Immobilised Dreadnought

[MechSpacewulf]

My Ven Dread got immobilised of course and we rolled to see if he could pivot to target other units... is there any official specific language on this in the rule book?

 

MechSpacewolf

[Cedric]

The deread itself can't pivot after beign immobilised (like any other vehicle, its gears or whatever are broken), however the weapons still have their 45* firing arc.

[MechSpacewulf]

THANKS!

[DevianID]

Isnt it 180 degrees for a dread weapon?

[Frosty the Pyro]

nope weapon pivit is 45 just like any vehicle, its mentioned in the walker section of the BRB pg 72

[Isiah]

My Ven Dread got immobilised of course and we rolled to see if he could pivot to target other units... is there any official specific language on this in the rule book?

 

MechSpacewolf

 

BRB p57 6th para under Vehicles and Movement:

 

"...(however Immobilised vehicles may not even pivot)."

 

That seems a bit tight considering a tank may still rotate it's turret even when immobolised. If you read the Immobilised rule on p61 it merely mentions a vehicle can't "turn in place".

 

Now presumably if an immobilised dread keeps his feet still he could rotate his upper body to select a target? Ie effectively his upper body becomes the turret? You would need to model it so you could point the weapons though as the rule for firing walker's weapons state, while still keeping feet immobile. Just a thought.

 

Cheers

I

[WarpSpawn]

Considering the fire arcs of a walker's weapons are clearly defined, and a Dreadnought is in no way whatsoever described as having a turret (nor is the standard model equiped with one), that plan would really have to count as converting for advantage. Not very sporting in my opinion and no better than mounting a Landraider's sponson weapons on a turret (not all codices specify where they are after all).

[Spacefrisian]

Considering the fire arcs of a walker's weapons are clearly defined, and a Dreadnought is in no way whatsoever described as having a turret (nor is the standard model equiped with one), that plan would really have to count as converting for advantage. Not very sporting in my opinion and no better than mounting a Landraider's sponson weapons on a turret (not all codices specify where they are after all).

 

You could mount the Lascannons on a turret yes but its is clearly statet in the dex that they are not turret mounted but mounted on sponses.

[Isiah]

Considering the fire arcs of a walker's weapons are clearly defined, and a Dreadnought is in no way whatsoever described as having a turret (nor is the standard model equiped with one), that plan would really have to count as converting for advantage.

 

I understand it doesn't have a turret <_< that was merely a "nearest item" comparison. Modelling to advantage: maybe :P. Anyway rereading the Walkers rules it does say:

 

"pivot the walker on the spot so its guns are aimed at the target "

 

so maybe for that reason alone it precludes the rotating body...?

 

...Even though in reality we know it's body can rotate because it says so as interestingly, immobilised walkers in cc still only get hit on the front armour only – thus they must still be able to rotate something for that purpose yes? But obviously not for shooting.

 

Anyway I'm not trying to flout any rules there just thinking aloud ;).

 

Cheers

I

[WarpSpawn]

Although, taken in context along with the fire arc and glued weapons rules, pivoting so that "its guns are aimed at the target" can reasonably be taken to mean "pivot the walker on the spot so that the target is within the fire arc of it's guns".

 

Bottom line is that the rather more articulated Dreadnought has been treated somewhat harshly by the generalised walker rules in 5th edition but that's what we are stuck with I guess.

 

I'm particularly surprised on the whole by the decision not to make all hits on the rear when immobilised though (or at least the actual facing). I guess this is representative of model's like the Dreadnought's increased articulation, whilst being overly generous to many of the more static models. Swings and roundabouts I suppose.

[Seahawk]

They would have to differentiate between walkers that can pivot (with quality hip action, ie dreadnoughts, defilers, and sentinels) and those that can't (war walkers, ork kans and dreads, penitent engines, etc). Not all walkers have the "turret joint" like the first three, thus all have to suffer equally. Until GW starts writing more than the most basic of rules.

[Venemox]

Well, as much as I hate to do this... Mr. Isiah did close this thread, and refer us to the above threads... so... THREADOMANCY!

 

I agree that walkers are not classified as having turrets (or Tourettes, but that is another matter altogether), and cannot pivot to shoot. Clear enough, and makes sense.

 

HOWEVER... the BRB says on page 78 'refer to the vehicle's entry, where each weapon has been classified as either turret-mounted, pintle-mounted (or 'bolt-on', sponson mounted, or hull mounted.'

 

Where does this particular piece of information reside? I've been able to find some of them, but not all of them, and there seems to be no rhyme or reason to where they're placed. Prime example is the Hunter-killer Missile from the BA codex. No mention in the pages of fluff for each unit as to their mounting, nor in the Vehicle Equipment section, nor the army list. are we to assume that the HKM acts as a pintle mounted weapon because it's modeled that way and looks like it should? Is that not the same argument that is denied to pivoting walkers who are immobilized? Do I need to ask the same questions about the Demolisher Cannon on the Vindicator, or any of the main weapons on any of the Land Raiders?

[Squirrelloid]

idk, Its pretty clear to me from p59 that the guidelines given are only for if everything is in fact glued in place. If the model's parts can move they are allowed to do so to judge firing arc, and anything you can point at you can fire at. Immobilized only prevents the dreadnought *base* from moving, ergo, it can make use of its articulation. The intention of the listed firing arcs seems to be for when the weapon is not articulated or cannot be articulated to point at the target on its own.

 

Its also pretty clear that the *weapons* are treated as hull mounted, but the hull itself can rotate on a dreadnought. We can point the weapons at the target by rotating the hull. The only thing the rules say about rotating parts other than turrets and sponsons is "When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them against the target and then trace the line of sight..." That's literally all that is said about rotations that aren't the turret or sponsons. The dreadnought can do just that - it can point its weapons at the target even if its base can't move.

 

IMO, vehicles seem intended to use their articulation when possible. There is very little rules text to rely on, however. The rules certainly don't forbid articulated walkers from rotating. And they seem to suggest elsewhere that any on-model rotations are permitted. And remember the fundamental rule of the game for most model-related things: WYSIWYG.

 

But there's no ironclad case to be made either way.

[Leonaides]

In general this particular piece of information resides on the model. Is the model on a turret? Is it on a side sponson? Is it mounted directly on the hull? Is it on a pintle-mount or cupola?

 

If in doubt - refer to the official model.

[PyronusSouria]

This always seemed like a topic that just needed to be decided by the players when they were playing, there's not a clear enough intention either way, and even fluffwise it could go either way. If it's immobilized because it's legs have been disabled by a Tau EMP grenade, then maybe he can still rotate. But if he's immobilized because a lascannon just blew his legs off, he probably can't.

[Something Wycked]

Immobilized only prevents the dreadnought *base* from moving, ergo, it can make use of its articulation. Its also pretty clear that the *weapons* are treated as hull mounted, but the hull itself can rotate on a dreadnought. We can point the weapons at the target by rotating the hull. The dreadnought can do just that - it can point its weapons at the target even if its base can't move.

Citation please; this is a permissive rule set.

 

Dreadnought rules state the model may pivot when firing: permission granted. The Immobilized damage result says it may not:

BRB p57 6th para under Vehicles and Movement:

 

"...(however Immobilised vehicles may not even pivot)."

Permission denied.

[thade]

This is one of those border-line grey area issues; it's come up on here a few times. Why, if a Predator can still turn its turret when Immobilised, can a Dread not do something similar?

 

The Walker rules tell us that, for the Dread to turn to fire, it pivots on the spot...and we know what Immobilisation does to pivoting, so there it is. There remains a question: If the top of my Dread is modelled so it can spin independent of the legs, is that "modelling to advantage" or "well within the rules in the Vehicle shooting chapter"?

 

While it does seem that - in some cases - it would make sense for the dread to still be able to pivot for shooting while Immobilised, it involves far less assumptions to simply read "Immobilised vehicles may not even pivot" to mean just that in call cases. Occam's Razor.

 

Not satisfying, perhaps, but it's the way I've virtually always seen it played out.

 

EDITS were substantial; that was very poorly worded before and I apologize. <3

[ShinyRhino]

As Seahawk pointed out in 2009, attempting to use our knowledge of model mechanics just doesn't compute. Sure, we might know that a Dread can pivot at the waist like a humanoid, but that doesn't relate in any way to RAW. RAW say that walkers pivot on the spot to fire at a target usnig the 45* weapon arc of each arm. They also tell us Walkers are vehicles. The Immobilization rules tell us that immobilized vehicles may no longer pivot. So, immobilized walkers cannot pivot.

 

Try convincing the Ork player across the table from you that your Walker can pivot around after immobilization because it has a waist joint, but his cannot because it does not possess that articulation. I guarantee you at least one arched eyebrow as a result :P.

If it helps RAI players reconcile it, just consider an Immobilized result a loss of all locomotive function for the Dread. It can't pivot or move, but can point those guns in a limited arc and fire away.

[Squirrelloid]

Immobilized only prevents the dreadnought *base* from moving, ergo, it can make use of its articulation. Its also pretty clear that the *weapons* are treated as hull mounted, but the hull itself can rotate on a dreadnought. We can point the weapons at the target by rotating the hull. The dreadnought can do just that - it can point its weapons at the target even if its base can't move.

Citation please; this is a permissive rule set.

 

Dreadnought rules state the model may pivot when firing: permission granted. The Immobilized damage result says it may not:

BRB p57 6th para under Vehicles and Movement:

 

"...(however Immobilised vehicles may not even pivot)."

Permission denied.

 

p58: "When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them against the target and then trace the line of sight from each weapons' mounting and along its barrel."

 

Swivelling the dreadnought is clearly pointing the weapons against the target. The rules say nothing further about using the articulation of models beyond this except for specific notes about turrets and sponsons.

 

Pivoting is quite explicitly rotating the entire model so it faces a different direction. For a dreadnought, this would require rotating the base. As swivelling the dreadnought about its torso does not do this, it is not pivoting.

 

I should note, at least on my old (metal) dreadnought, the degree to which i can swivel about the waist is limited. All told it gives maybe a slightly greater than 180 degree total firing arc without moving the legs.

 

Its hardly modeling to advantage, its how its actually modeled in the kit, so i certainly don't see the argument there. Even the old metal dreads (~3rd edition) have obvious waist articulation. (The original RT-era ones have virtually no articulation at all, but they don't even represent the current army list entry in the slightest, being explicitly robots.)

 

I agree its a grey area, because the wording which permits it is very general, and the section on walkers seems written under the assumption that there is no articulation present.

 

Regarding walkers with no articulated joint to swivel around: the game explicitly treats different sponson mounts in different ways, based on the actual physical capabilities of a properly assembled and articulated model. And the general rule statement that you simply point your guns at the target is pure WYSIWYG in terms of articulation. I have no problem with this being a legitimate difference under the rules. Old RT-era LR have a different sponson firing arc than the new LR model under the rules, and its the *same army list entry*; that wholly different models of the same general type might have different firing arcs hardly bears noting.

 

The rules on walkers provide *a* procedure for aiming, but do not necessarily override the general rules for vehicles which permits full use of articulation. In fact, they specifically refer back to them when telling you to treat the arm-mounted weapons as hull-mounted. But the rules are hardly clear on the matter, so its obviously a grey area to me.

[Something Wycked]

Swivelling...

And where is this term defined? Where does the RAW permit a Dreadnought to "swivel," even when immobilized?

[Leonaides]

If they treat the arm mounted weapons as hull-mounted then are you really argueing that an immobilised tank like a vindicator may pivot (which does not count as moving for the purposes of firing weapons) and fire its main gun at a target outside of its fire arc if it had not moved?

[falldown]

There is not any modeling to advantage aspect to this one really. If you made a free moving ball point for your dread, changing the orientation to increase the angle of fire on your weapons is pretty much the definition of pivoting.

 

RAW is pretty cut and dry on this.

[thade]

Swivelling...

And where is this term defined? Where does the RAW permit a Dreadnought to "swivel," even when immobilized?

That's in vehicle chapter under shooting (as he pointed out there). Not that term, of course, but I think (most of us) are over the hopeless exhaustive search for rigidity in this rule set. <3 (What I wouldn't give for a glossary.)

 

The crux of it all is this bit of silliness: Dreads pivot to fire (it says this explicitly so they must pivot even if their weapon mountings can swivel); Immobile = they can't pivot; thus they can't swivel at their hips to fire when Immobile.

 

It may be useful to point out that (as I remember) that section under vehicle shooting says something to the effect of "If it looks like it can tilt or rotate, it can" in order to address things like storm bolters on Rhinos or that meltagun on the Land Raider which may be glued down (so it doesn't fall off) but can still spin per that rule. (You know, not everybody uses magnets like myself I guess.) Consider that the "pivot to fire" Walker ruling was written in light of this. That is, Walkers still must pivot on the spot to change their facing for firing even if they look like they can spin at the hips.

 

So, while it seems dodgy and a bit controversial, it's not really that muddied.

[Squirrelloid]

There is not any modeling to advantage aspect to this one really. If you made a free moving ball point for your dread, changing the orientation to increase the angle of fire on your weapons is pretty much the definition of pivoting.

 

RAW is pretty cut and dry on this.

 

Irrelevant. The model *as supplied* can swivel without pivoting. There's no extra modelling involved in that.

 

Game rules on aiming can be paraphrased as 'wysiwyg, plus some guidelines in case you glued things down'. While I would see *conversion work* to give yourself a wider firing arc as modelling for advantage, using the model with supplied articulations is *expected* and *encouraged*, and certainly not 'modeling to advantage' - its the *model they gave you without modifications*.

 

The crux of it all is this bit of silliness: Dreads pivot to fire (it says this explicitly so they must pivot even if their weapon mountings can swivel); Immobile = they can't pivot; thus they can't swivel at their hips to fire when Immobile.

 

The rules have to be interpreted as 'if you can't draw LoS from the weapon to the target otherwise, pivot to face the target'. Otherwise you would always have to pivot to fire, even if it was the null pivot, and then an immobilized walker could never fire. Clearly a result not intended.

 

Since you're only forced to pivot if you can't aim at the target anyway, being able to articulate to face the target avoids needing to pivot.

 

If you insist on that rule being followed exactly as stated, an immobilized walker can't fire period. It must first pivot to fire. If you reasonably allow walkers to fire without pivoting (ie, only pivoting when necessary), general rules on firing ('point the weapon at the target') should apply, and we're back in our grey area.

[thade]

Clearly a result not intended.

The common response to this is that "I really have no idea what they actually intended for this to mean." That be RAI-land. Not saying I'm directly opposed to the notion, but there it is.

 

Since you're only forced to pivot if you can't aim at the target anyway, being able to articulate to face the target avoids needing to pivot.

If memory serves, the Walker rules are pretty clear that you pivot the Walker to shoot it. So even if you can "articulate to face it", that's really just aesthetics. If the Walker can't pivot, he can't get to step two...which is tracing LOS from his facing.

 

If you insist on that rule being followed exactly as stated, an immobilized walker can't fire period. It must first pivot to fire. If you reasonably allow walkers to fire without pivoting (ie, only pivoting when necessary), general rules on firing ('point the weapon at the target') should apply, and we're back in our grey area.

This one has come up a number of times and has never landed in the grey area section. Perhaps somebody with more time on their hands can me can do the legwork of mining this forum via Search to find out why we always settled on "It can fire but it can't pivot."