Immobilised Dreads

[bystrom]

Well, there are the following two quotes:

Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot [...]

along with the description of Immobilised:

An immobilised vehicle may not turn in place [...]

Walkers can "pivot" when shooting, which is done by turning the vehicle, first quote, pg 57, which is disallowed by an immobilised vehicle, so a Walker shouldn't be able to pivot, aka turn when immobilised.

[Mordekiem]

Well, there are the following two quotes:

Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot [...]

along with the description of Immobilised:

An immobilised vehicle may not turn in place [...]

Walkers can "pivot" when shooting, which is done by turning the vehicle, first quote, pg 57, which is disallowed by an immobilised vehicle, so a Walker shouldn't be able to pivot, aka turn when immobilised.

There we go, we have a winner! :D And we even have rules qoutes not a bunch of "I think..." or "I meant to read the rulebook once, but never did..." :P

 

Yes, walkers may pivot or turn in the shooting phase and not have it count as movement. But any vehicle that is immbolised may no longer turn or pivot in place.

 

Unless walkers have a specific exception to this damage result that I am not aware of.

 

And anyone who tries to argue that turn and pivot are not the same thing in this case is just grasping at straws.

[Trekari]

A Walker's legs may not turn if it has suffered the Immobilised result.

 

The torso is free to rotate in it's 45 degree arc for weapons firing, but the legs must stay put.

[greatcrusade08]

I think people need to work out the exact meaning of immobilised.

 

Immobile:

adj.

Immovable; fixed.

Not moving; motionless.

 

If it was just the legs it would say 'crippled'

n.

A person or animal that is partially disabled or unable to use a limb or limbs:

 

If it is immobile it cannot even move to wipe its own backside, which means no turning on its axis, no pivoting no picking its nose....Full stop

 

Hope this helps i really hate having to turn to the dictionary,

 

GC08

 

EDIT: Weapons will still get their 45 degree firing arc though!!

[Roland Durendal]

Well, there are the following two quotes:

Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot [...]

along with the description of Immobilised:

An immobilised vehicle may not turn in place [...]

Walkers can "pivot" when shooting, which is done by turning the vehicle, first quote, pg 57, which is disallowed by an immobilised vehicle, so a Walker shouldn't be able to pivot, aka turn when immobilised.

 

 

An that my friends, is what we call logic. Succinct and to the point

 

I must agree now with that intepretation

[Gamers World]

You want fluff I will give you fluff. The walker was caught in the numatics of his leg, the numatics shut down and the walker's legs froze up. The body/gun mount can still pivot because that part of the system still works allowing you to pivot the walker. Even if you find I am wrong then just use the 45 degree fire arc and that gives you a lot of versitality.

[greatcrusade08]

You want fluff I will give you fluff. The walker was caught in the numatics of his leg, the numatics shut down and the walker's legs froze up. The body/gun mount can still pivot because that part of the system still works allowing you to pivot the walker. Even if you find I am wrong then just use the 45 degree fire arc and that gives you a lot of versitality.

 

Mute point really, fluff has nothing to do with the rules of the game, as i posted above people need to realise what immobile actually means.

[Mordekiem]

A Walker's legs may not turn if it has suffered the Immobilised result.

 

The torso is free to rotate in it's 45 degree arc for weapons firing, but the legs must stay put.

Do you have a rules quote to back up this statement?

 

I'm curious where in the rulebook or codex it says that only the legs are immobilised, but not the torso. I'm also curious to see a rule that says the torso turns independently of the legs. The rules seem to say that you turn the entire walker, not just the top.

[rat of vengence]

If my Vindicator was immobilised (okay, when, since it happens so often!) it can still shoot its demolisher cannon in a 45 degree arc. I don't see how dread weapons would be different. I agree that the rules make it obvious that the dread cannot turn or pivot. However, the 45 dgree shooting arc still remains.

 

RoV

[nighthawks]

just to throw some promethium into the conflagration:

 

The rules regarding turret-mounts allow that if it looks like it can rotate, it can. the FAQ went a lot further on this. the SM dread is very obviously able to pivot at the "waist" while ork dreds and kans are obviously NOT. So it would seem that the upper body of a walker, if obviously able to pivot some reasonable amount, may do so even when immobilized (or even when not) and thus have a 45° arc over the "turret" pivot.

 

(I think the above is a poor argument, as the rules distinctly divide walkers from other vehicles, and specify a 45° arc AFTER a pivot. as we have agreed that pivoting is turning, the arc is as stated WITHOUT pivot when imobilized, but I just wanted to stoke the flames...)

[nurglez]

ok, heres some anti fluff, the SM dread was struck with a lascannon, fusing the waist solid and disabling the power feed to its legs, thus leaving it stuck the way it was facing, unable to turn.

 

or the SM dread was struck in the leg, disabling the power feed, the torso then turned 90 degrees to engage the enemy who shot it and, over balanced and unable to move its legs to counter balance, fell down and couldn't get up.

 

My gaming group has always played that if you cant move, you cant turn either, be it dread or vehicle.

[Phelos]

ok here's one since a walker is immobilized how does it defend it's self in cc? If it can't turn to shoot how does it turn to face it's attacker in cc? If it matters that much during a game roll a dice. Keeping the game moving and having a good time is what we do in our club. :D

[greatcrusade08]

ok here's one since a walker is immobilized how does it defend it's self in cc? If it can't turn to shoot how does it turn to face it's attacker in cc? If it matters that much during a game roll a dice. Keeping the game moving and having a good time is what we do in our club. <_<

 

Quote from pg 73 mini rule book

"Immoblised and/or stunned walkers fight in close combat with one less attack than usual (to a minimum of 1), but otherwise attack normally, no matter how many immobilised or stunned results they suffered"

[Trekari]

A Walker's legs may not turn if it has suffered the Immobilised result.

 

The torso is free to rotate in it's 45 degree arc for weapons firing, but the legs must stay put.

Do you have a rules quote to back up this statement?

 

I'm curious where in the rulebook or codex it says that only the legs are immobilised, but not the torso. I'm also curious to see a rule that says the torso turns independently of the legs. The rules seem to say that you turn the entire walker, not just the top.

 

1) I should mention that my dreadnought is mounted on a magnet between the torso and legs, so I actually can visibly SEE a 45 degree arc by rotating the torso of mine.

 

2) As others have stated, the weapon arcs (and thus the turret turning) are no different on an immobilised walker than they are on a Predator, Vindicator, or any other vehicle with firing arcs. You would no more argue that a side-sponson (or turret) cannot turn it's weapon on an immobilised predator than you would argue a vindicator could only shoot exactly straight forward.

 

It should also be mentioned that whether the torso can actually rotate or not based on how you modeled the walker, the Front/Side/Rear armor determination is always made based off of the position of the legs on the base, which are IMMOBILE in the current discussion.

[Phelos]

ok here's one since a walker is immobilized how does it defend it's self in cc? If it can't turn to shoot how does it turn to face it's attacker in cc? If it matters that much during a game roll a dice. Keeping the game moving and having a good time is what we do in our club. :(

 

Quote from pg 73 mini rule book

"Immoblised and/or stunned walkers fight in close combat with one less attack than usual (to a minimum of 1), but otherwise attack normally, no matter how many immobilised or stunned results they suffered"

 

That was the point I was trying to make if it is immobilized why wouldn't the armor penetration results be calculated using the rear armor? Like it was back in 3rd? Instead of 4th and the current 5th rules. All the points that everyone is making are very good it just seems that there is no absolute. I wasn't aware that there is a difference in the mini rule book and the BRB is there? Or is that just a reference to the pages maybe being different?

[OwenCrute]

Okay, so we have a rules/fluff inconsistency.

 

We know at least that in the fluff, SM Dreads can spin around like nutters, and indeed it is a rather effective tactic of theirs.

 

We know from that rules post by Mordekeim that a Dread can only fire in a 45 degree arc.

 

**EDIT**

 

NO LEET SPEAK

 

Very simple here guys. NO LEET NO MATTER WHAT.

[greatcrusade08]

That was the point I was trying to make if it is immobilized why wouldn't the armor penetration results be calculated using the rear armor? Like it was back in 3rd? Instead of 4th and the current 5th rules. All the points that everyone is making are very good it just seems that there is no absolute. I wasn't aware that there is a difference in the mini rule book and the BRB is there? Or is that just a reference to the pages maybe being different?

 

The mini rule book has a slightly different page layout so i always quote the book along with page number.

 

You make a great point about the armour pen for an immobilised dread, as its immobilised it becomes a 'static' target much like a regular vehicle.

from pg 73 mini rule book:

"Models hitting a walker in close combat always roll for penetration against its front armour. This is because the walker is not a static target like other vehicles and rampages through the melee, turning to face its enemies"

 

As it cannot turn does this mean it becomes a static target and normal vbehicle rules apply, it would seem as though this would be the logical process but unless there is a rule to back this up it doesnt matter.

 

Now it maybe argued by a rules lawyer, that this 'rule' is noted as an exemption to normal vehicle rules for CC, so in the case of an immobilised dread we could revert to the normal rules (hit vs rear), but the rules specifically say:

"Immobilised and/or stunned walkers fight in close combat with one less attack than usual (to a minimum of 1), but otherwise attack normally, no matter how many immobilised or stunned results they suffered"

 

This clears the matter up rules wise, it doesnt matter if the dread is immobile it may still attack back in CC and you still have to attack its front armour!

I would agree however this leaves us with questions over the fluff, but im sure someone could figure that out for us!

 

GC08

[Phelos]

That was the point I was trying to make if it is immobilized why wouldn't the armor penetration results be calculated using the rear armor? Like it was back in 3rd? Instead of 4th and the current 5th rules. All the points that everyone is making are very good it just seems that there is no absolute. I wasn't aware that there is a difference in the mini rule book and the BRB is there? Or is that just a reference to the pages maybe being different?

 

The mini rule book has a slightly different page layout so i always quote the book along with page number.

 

You make a great point about the armour pen for an immobilised dread, as its immobilised it becomes a 'static' target much like a regular vehicle.

from pg 73 mini rule book:

"Models hitting a walker in close combat always roll for penetration against its front armour. This is because the walker is not a static target like other vehicles and rampages through the melee, turning to face its enemies"

 

As it cannot turn does this mean it becomes a static target and normal vbehicle rules apply, it would seem as though this would be the logical process but unless there is a rule to back this up it doesnt matter.

 

Now it maybe argued by a rules lawyer, that this 'rule' is noted as an exemption to normal vehicle rules for CC, so in the case of an immobilised dread we could revert to the normal rules (hit vs rear), but the rules specifically say:

"Immobilised and/or stunned walkers fight in close combat with one less attack than usual (to a minimum of 1), but otherwise attack normally, no matter how many immobilised or stunned results they suffered"

 

This clears the matter up rules wise, it doesnt matter if the dread is immobile it may still attack back in CC and you still have to attack its front armour!

I would agree however this leaves us with questions over the fluff, but im sure someone could figure that out for us!

 

GC08

That is awesome thanks! :D

[Mordekiem]

So please explain to me why all this fluff is flying around in a rules discussion? ;)

 

 

A Walker's legs may not turn if it has suffered the Immobilised result.

 

The torso is free to rotate in it's 45 degree arc for weapons firing, but the legs must stay put.

Do you have a rules quote to back up this statement?

 

I'm curious where in the rulebook or codex it says that only the legs are immobilised, but not the torso. I'm also curious to see a rule that says the torso turns independently of the legs. The rules seem to say that you turn the entire walker, not just the top.

 

1) I should mention that my dreadnought is mounted on a magnet between the torso and legs, so I actually can visibly SEE a 45 degree arc by rotating the torso of mine.

 

2) As others have stated, the weapon arcs (and thus the turret turning) are no different on an immobilised walker than they are on a Predator, Vindicator, or any other vehicle with firing arcs. You would no more argue that a side-sponson (or turret) cannot turn it's weapon on an immobilised predator than you would argue a vindicator could only shoot exactly straight forward.

 

It should also be mentioned that whether the torso can actually rotate or not based on how you modeled the walker, the Front/Side/Rear armor determination is always made based off of the position of the legs on the base, which are IMMOBILE in the current discussion.

Let me clarify as I think I misunderstood you.

An immobilised dreads still has a 45 degree arc of fire. However you cannot turn the body as this would change your 45 degree arc of fire. If you meant that the dread can still fire in 45 degrees then I agree. If you claim that you can rotate the upper half of the torso to change where your arc of fire is pointing then I disagree.

 

As for the dread being a turret I think that is kind of weak. Just because you don't glue your model together or you put magnets on him doesn't make him a turret. The black reach dread does not rotate at the waist. I'm curious if anyone has the directions from the dread box on how to put together the dread. Does it indicate that you should not glue the waist so it can turn?

[Trekari]

When I rotate the torso of my dread, I do not extend the 45 degree arc. Instead of being a static, facing-forward torso with an imaginary 45 degree arc to each side, I can actually turn the weapons within that 45 degree arc to 'see' it.

 

The vehicle has taken a hit that has crippled a

wheel, track, grav plate, jet or leg. It may not move

for the rest of the game. An immobilised vehicle

may not turn in place but its turret may continue to

rotate to select targets, and other weapons retain

their normal arc of fire.

 

If my dread is immobilized, then wherever it's legs were facing, is where they stay. The torso still rotates within it's 45 degree arc so I can see LOS and measure distances properly.

[Praeger]

Time to make a few things clear.

 

1 - NO FLUFF

 

I can make up fluff showing that a dread can fly due to a cat with hydrolic powered wings. Doesnt matter one bit when it comes to rules so NO MORE DISCUSSING FLUFF.

 

2 - As the rules state. the dread is imobolised it CANT MOVE.

 

Pivoting in every sense of the word is still moving.

 

3 - it is very eay to CHEAT when pivoting the dreads body.

 

Let me expand on this more - imagine that the weapon is stuck pointing fowards on the imobolised dread, now the 45' arc is obvious. Oh but what about that tank at 50'? sorry cant be hit.

 

Now we do the same on a dread that can pivot its top body, now we "accidently" pivot that body and weapon to 60' and now the enemy tank can be hit.

 

Might not seam much to some of you, but the rules are written here to stop this type of action from certain layers who might desperatly need that extra shot.

 

 

So to sum up - im firmly in the camp of no pivoting when imobolised :P

[WarpSpawn]

If my dread is immobilized, then wherever it's legs were facing, is where they stay. The torso still rotates within it's 45 degree arc so I can see LOS and measure distances properly.

 

I think it is rather more sensible to use the main body of the dread for the purpose of facing, rather than the legs. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it may be cheating (if only in a minor way) to turn the body in such a way as to effect LoS, whilst still using the facing of the legs, even if you still only operate in the 45 degree arc based n the leg's facing. On any other vehicle, you are permitted to turn the weapon itself (if not glued in place) to assist with LoS, or just for effect. You are not permitted to turn the vehicle. The only acception to this is a turret and anything counted as a turret. First of all, a dread does not have a turret. Second, turret mounted weapons do not have an arc independent of the turet (except elevation perhaps). You don't turn the turret then claim an additional 45 degree arc (such as if the turret cannot rotate 360 on that model).

 

Walker weapons are effectively hull mounted. If you fire a Vindicator's weapon, you leave the tank static and figure out what falls within the fire arc, you don't turn the tank up to 45 degrees, then ask your opponent to make believe it is facing the original direction (or even return it to the original heading), yet this is pretty much what you are proposing wth the dread.

[King Tiger]

this question has been clearly answered so many times in 1 topic now (and answers ignored in equal amounts by people who obviously can't be bothered to read there rulebooks or a dictionary), how does it continue to exist?

[Kek]

Holy crap how the hell did this escalate to a full blown war ;) me and brother cambius only wanted to see if anyone had an idea. Now it's totally mad

Pistols at dawn everyone!!!

[Trekari]

If my dread is immobilized, then wherever it's legs were facing, is where they stay. The torso still rotates within it's 45 degree arc so I can see LOS and measure distances properly.

 

I think it is rather more sensible to use the main body of the dread for the purpose of facing, rather than the legs. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it may be cheating (if only in a minor way) to turn the body in such a way as to effect LoS, whilst still using the facing of the legs, even if you still only operate in the 45 degree arc based n the leg's facing. On any other vehicle, you are permitted to turn the weapon itself (if not glued in place) to assist with LoS, or just for effect. You are not permitted to turn the vehicle. The only acception to this is a turret and anything counted as a turret. First of all, a dread does not have a turret. Second, turret mounted weapons do not have an arc independent of the turet (except elevation perhaps). You don't turn the turret then claim an additional 45 degree arc (such as if the turret cannot rotate 360 on that model).

 

Walker weapons are effectively hull mounted. If you fire a Vindicator's weapon, you leave the tank static and figure out what falls within the fire arc, you don't turn the tank up to 45 degrees, then ask your opponent to make believe it is facing the original direction (or even return it to the original heading), yet this is pretty much what you are proposing wth the dread.

 

Let's take two dreadnoughts for comparison. One has a static pose with the torso exactly inline with the legs, the other can swivel the torso 45 degrees to each side of forward.

 

No go read the rules for dreadnought firing.

 

When firing a walker’s weapons, pivot the walker on

the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target

(assume that all weapons mounted on a walker can

swivel 45º, like hull-mounted weapons) and then

measure the range from the weapon itself and line of

sight from the mounting point of the weapon and

along its barrel, as normal for vehicles.

 

If I want to fire at something that is exactly 45 degrees left of my walker, I don't have to pivot the walker at all, as the rulebook tells me my weapons have a 45 degree arc to them. Thus my facing for armor determination would be identical for both dreadnoughts. Both of them have the legs facing directly forward, only the 'static' dreadnought imagines the 45 degree arc and also cannot accurately measure distances since you are GUESSING at where the weapon is located in its 45 degree arc, whereas the dynamic dreadnought can actually pivot the torso to visually show the weapons 45 degree arc, as well as place the weapon exactly where it needs to be for measuring distance, LOS, etc.

 

So explain to me again how the torso is what should determine armor facing? You want to punish someone for going the extra step to mod? In your world, the above example would be punishing the player who used magnets to show some dynamic movement ability, rather than just being forced to guess at where the weapon might be.

 

As to your comparison to "any other vehicle," again I remind you to actually read the rules for walkers and shooting. "Any other vehicle" is not permitted in the shooting phase to actually turn towards its target: Walkers are. Barring 'immobilised' results, a walker can turn 180 degrees in the shooting phase if the player chooses in order to fire its weapons, so let's not make comparisons to Vindicators with different rulesets, shall we?