correct.

Just like the rules for units other than infantry are covered in an earlier section, they still use all the rule before just differently or with alterations listed. Vehicles get their own fuller section because the change is more radical, they have a base unit type change to vehicle (which covers the stat line change on the very same page) and expanded unit types listed there after. To say they don't use a single rule from before page 70, which again it does not say, is madness as they would not follow the rules for turns or phases. They don't roll to wound can't or hit because those rules are covered before page 70.

The biggest issue I have is your assertion that its an absolute statement that precludes the rules before rather than a an additive statement covering how do deal with vehicles in the rules before. Your inferring that everything that came before has no bearing, which could not be because they could not actually participate in a turn as they don't have and can't use rules for a turn, player or game.

Compiled means that the rules have been collect and put in this section. That would be looking outside of that section would result in finding the original rule that was copied into the vehicle section, or that you're looking at rules that don't apply to vehicles.

As for dreadnoughts not being able to charge, I don't know what you're talking about. Mine have eyes.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space-Marine-Dreadnoughts/DARK-ANGELS-VENERABLE-DREADNOUGHT.html

-Matt

**rigeld2**

Bausk wrote:

Just like the rules for units other than infantry are covered in an earlier section, they still use all the rule before just differently or with alterations listed. Vehicles get their own fuller section because the change is more radical, they have a base unit type change to vehicle (which covers the stat line change on the very same page) and expanded unit types listed there after. To say they don't use a single rule from before page 70, which again it does not say, is madness as they would not follow the rules for turns or phases. They don't roll to wound can't or hit because those rules are covered before page 70.

You should read the Vehicle rules - they cover shooting rules.

The biggest issue I have is your assertion that its an absolute statement that precludes the rules before rather than a an additive statement covering how do deal with vehicles in the rules before. Your inferring that everything that came before has no bearing, which could not be because they could not actually participate in a turn as they don't have and can't use rules for a turn, player or game.

Do unit types take turns, or do players?

**DeathReaper**

HawaiiMatt wrote:
As for dreadnoughts not being able to charge, I don't know what you're talking about. Mine have eyes.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space-Marine-Dreadnoughts/DARK-ANGELS-VENERABLE-DREADNOUGHT.html

-Matt

Good luck drawing Line of Sight to anything on the ground with that thing.

**nosferatu1001**

Bausk - so you are ignoring "compiled" then. And the part where it says they dont use the rules for flesh and blood models

In fact you are saying the entire sentence can be ignored. Bad argument there.

**Bausk**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Bausk - so you are ignoring "compiled" then. And the part where it says they dont use the rules for flesh and blood models

In fact you are saying the entire sentence can be ignored. Bad argument there.

No, I just disagree that it an absolute statement. The statement is as easily interpreted, and better interpreted, as; "The complied rules for vehicles - as they are different to units before it and here's how." rather than; The compiled rules for vehicles - Just ignore everything before it."

Just as anything that's not infantry has further rules that are added to, expanded on or replace the standardised infantry unit. As vehicles are more different they need a base unit alteration on the general vehicle rules from page 70 onwards to the first specific vehicle unit type. This does not change the basic rules for models, regardless what type of model it is, but it does alter them where listed.

I'm so glad this discussion of Torrent weapons has somehow ended up in a pedantic debate about a sentence in the vehicle section, especially because it has nothing to do with the topic. YMDC is fun. lol

**Lordhat**

Kevlar wrote:
The bale flamer has a greater than 45 degree firing arc.

"On some models it will be impossible to literally move the gun and point it toward the target because of the way the model is assembled and because the gun is glued in place. In this case players should assume the guns are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings".

The bale flamer is mounted on an articulated snake like neck. Look at the range of motion on your average snake head. This is the range of motion and the line of sight restriction of the bale flamer. ie 360.

I agree with this statement except that I would be more inclined to limit the arc to 180. There's no way I can even fathom a 'hull mounted' ruling.