Immobilised Dreads

[WarpSpawn]

I'm not trying to punish anyone. If you want to mod your dread so the weapons can pivot, fine, you do that. Weapons on most vehicles are intended to pivot, even if actually glued in place. The problem is that you are not talking about pivoting just the weapons, are you? In pivoting the whole body, you are potentially going to bring a weapon into range or LoS that otherwise might not have been, if the dread was left immobile. Also, since the 45 degrees are measured from the weapon itself, not the dread's waist, you are not adhering to the 45 degree fire arc from the weapon, no matter how much you may try to tell yourself otherwise.

 

It might not make much difference, and therefore may not be cheating a lot, but it certainly is cheating.

 

"Any other vehicle" is not permitted in the shooting phase to actually turn towards its target: Walkers are.

 

Not a walker that is immobilised.

[greatcrusade08]

I think this thread needs to be finished soon, theres a whole lot of people talking but no-ones listening.

Heres what i have already posted

 

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!!

 

 

And this

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

 

These are the rules as laid out by GW, if you knowingly break or bend the rules when you know what the rules are that is cheating!

Of course people do make mistakes, thats why we like to clear up the rules first!

[Trekari]

WarpSpawn, you're right. I am not adhering exactly to a 45 degree arc as measured from the mounting point itself, but the area covered remains exactly a 45 degree arc. Until you come up with an effective way to mod a ball-and-socket joint into the dreadnoughts arms, then you'll just have to tolerate a swiveling torso, especially since the very model itself shows absolutely no logical (or physical) way for only the weapon itself to turn without turning the torso with it. Nobody that I have played has EVER cried about it or dared label it cheating. They have all thought it very cool that the model can actually turn. If you are the kind of person to cry about it and bring up the label of cheater, then you're the kind of person I simply would end the game with right then and there and never play against again.

 

Greatcrusade, let's not bring the dictionary into this as some sort of "I win" button, ok? Particularly when your definition trumps your own argument.

 

Immobile:

adj.

Immovable; fixed.

Not moving; motionless.

 

If you want to use the dictionary, then how would the weapons still retain a 45 degree arc? Does the bullet bend mid-flight in order to turn towards a target?

[King Tiger]

If you want to use the dictionary, then how would the weapons still retain a 45 degree arc? Does the bullet bend mid-flight in order to turn towards a target?

no, the arms mounting the weapons obviously have a limited traverse, like a hull mounted weapon does on a tank, just like how the rulebook says as well, so you don't even need to pivot the torso

[Trekari]

My point is that if he's going to claim the definition means "not moving; motionless" then the arms would also be NOT MOVING.

 

If you look back through my posts in this thread, you will find my stance on this issue VERY clear. My post above was merely pointing out the ridiculousness of trying to toss down a dictionary definition and say the argument is over.

 

Go read the damage table for "Immobilised," which I posted here: http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...t&p=1774699

 

It very clearly lists the areas of a vehicle that are hit by the shot. The only one listed that a walker has is a LEG. Therefore the LEGS may not move, but everything else functions as normal.

[Praeger]

Wow congrats guys.

 

I was on the verge of closing this topic at my last post, and since that post you have posted off-topic comments, ripped into each other, and generally caused me a LOT of hassles.

 

Oh yes, warnigns will be issued.

 

Topic will be closed.

 

If you cant act civil then dont post. Simple as that.

 

Expect to receive a PM from me very shortly.