Immobilised Dreadnought

[awfulawful]

Once again, the waist rotation you are championing has no basis in the rules. At all. :P

 

Double quoted for double accurateness. Squirrel, you are trying to argue that the rules are not clear on how to treat a model that only turns part of its hull, but there is nothing, I say again, nothing, in the rules saying that a model may turn only part of its hull.

 

Also, look up the word "swivel" in the dictionary. One of the first synonyms you will see is "pivot".

[Squirrelloid]

I don't care enough to belabor the point further. I'm happy to play the way specified.

 

(And awfulawful, its not about whether swivelling and pivot referring to the same action, but what the subject of that verb is, that concerns me. But I'm done).

[Spacefrisian]

As far as game mechanics (yes those not fluff ones) only a turret can turn 360 degrees, a Walker is kind of lacking a turret. No a torso aint a turret.

[brakkar]

There is a lot of discussion that seem it should be easy to clear with the faq at General Faq. While it doesn't address Dreadnaughts specifically, it states: "Remember that the rule is: if it looks like you can point the gun at it, then you can, even if it’s glued in place’."

 

This faq question and answer is in the left hand column on page 4 of the general faq. And just so no one tries to claim they can point through things and shoot stuff, it specifically mentions that rotating may cause los issues and will limit the arc. Now with that being said, if the dreadnaught is designed to rotate at the waist, then it can turn at the waist and shoot even if it's feet are immobolized.

[Something Wycked]

Now with that being said, if the dreadnaught is designed to rotate at the waist, then it can turn at the waist and shoot even if it's feet are immobolized.

An interesting notion. Care to support it with a rules quote? -_-

[Morollan]

Now with that being said, if the dreadnaught is designed to rotate at the waist, then it can turn at the waist and shoot even if it's feet are immobolized.

 

And...we're back in the "made up rules" territory. Is the top half of a Dread a turret? No. Can it turn when immobilised? No. End of.

[brakkar]

Now with that being said, if the dreadnaught is designed to rotate at the waist, then it can turn at the waist and shoot even if it's feet are immobolized.

An interesting notion. Care to support it with a rules quote? -_-

 

I offer this as a possible solution to the thread as defining. If, as a group, it can be agreed that the dreadnaught appears to be able to rotate at the waist, this faq question and answer can be used. I don't have my books on me currently since i'm not at home, but every LGS i've played at has treated the sm dread as rotating at the waist. We also play that an immobilized result is the feet not the upper part. This has simplified our gaming drastically since there are no longer any arguments about it. This faq q&a is just one such justification.

 

In the same guidelines. if you play that assaulting a dreadnaught always goes against front armour, regardless of immobilized results, then the dread can turn at the waist to fire when immobilized.

 

I'll look more when I get home tonight.

[falldown]

Brakkar, you are using that quote in a vacuum without regard to other rules. You could just as easily use that same statement to disregard all firing arc restrictions. You still need to find a way that is within the rules or faq that disproves or overrides Dswanick's post.

 

"When firing a walkers 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 45°, 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. This pivoting in the Shooting phase does not count as moving and represents the vastly superior agility of walkers in comparison with other vehicles." (BRB, Pg.72)

 

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as stationary(however, immobilised vehicles may not even pivot)." (BRB, Pg.57)

 

It really is this simple. The walker may pivot in order to bring it's weapons to bear on a target, but it may not pivot if it is immobilised. No other RAW applies.

[dswanick]

I offer this as a possible solution to the thread as defining. If, as a group, it can be agreed that the dreadnaught appears to be able to rotate at the waist, this faq question and answer can be used.

Problem is, no other armies Walkers have articulated waists, so this "solution" is inherently biased towards Space Marine armies.

[brakkar]

Just because a solution is biased towards a particularly army does not invalidate it. A sm dread is not a war walker or a wraithlord or any other army's walker. it is an sm dreadnaught.

 

There are many different aspects of this game that apply to specific armies, so I see no reason why whether everyone else's walkers are articulated has any bearing on this solution relating to dreadnaughts

[dswanick]

Just because a solution is biased towards a particularly army does not invalidate it. A sm dread is not a war walker or a wraithlord or any other army's walker. it is an sm dreadnaught.

 

There are many different aspects of this game that apply to specific armies, so I see no reason why whether everyone else's walkers are articulated has any bearing on this solution relating to dreadnaughts

But, when you're asking to ignore a clear RAW based on nothing other than "because my army is just that awesome" - you're going to encounter a lot of resistance (and possibly find your heavy, metal model flying towards your head). -_-

[brakkar]

I'm not trying to ignore RAW, i'm applying the faq as intended by GW. If there is a question of rules in the rulebook, one references the FAQ. This is my intention.

 

a clear RAW is obviously not the case here, since this topic would not exist otherwise.

[Something Wycked]

The RAW really isn't unclear. :eek

Dreadnoughts may pivot to fire at their targets in the shooting phase.

Dreadnoughts are walkers. Walkers are vehicles. Immobilized vehicles may not pivot. > Immobilized Dreadnoughts may not pivot.

 

Dreadnought weapons may swivel 45 degrees. Or, said another way, immobilized Dreadnoughts have a 45 degree arc of fire.

 

All of your arguments for the torso twisting, articulation, etc. of the Dreadnought to avoid the Immobilized damage result are unsupported. :D

[dswanick]

I'm not trying to ignore RAW, i'm applying the faq as intended by GW. If there is a question of rules in the rulebook, one references the FAQ. This is my intention.

 

a clear RAW is obviously not the case here, since this topic would not exist otherwise.

An FAQ which is completely irrelevant to the question at hand - dealing with a modeling question about weapons glued in place and not to a RAW question dealing with Immobilized damage results.

[greatcrusade08]

Just because a solution is biased towards a particularly army does not invalidate it. A sm dread is not a war walker or a wraithlord or any other army's walker. it is an sm dreadnaught.

 

There are many different aspects of this game that apply to specific armies, so I see no reason why whether everyone else's walkers are articulated has any bearing on this solution relating to dreadnaughts

 

cool.. care to show us all the dreadnought rules in the vehicle subsection of the BRB?

as far as the rulebook is concerned there are no war walker, killer kans or space marine dreadnoughts.. they are all "walkers" and all usethe universal rules for such.

those rules do not allow for personalisation of the rule to cater for different types of walker.

 

a walker is a walker is a walker... and walkers do not pivot at the waist, they turn around thier centre point like every other vehicle.. an immobilised vehicle (inc walkers) cannot pivot

[Lord Melvin]

I don't have my BRB on me (at school right now) but isn't there a rule in the walkers section that talk about grenades? IIRC, it said that you always strike against the front armor of a walker in assault UNLESS it was immobilized at the beginning of the assault phase. If that is the case, I think that clears up any confusion about dreadnought pivoting when immobilized. I always play it that an immobilized dread is stuck in whatever facing it had when it got shot. I figure that (fluffwise) the immobilization occurs somewhere in the waist, rather than exclusively in the legs.

[Squirrelloid]

I don't have my BRB on me (at school right now) but isn't there a rule in the walkers section that talk about grenades? IIRC, it said that you always strike against the front armor of a walker in assault UNLESS it was immobilized at the beginning of the assault phase. If that is the case, I think that clears up any confusion about dreadnought pivoting when immobilized. I always play it that an immobilized dread is stuck in whatever facing it had when it got shot. I figure that (fluffwise) the immobilization occurs somewhere in the waist, rather than exclusively in the legs.

 

You're thinking of 4th edition.

 

Now you always attack the front AV *even when immobilized*. Grenades typically require a 6 to hit a dread in close combat, but if its immobilized you can use your normal WS-compared to-hit value instead.

[greatcrusade08]

if a dreadnought is immobilised, grenades hit on WS rather than needing 6's

 

the reason why you always hit walkers on font armour is according to the BRB, because they rampage through assault and turn to face new enemies.. ive always thought it dumb that immobilised dreads arent treated differently, but they are however given a -1A modifier to make up for it.

 

i fail to see how this rule could ever be argue for why a dread pivots at the waist, the passage on page 73 clearly says the dreads "turn" to face its enemies.. its hardly a 'swivel'

[brakkar]

well if an immobilized dread can turn to face a new enemy, then an immobilized dread can turn to face what it wants to shoot. It's simple common sense. If you get GW to spell out that an immobilized dread cannot meet new enemies head on, then i'm on board for not turning at the waist in order to shoot.

[Something Wycked]

Simple common sense does not trump RAW. Sometimes this is unfortunate; in this case, it is fortunate.

 

If you get some RAW to show that Walkers, or Dreadnoughts specifically, can "turn at the waist" in the Shooting phase, I'm all ears. :o I use lots of shooty Dreadnoughts, and this would really help my game ;)

[Morollan]

well if an immobilized dread can turn to face a new enemy, then an immobilized dread can turn to face what it wants to shoot. It's simple common sense. If you get GW to spell out that an immobilized dread cannot meet new enemies head on, then i'm on board for not turning at the waist in order to shoot.

 

You can be on or off board for whatever you want but if you try to turn a dreadnought when it is immobilised then you are cheating.

[brakkar]

Well, i was simply presenting a supportive solution. However, To call someone a cheater for having a different interpretation than yourself is rather presumptious of you. Where I play, this is common knowledge and supported. where you play is up to you, but I guess I'll go back to playing with my "Cheating group" of over 30+ people at the LGS and leave this thread alone rather than providing another possible solution.

[Morollan]

Well, i was simply presenting a supportive solution. However, To call someone a cheater for having a different interpretation than yourself is rather presumptious of you. Where I play, this is common knowledge and supported. where you play is up to you, but I guess I'll go back to playing with my "Cheating group" of over 30+ people at the LGS and leave this thread alone rather than providing another possible solution.

 

It's not a solution because there is no problem. The rules very clearly prohibit it and the only way you can do it is by inventing your own rules. That's absolutely fine if your group agrees to play it that way but do not pretend that it is RAW.

[Something Wycked]

Said a little more gently: your group has come up with your own house ruled interpretation of the rules. If any of your 30+ players attempted to use this house rule in a tournament with TO's from outside your group, the opponent would be absolutely correct in calling them on it. :)

[brakkar]

If this was honestly not an issue, this thread would not be 3 pages long. it would have been solved with can't do it, says so right on this page yada yada. Since it is 3 pages long, it means there is obviously an issue with it. Whether it's a "house rule" as you call it or not. I've played in 3 different states and in every state it was accepted. Including at one GW store. so apparently many people need educated if you are correct.