Chaos Dreadnoughts

[Fausto2071]

whether they can look up down side to side, turn out to actually be useful this ed~they sure are ugly looking models, any plans for a remake of them?

[Slick Jimmy]

Yes, dreadnaghtica is probably the coolest thing ever, I currently field four dreads on my loyalist side and frequently get 3 into cc. I like to make gentelmanly agreements to only use dreads against dreads, and would even like to run all dread games. Really though, I often let chaos dreads go slightly unmolested, as two regular chaos dreads are a healthy meal for my termies. I find that termies chew through dreads faster than dreads chew through termies. I can only imagine what TH/SS termies will do.

[intel31337]

Just a thought as to why a dread might have 360 deg field of vision.

 

They are a vehicle. The probably have sensors (or in the case of a chaos dread, supernatural daemon senses) which could warn them of enemies all around them. If anything, they would be even more aware of the presence of models standing behind them.

 

And nowhere in the rules does it say they don't have 360 vision like every other model. Facing only matters for vehicles b/c of AP values and weapon mounting locations. Also, walkers can pivot to shoot.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Just a thought as to why a dread might have 360 deg field of vision.

 

They are a vehicle. The probably have sensors which could warn them of enemies all around them. If anything, they would be even more aware of the presence of models standing behind them.

 

And nowhere in the rules does it say they don't have 360 vision. Facing only matters for vehicles b/c of AP values and weapon mounting locations. Also, walkers can pivot to shoot.

 

Rules operate based on saying what you are allowed to do, not what you can't do. If they had to say what you can't do they would need to be an infinite length. If it doesn't say you can do it you can't.

[intel31337]

Just a thought as to why a dread might have 360 deg field of vision.

 

They are a vehicle. The probably have sensors which could warn them of enemies all around them. If anything, they would be even more aware of the presence of models standing behind them.

 

And nowhere in the rules does it say they don't have 360 vision. Facing only matters for vehicles b/c of AP values and weapon mounting locations. Also, walkers can pivot to shoot.

 

Rules operate based on saying what you are allowed to do, not what you can't do. If they had to say what you can't do they would need to be an infinite length. If it doesn't say you can do it you can't.

 

I'm certain it said somewhere that models can see 360. Don't have rule available right now. Nowhere under vehicles does it say they are exempt from this rule. But otherwise you would have to face each infantry model to make sure their eyes can see the target after moving, and that would be a complete nightmare. A leman russ can "SEE" behind it, but if some of its weapons can't draw LOS, they can't shoot. Walkers on the otherhand can pivot before shooting, so LOS is less an issue (or more of an issue in this case). Sorry, I guess I should have been more clear about that.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Just a thought as to why a dread might have 360 deg field of vision.

 

They are a vehicle. The probably have sensors which could warn them of enemies all around them. If anything, they would be even more aware of the presence of models standing behind them.

 

And nowhere in the rules does it say they don't have 360 vision. Facing only matters for vehicles b/c of AP values and weapon mounting locations. Also, walkers can pivot to shoot.

 

Rules operate based on saying what you are allowed to do, not what you can't do. If they had to say what you can't do they would need to be an infinite length. If it doesn't say you can do it you can't.

 

I'm certain it said somewhere that models can see 360. Don't have rule available right now. Nowhere under vehicles does it say they are exempt from this rule. But otherwise you would have to face each infantry model to make sure their eyes can see the target after moving, and that would be a complete nightmare. A leman russ can "SEE" behind it, but if some of its weapons can't draw LOS, they can't shoot. Walkers on the otherhand can pivot before shooting, so LOS is less an issue (or more of an issue in this case). Sorry, I guess I should have been more clear about that.

 

In the 4th ed rulebook there was a section that said that units could see 360. It isn't there in 5th ed.

[Megalodon]

In the 4th ed rulebook there was a section that said that units could see 360. It isn't there in 5th ed.

This is correct there is no rule that states units can see 360 degrees in 5th. 360 degree LOS in 5th is a Myth.

 

Now I wanna point out that I have a suspicion 90 percent of the 40Kers out there are doing the Walker pivoting before shooting rule wrong. This is a hangover problem from 4th ed.

 

What the rule on page 72 says is to "pivot the walker so that all it's guns are facing the target (assume all weapons may pivot 45 degrees like hull mounted weapons) then measure the range from the weapon its self and LOS from the mounting point and along it's barrel; as normal for vehicles.

 

Which means they may pivot within the 45/90 degree fire arc or "LOS" so they can shoot their target with all their weapons.

 

You see if you look on page 11 that infantry may be turned to face their targets in the shooting phase, and walkers pivot to shoot at the target unit with all their weapons. Why change the wording if it wasn't meant to have a different meaning?

 

It appears that the real goal of the walker pivoting might be not to change facing, but to ensure they can fire all of their weapons at the target unit.

 

By the way nowhere in the walker shooting section on page 72 does it say that they shoot like infantry.

[intel31337]

*facepalm*

 

What the rule on page 72 says is to "pivot the walker so that all it's guns are facing the target (assume all weapons may pivot 45 degrees like hull mounted weapons) then measure the range from the weapon its self and LOS from the mounting point and along it's barrel; as normal for vehicles.

 

First off, if you are going to quote something, don't just use the portion that makes your argument sound stronger. The rest of the paragraph states the following:

"This pivoting in the shooting phase does not count as moving and represents the vastly superior agility of the walkers in comperison to other vehicles. Keep in mind however that the walker will probably remain facing in this direction until its next movement phase, so its facing will determine where its rear armor is going too be when the enemy returns fire!"

 

Which means they may pivot within the 45/90 degree fire arc or "LOS" so they can shoot their target with all their weapons.

 

You see if you look on page 11 that infantry may be turned to face their targets in the shooting phase, and walkers pivot to shoot at the target unit with all their weapons. Why change the wording if it wasn't meant to have a different meaning?

 

It appears that the real goal of the walker pivoting might be not to change facing, but to ensure they can fire all of their weapons at the target unit.

 

The rule that you quoted clearly states to pivot the walker. The walker is not the weapon, its the vehicle which carries the weapon, so should not be limited by how the weapon is mounted.

 

Pivoting is also mentioned in them movement section on page 57, where it says:

"Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicle turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than 'wheeling' round..."

 

The pivoting mentioned on page 72 is clearly referencing to this form of pivoting, as the rule also mentions that this pivot is not considered as movement. Therefore does not limit the range at which a vehicle can pivot.

 

Why does it include the part about 45 deg angle of the weapons? Again, this is mentioned during the second part of the rule that you failed to mention. If I can get it so that the target is within the 45 deg cone, it would satisfy LOS. This might become important in denying your enemy a back shot. 1 degree difference can add up if your opponent is trying to snipe you with something thats on the other side of the board.

 

By the way nowhere in the walker shooting section on page 72 does it say that they shoot like infantry.

 

Fine... It doesnt say that, nor does it mention 360 vision, but in my defense, I did say that I did not have a rulebook available to me. Regardless, being able to "see" (not LOS) is of no consequence in 40, and is not really defined. Example is that a leman russ can always rotate the turret to shoot whatever is at its back. It doesnt need to be able to "see" it at the start of its shooting phase.

 

Finally, to address the wording of the rule in question (Fire frenzy). Why does it say "closest visible unit"? Because, you might recall the chaos codex was release waaaay back during 4e, when walkers only had a 180deg field of vision, and could not pivot to shoot during the shooting phase. They were stuck in whatever facing they finished their movement in.

[the jeske]

Why change the wording if it wasn't meant to have a different meaning?

well I dont know , because GW did such stuff in the past a lot in all their games and all their codexs?

[intel31337]

Why change the wording if it wasn't meant to have a different meaning?

well I dont know , because GW did such stuff in the past a lot in all their games and all their codexs?

 

 

No, pivoting a vehicle is defined on page 57, and is exclusive to vehicles only, as facing is only important on vehicles. "turning" a model in a unit has no consequence on gameplay.

 

Only confusion might have come from the rule on page 72, which says the weapon can only "Pivot" 45 degrees. I might be wrong, but its the only place I can find where it uses the wording "pivot" that refers to a weapon. Page 59, which describes vehicle weapons and mouting uses wording "rotate", "covers", "arc"< and "swivel"

[Megalodon]

*facepalm*

No need to get frustrated. :P

 

 

First off, if you are going to quote something, don't just use the portion that makes your argument sound stronger. The rest of the paragraph states the following:

"This pivoting in the shooting phase does not count as moving and represents the vastly superior agility of the walkers in comperison to other vehicles. Keep in mind however that the walker will probably remain facing in this direction until its next movement phase, so its facing will determine where its rear armor is going too be when the enemy returns fire!"

Can any other vehicle with hull mounted weapons pivot so that all of their weapons can shoot at their target unit?

 

No, they can't; which means the Walker has the superior agility mentioned in the rules.

 

The rule that you quoted clearly states to pivot the walker. The walker is not the weapon, its the vehicle which carries the weapon, so should not be limited by how the weapon is mounted.

 

Pivoting is also mentioned in them movement section on page 57, where it says:

"Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicle turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than 'wheeling' round..."

 

The pivoting mentioned on page 72 is clearly referencing to this form of pivoting, as the rule also mentions that this pivot is not considered as movement. Therefore does not limit the range at which a vehicle can pivot.

 

Why does it include the part about 45 deg angle of the weapons? Again, this is mentioned during the second part of the rule that you failed to mention. If I can get it so that the target is within the 45 deg cone, it would satisfy LOS. This might become important in denying your enemy a back shot. 1 degree difference can add up if your opponent is trying to snipe you with something thats on the other side of the board.

 

You are quoting a movement rule? It doesn't change anything that I mentioned about the difference between infantry turning to face and a Walker pivoting. Again I still believe the pivot is so that the walker can target the enemy unit with all their weapons.

 

 

Fine... It doesnt say that, nor does it mention 360 vision, but in my defense, I did say that I did not have a rulebook available to me. Regardless, being able to "see" (not LOS) is of no consequence in 40, and is not really defined. Example is that a leman russ can always rotate the turret to shoot whatever is at its back. It doesnt need to be able to "see" it at the start of its shooting phase.

A Leman Russ tanks turret has a 360 degree LOS/AOF. So a Leman Russ turret can always see what it shoots at the begining of the shooting phase.

 

Finally, to address the wording of the rule in question (Fire frenzy). Why does it say "closest visible unit"? Because, you might recall the chaos codex was release waaaay back during 4e, when walkers only had a 180deg field of vision, and could not pivot to shoot during the shooting phase. They were stuck in whatever facing they finished their movement in.

Yeah, back in those dark days of 2007 when GW were planning and playtesting 5th ed they didn't have the foresight to write the Chaos codex with compatibility in mind.

[the jeske]

Yeah, back in those dark days of 2007 when GW were planning and playtesting 5th ed they didn't have the foresight to write the Chaos codex with compatibility in mind.

well yeah when the book went to print , 5th ed wasnt still printed yet [or at least didnt have a final printed version] . also dont forget that one of the people doing chaos dex was Thorpe and its not like Thorpe ever made bad/unworking/unbalanced/untested/unchecked codexs before .

 

Only confusion might have come from the rule on page 72, which says the weapon can only "Pivot" 45 degrees. I might be wrong, but its the only place I can find where it uses the wording "pivot" that refers to a weapon

ok , how do the weapons on most walkers pivot without moving the body ?

[Zhukov]

Well it seems to me that you cant compare it with tanks like the leman russ, because look at all the other walkers out there:

 

War walker, killa kan, death dread, sentinel, loyalist dread + variants. All are operated by some sort of 'being' and it seems to me that all those walkers have beings which can see through some sort of opening in there front.

 

So as I see it, that only models in the front (how much degrees? 170? maybe 160? not 180.) can be seen.

Problem: can this be proven with the rule book?

 

I alos want to believe this, because I love dreads and this would make them viable enough for me. 3 Dreads w/ Plasma canon or missile here I come!

Now I can finally play chaos more shooty.

 

Btw why do a lot of people think the chaos dread is so ugly? I love um to be honest. Bit expensive though.

[intel31337]

Can any other vehicle with hull mounted weapons pivot so that all of their weapons can shoot at their target unit?

 

No, they can't; which means the Walker has the superior agility mentioned in the rules.

 

Ok.... so you are agreeing with me?... Walkers are different compared to other vehicles. Page 72, the rule you quoted is for walkers...

 

Really.. I cant tell if you are arguing against me or agreeing?... Why did you quote me and comment on it by paraphrasing exactly what I just said...

 

You are quoting a movement rule? It doesn't change anything that I mentioned about the difference between infantry turning to face and a Walker pivoting. Again I still believe the pivot is so that the walker can target the enemy unit with all their weapons.

 

I thought the thread was about dreadnoughts. The discussion at hand here was how far the dread pivotted when they went fire frenzy. Limitations of "pivot" is outlined in that movement rule, and as it stands, they can pivot 360. That is why I quoted it. Comparison between infantry and walkers is not relevant.

 

Yes, the dreadnought can pivot to face the target. It even states it in fire frenzy rule. BUT you stated the following:

 

What the rule on page 72 says is to "pivot the walker so that all it's guns are facing the target (assume all weapons may pivot 45 degrees like hull mounted weapons) then measure the range from the weapon its self and LOS from the mounting point and along it's barrel; as normal for vehicles.

 

Which means they may pivot within the 45/90 degree fire arc or "LOS" so they can shoot their target with all their weapons.

 

And i then quoted the movement rule in question in conjuntion with highlighting key words in the rule that you quoted (which I have done again here) to show you that the dreadnought is allowed to pivot 360 degrees when firing, and thus have 360 vision. The walker IS NOT A HULL MOUNTED WEAPON. The walker's WEAPONS are hull mounted. An example of where this might be necessary is if a walker is immobilized. Otherwise, they are free to pivot the full 360 in the shooting phase.

 

Yeah, back in those dark days of 2007 when GW were planning and playtesting 5th ed they didn't have the foresight to write the Chaos codex with compatibility in mind.

 

Um... Ok... that is what I was trying to explain to you... The codex is old, so the wording on this rule does not translate properly into 5e...

 

As it stands, dreads have 360 field of vision because they are free to pivot in the shooting phase. Again, pivoting explained in that movement rule I quoted.

 

So in conclusion, if you roll fire frenzy for a chaos dread, and if the closest unit (your unit) is standing behind the dread, it will turn its ass around and expose its back armor to shoot your own unit twice. IT CAN SEE BEHIND ITSELF, AND WILL PIVOT TO AROUND TO SHOOT WHAT EVER IS THERE.

 

Sick of explaining this. I've explained it on 2 different forums already...Its like trying to break it down for a child. Please take time to interpreted rules properly.

 

 

@ Jeske - Weapons are treated as hull mounted on a dreadnought. The dread can pivot during the shooting phase. This is a walker specific rule... Read above discussion...

 

 

@ Zhukov - Walkers are vehicles, they have sensors that can detect everything around them. Its not 1910... its the 41st millennium for crying out loud. They are not relying on a little peak hole at the front of the hull to find their enemies.

[Hellios]

Errrm other vehicles can pivot on the spot during the movement phrase(which doesn't count as movement although affects units disembarking in transport vehicles, not an issue here). 45 degree arc for hull mounted weapons is also standard for vehicles (not just walkers) and its not the LOS of weapons that's the issue its what they can see. (dread not guns)

 

Also this role is done before the pivot so you can't pivot to see the closest unit but you pivot towards the nearest visible unit and that's the issue.

 

Where is the 360 view from? Sure they may have sensors (fluffwise) but where in the rules also even if it did (again fluffwise) its safe to assume they are not mentally stable and something they actually see may well take priority than the nearest thing on the sensors just because they get fixated on it.

 

Also (and maybe this isn't the case in Dreads) but a lot of the technology is pretty bad I today in this reality we have some field of technology or device or way of doing something that is better than the Imperium (or at least most parts as you get the odd planet that has strange gizmos (which they often don't understand).

 

Now the issue is what is the line of sight of the dreadnought (has it got its own LoS (back-up with rules from BBB) or is it using the combined fire arcs of all its weapons? If its combined LoS of all its weapons then I think this is clear... However if its another way I base my decision of the wording from pg 16 of the AoBR rule book THE RULES SECTION: The Shooting phase... it has a little grey box with the title "Line of Sight"

[Zhukov]

@ Zhukov - Walkers are vehicles, they have sensors that can detect everything around them. Its not 1910... its the 41st millennium for crying out loud. They are not relying on a little peak hole at the front of the hull to find their enemies.

 

Okay dont start on me with arguments like that. Like 40k does represent a realistic picture for a 41st millennium. I'm not even going to give examples.

[minigun762]

It always is rather disheartening when the rules get in the way of having fun. In this case I'd hate to go to a tournament and have an hour long discussion on how to use the rules regarding pivoting, LOS and targeting.

 

More in line with the original topic, I'm becoming more and more convinced that the best way to play them is 2x DCCW. Cheap assault units that are totally disposable. In the case of my army, they can work alongside my Noise Marines providing a counter assault unit.

[Zhukov]

Well I now tested running 2 with 2x DCCW, but the problem with that is if one gets immobilized its totally useless. Same for throwing a 1.

 

If it should be true that a 1 counts for visible units in the front only, giving them 1 ranged weapon seems a much better choice. Its totally possible to fire your plasma canon twice at the enemy instead of your own units. But at least always 1 DCCW, because else a 6 is a total waste.

 

So if this 'new invention' is true, it would make are dreads even quite powerfull in a semi gunline army. Imagine 3 dreads along with 6 oblits.

[minigun762]

If it should be true that a 1 counts for visible units in the front only, giving them 1 ranged weapon seems a much better choice. Its totally possible to fire your plasma canon twice at the enemy instead of your own units. But at least always 1 DCCW, because else a 6 is a total waste.

 

That was my initial assumption, one weapon each to take advantage of either of the rolls on the crazy table.

 

I still may do that, just because I think a Dreadnought looks better with a gun and arm. The old Missile Launcher/DCCW combo seems nice, same price as 2 DCCW's but you're not totally useless at range.

 

EDIT: Thats the one thing that really annoys me with Chaos, I am a fan of Dreadnoughts but I want ones that actually function.

[Megalodon]

I'm sorry intel31337, apparently I must be wrong since you not only increased the font sized you also used all caps and bolded your text to prove your point.

 

Wow, you've convinced me. ;)

 

I wouldn't have even brought it up if it hadn't been pointed out by a new person to my gaming group. Who has no misconceptions from playing multiple editions of 40k. He must have made a better argument than I did cause he convince the whole group that we were using walkers wrong.

 

I would like to apologize to LC for hijacking the thread. :P

 

Megs

[Zhukov]

well maybe we should have a new thread for this discussion?

 

It is quite an important one, it changes the the view on Dreadnoughts completely and if we come to some sort of general agreement I can maybe convince my locals too etc.

 

Is there nobody who can discuss such things w/ people of GW? I would be nice if an important person from GW could tell us how they look at it not?

[sorcererkatax]

Look, to be honest everyone in here is clutching at straws. Im not one to stir-up a S*** storm but all those who are trying to play the ''Dreadnought can't pivot and shoot at my own units because it cant see them'' are just wrong. YES the codex does read ''Closet visible unit'' but we all have to use the 5th ed rules. and they state dreadnoughts have a 360 degree angle.

 

I know that we dont want our dreads to shoot our own men but they will, if they are closest.

 

The codex reads, word for word:

 

'' Fire Frenzy. The chaos dreadnought may not move or assault this turn. At the beginning of the Shooting phase it must pivot on the spot towards the closest visible unit (friend or foe!) and fire all of its weapons against it - twice! if the chaos dreadnought cannot fire any ranged weapons, treat the result as '2-5 Sane' result instead

 

Given this little slice of information, and the fact that dreadnoughts have a 360 field of vision, the dreadnought will turn to the closest unit, whether its right infront of it or directly behind it because they can!! if your unit is closest and not behind cover (out of LoS) it WILL get shot at!

 

By twisting rules so that they benefit you, you become what we all hate, a spineless rules lawyer who wants to win at any costs. It's like trying to argue that black is white, no matter what you say black is always black.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Look, to be honest everyone in here is clutching at straws. Im not one to stir-up a S*** storm but all those who are trying to play the ''Dreadnought can't pivot and shoot at my own units because it cant see them'' are just wrong. YES the codex does read ''Closet visible unit'' but we all have to use the 5th ed rules. and they state dreadnoughts have a 360 degree angle.

 

I know that we dont want our dreads to shoot our own men but they will, if they are closest.

 

The codex reads, word for word:

 

'' Fire Frenzy. The chaos dreadnought may not move or assault this turn. At the beginning of the Shooting phase it must pivot on the spot towards the closest visible unit (friend or foe!) and fire all of its weapons against it - twice! if the chaos dreadnought cannot fire any ranged weapons, treat the result as '2-5 Sane' result instead

 

Given this little slice of information, and the fact that dreadnoughts have a 360 field of vision, the dreadnought will turn to the closest unit, whether its right infront of it or directly behind it because they can!! if your unit is closest and not behind cover (out of LoS) it WILL get shot at!

 

By twisting rules so that they benefit you, you become what we all hate, a spineless rules lawyer who wants to win at any costs. It's like trying to argue that black is white, no matter what you say black is always black.

 

Gah, for the last time they do not have a 360 view because it doesn't say that anywhere. This is how it worked in 4th edition, because in 4th it did say that in the rule book. But that section is gone. The only rules we have for sight now are the true LOS ones. If you can show me part of the rulebook where it does say they see 360 then this issue will be decided, but neither i nor anyone else has been able to find one.

[Arschbombe]

I don't see where the rules have to tell you that each model has a 360 degree field of vision. If you can draw a LOS from one model to another they can see each other. The only thing that has to do with angles and degrees are the firing arcs of the weapons.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

I don't see where the rules have to tell you that each model has a 360 degree field of vision. If you can draw a LOS from one model to another they can see each other. The only thing that has to do with angles and degrees are the firing arcs of the weapons.

 

Once again, you can only do what the rules say you can. If it isn't in the rules, it doesn't work that way. The rules also specifically mention that you need to be able to draw LOS from a model's eyes.