Chaos Dreadnoughts

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Dan, I would still say it isn't a matter of what the dreadnought can see. There are only two options for what it can see. One is that its sight = its weapon arcs. The other is that its sight comes from its head, like infantry. Either way its only going to see whats in front of it. I am still of the opinion that this comes down to what "visible" means: does it mean visible to the dread, or just visible as in not invisible.

[Dan The Deamon]

Yeah we need to figure out what is Visible.

 

Unlike infantry the dread isn't stated as having a head, or eyes, to draw LOS. It is a vehicle with a few rules similar to infantry, but it is still a vehicle.

 

Now that makes it a different set or problems, now we have to figure out what a vehicle can see. Nowhere does it say what LOS a vehicle owns. Just it's Arc of fire, which is moved towards a target when chosen.

 

What we're dealing with is that the vehicle isn't choosing a target, the rules are choosing a visible target.

 

So what's visible?

 

Well we can go with the eyes theory, but i can't find anything to back that up.

We can go with the vehicle 360 theory, but there's nothing to back that up either.

 

So where are we left?

 

 

 

The mother flippin' warp.

[Corpse.]

Infantry = see from head = see 360 degree arc.

 

A models own bulk does not block its own LoS, otherwise a sergeant cant see behind him due to his banner pole blocking view.

 

Dreadnought = 360 degree vision when determining from the head. Firing is from the gun, because its a vehicle before it is an infantry model. Firing from the gun.... Not seeing from the gun when pivoting.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Well, let's remember that you do not need line of sight to try to shoot something. You can declare that you are firing at anything. You check LOS after declaring that you are firing. If they are out of LOS, you don't get to shoot.

 

With vehicles, page 58 says pretty clearly that you trace LOS from the weapons. Since the dread is a vehicle, it uses this rule. Therefore when checking what a dread can see, you use its weapon arc (which is 45 degrees due to being hull mounted). For normal shooting you pivot first and then check los, so the firing arc isn't an issue unless its immobilized. But for fire frenzy, what target we shoot at is a completely different issue.

 

If nearest visible unit means the nearest unit visible to the dread, then its the nearest unit inside its fire arc that isn't 100% obscured before any pivoting or whatever.

 

If nearest visible unit means the nearest unit that isn't invisible, then the dread could turn all the way around to shoot your own units.

 

Infantry = see from head = see 360 degree arc.

 

A models own bulk does not block its own LoS, otherwise a sergeant cant see behind him due to his banner pole blocking view.

 

Got a rulebook citation for this? I can't find anywhere in the 5th ed book that says infantry have 360 degree arc of sight, or that their own bulk blocks their view.

[Dan The Deamon]

The models bulk doesn't block line of sight in this case, the fact that you trace line of sight from behind the target is what blocks it.

 

Page 16 Main rule book

"...players will have to stoop over the table for a models eye view. This means getting down to the level of your warriors, taking in the view from behind the firing models to "see what they can see..."

 

Models no longer have a 360 degree view, Vehicles have LOS based off their weapon arcs. They don't need LOS from facing because their weapons acquire targets in the shooting phase.

 

The neat thing about walkers is that they pivot the entire vehicle to obtain weapon LOS, instead of weapons themselves on a tank. the problem is that we don't choose which target we're shooting at.

 

Drudge i think you and i are on the same point here. We're hitting different ones but it all comes down to the same couple of vague rulings.

 

As per RAW the walker can see in a 45 degree arc. it can choose a target outside of this arc and pivot towards it as per normal fire

 

Raw fire frenzy the walker chooses the target in it's LOS/Weapon Arc(eyes 180/hull 45), then pivots towards it (again, thus confusion) to shoot.

 

I don't care what the final ruling is as long as it's written in stone.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Agreed Dan.

[grimz]

I did a bit of research into this, as I absolutely love Dreads. This is the best thing I have found for this... you could try printing and giving to your opponents!

 

Hi!

 

You are probably reading this because you believe Chaos Dreadnoughts that Fire Frenzy must face the closest target and shoot it.

 

Your opponent is tired of explaining how it really works to you, so he has printed this out so I can help you get a handle on the actual rules.

 

My name is Stelek, from the 'Yes The Truth Hurts' blog. Feel free to visit us at www.yesthetruthhurts.com, we are here to help you. :lol:

 

Here is the rule for Fire Frenzy, from Codex: Chaos Space Marines page 40.

 

Fire Frenzy. The Chaos Dreadnought may not move or assault this turn. At the beginning of the Shooting phase is 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 this result as a '2-5 Sane' result instead.

 

Step 1: Are you weaponless? Stunned or Shaken? Ignore Fire Frenzy and move normally. Note that being out of range or being out of line of sight of anything does not preclude you from Fire Frenzy. You essentially stand around and pew pew nothing. Sucks to be crazy!

 

Step 2: Movement phase: Do not move your Chaos Dreadnought! You may still pivot, as pivoting in the movement phase is not movement (p 57, main rulebook).

 

Note: This does mean the Chaos player can choose to pivot away from his own units. Blame GW for this, not your opponent!

 

Step 3: Shooting phase: Determine what is the closest visible unit. You determine what is visible on vehicles from your weapons mounting point. Page 56, main rulebook.

 

Step 4: Shooting phase: Determine your weapons mounting type, which on Dreadnoughts are counted as hull mounted (page 72, main rulebook).

 

Step 5: Shooting phase: Determine what you can see using steps 3 and 4. You have a 45 degree arc on your left arm and right arm weapons, unless those have been blocked by terrain or by weapon destroyed results.

 

Step 6: Shooting phase: Can you 'see' anything from your weapon mounts? Determine (by measuring, page 3 of the main rulebook) what unit (Friend or Foe!) is closest and in line of sight.

 

Step 7: Shooting phase: Ignore all other units, even if they are closer than what you can 'see from your weapons mount point' at the start of the shooting phase (page 40, Fire Frenzy--beginning of the shooting phase you MUST fire crazed Dreads first). If both of your weapons cannot 'see' the enemy that you determined is closest, this is where you pivot to bring all guns onto the target.

 

Note: This might seem to bring a closer target into view, but at this point it does not matter--the Dreadnought could not 'see' the other target when you were determining the 'closest visible' unit. It might require you to pivot again to meet the requirement of firing all weapons at the target, which could lead you to 'seeing' a newer closer target; which can lead you to an endless spin cycle which is not required or requested in the Fire Frenzy rules.

 

See the closest visitble target at the start of the phase, then pivot to fire--not pivot and then fire. Dreads cannot 'see' all around, no vehicle can. Page 56, main rulebook. The wording of 'closest visible' is what matters. In the old edition (4th) you could literally see 'all around' with vehicles but you now cannot as this game mechanic has been properly defined as of this edition (5th).

 

Step 8: Shooting phase: Attempt to fire all weapons twice at the target--even against targets you cannot hurt, Fire Frenzy requires you to fire them anyway. Any weapons out of range automatically miss, page 17 main rulebook.

 

Step 9: Shooting phase: Fire any other Fire Frenzied Dreadnoughts.

 

Step 10: Shooting phase: Fire all other units.

 

Step 11: Assault phase: You cannot assault. Stand around and gnash your teeth. Sucks to be crazy!

 

Note: Chaos Dreads suck 33% of the time. How would you like to have to rely on your guys 66% of the time?

 

Yeah, these rules are awesome. =| Crazy needs to go, but until then...these are the rules.

 

Have a nice day!

 

-Stelek

 

PS Permission is granted to copy/print this and distribute to anyone you like, please leave the entire document as is if you do so.

[Daeghrefn]

Just my two cents here, but why would they instruct you to pivot towards the target if you could only select something that was already within the weapon's arch of fire?

[Dan The Deamon]

Just my two cents here, but why would they instruct you to pivot towards the target if you could only select something that was already within the weapon's arch of fire?

 

 

That's what leads me to believe that their intentions are to pivot your weapon arc, 45 degrees, towards what's visible, 180 degrees.

 

whatever their intentions may have been, the only three explanations we're left with are badly written and full of loopholes and inconsistencies.

[chillin]

Grimz's post is the most conviencing arguement I've seen yet that a fire frenzied dread would not target anything w/in 360'.

If I were to try to use this (not saying I would) I would show it to my opponent b4 the game and see if he agreed. I would not wait till my dread fire frenzied with one of my units being the closest (360') and then pull this out and try to argue that it's his troops and not mine that I should be shooting. I could see some saying "that's reasonable" and other saying "no way, you dread shoots your own units". I would not argue with them either way.

[Corpse.]

Page 11: Turning and facing.

"Infantry models can turn to face the unit in the movement phase"

Is what I was referring to. Dreadnoughts move like infantry. Reading the whole paragraph may be a better insight.

 

A model's own bulk, I.E. is there a lack of rule rather then having a rule.

 

Example:

1: Find a rule where it doesn't say that the bulk blocks LoS of its own body as a model.

2: Models may turn to face the enemy in the shooting phase if they are not a vehicle, yet no arc of view is granted for the pilots of the vehicle.

3: Weapon line of sight is given, not the model's LoS when mentioning a model in view that is closest when referring to a rule.

 

Sorry if its vague. If you need further RAI beyond this RAW. Look at the 2-8 shiny red glass things on any given dreadnought, having fluff making these "cameras" on top of various other fluff references to such things also being a line of sight from the model, yet have no official mention like a models line of sight. Remember, vehicles are measured from the weapons firing arc, and the weapons angle of fire treated as all the weapon can see, not the pilot(s).

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Just my two cents here, but why would they instruct you to pivot towards the target if you could only select something that was already within the weapon's arch of fire?

 

The same reason that you pivot when shooting normally i would assume. And my guess would be because that is for armor facing reasons.

[CuznP]

Just my two cents here, but why would they instruct you to pivot towards the target if you could only select something that was already within the weapon's arch of fire?

 

This is because the Dread has two weapons and two 45˚ firing arcs. So the pivot is to bring both weapons to bear on the same target.

[Dan The Deamon]

Page 11: Turning and facing.

"Infantry models can turn to face the unit in the movement phase"

Is what I was referring to. Dreadnoughts move like infantry. Reading the whole paragraph may be a better insight.

 

A model's own bulk, I.E. is there a lack of rule rather then having a rule.

 

Example:

1: Find a rule where it doesn't say that the bulk blocks LoS of its own body as a model.

2: Models may turn to face the enemy in the shooting phase if they are not a vehicle, yet no arc of view is granted for the pilots of the vehicle.

3: Weapon line of sight is given, not the model's LoS when mentioning a model in view that is closest when referring to a rule.

 

Sorry if its vague. If you need further RAI beyond this RAW. Look at the 2-8 shiny red glass things on any given dreadnought, having fluff making these "cameras" on top of various other fluff references to such things also being a line of sight from the model, yet have no official mention like a models line of sight. Remember, vehicles are measured from the weapons firing arc, and the weapons angle of fire treated as all the weapon can see, not the pilot(s).

 

I read Turning and Facing, i don't really think it applies to this situation. A Dnought can turn in the moving phase, and pivot in the shooting. The points i'm bringing up have to do with what it pivots towards. If this is in regards to Grimz's post, then shoot away. I don't agree with the depth that the OP has taken RAW, but RAW is what it is.

 

As for a vehicles bulk blocking LOS? I have a hard time understanding your post or the point you are making, but i did find two examples on pages 58 and 59. on 58 the diagram showes the SM predator cannot fire it's right lascannon because it's hull blocks LOS.

 

on 59 for sponson weapons are described as shooting more or less 180, depending on the sponson mounting.

 

As per a dreadnoughts mini cameras or sensors, what happens if i leave them off?

 

I'm just pointing things out as written in the rulebook, i have debunked several of my own arguments with my own RAW findings, all i want is a clear picture of how this is written, not how Gav and Alesio want it to work, and not how we think it should work.

 

How it's written = RAW

[Corpse.]

Weapon LoS are not the same as Model LoS, what if all weapons are destroyed? Is it blind?

 

A rule missing is the same as having a rule portraying something unfinished.

 

A vehicle (well all models) LoS are 360 degrees.

 

The weapons are whats limited to a firing arc.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

There is no such thing as "weapon los" and "model los" there is only los. For infantry, its what you can draw a line from their eyes to. For vehicles, los = weapon firing arc. This is very explicit in the rule book. There is nothing saying that stuff have a 360 degree los in the 5th ed rulebook. Thats a leftover from 4th ed. Normally that is moot because you do not have to have los to attempt to shoot something (only to succede at it) and you can just turn/pivot models before that. But in the case of fire frenzy where you are not pivoting it before hand it is an issue.

 

Page 11: Turning and facing.

"Infantry models can turn to face the unit in the movement phase"

Is what I was referring to. Dreadnoughts move like infantry. Reading the whole paragraph may be a better insight.

 

Dreadnoughts move like infantry. They do not shoot or determine los like infantry. Only movement.

[Dan The Deamon]

Corpse, i disagree. Not because it's bad logic, but because it's nowhere in the book. What's in the book is written differently and that's the only thing i'm after.

 

I think it's unclear what we're all aiming for here.

 

RAW= Rules as written, in this circumstance they are extremely vague and full of holes, however what we take from the actual written rules is something people are having problems coping with.

 

RAI= Rules as interpreted. What we think the rules say based off common sense, and filling in gaps with rules from other places.

 

RAIn = Rules as intended. Something i'm figuring has a lot to do in these arguments. Gav and Alesio wrecked the codex, nerfed all of our entries, and planned on making a weak book. Therefor we assume that they intended bad things for Fire Frenzy, leaving us interpreting the rules as any victim would.

 

to be honest this debate will not end. RAW states one thing, RAI leans towards something else. The posts jump back and forth between the two and there is no way of reaching a conclusion.

 

GW needs a faq

[Corpse.]

RAI = Rules as Intended, unless that changed within the year?

 

"Not because its bad logic" I'll look over that as a miss-intended placement, I'm sure you didn't intend to try to insult.

 

 

So your saying we agree to disagree with each settled on their own conjecture? Not seeing anyone back down from their viewpoints, so thats cool. If anything new pops up I'll keep reading.

[Dan The Deamon]

i'll try again

 

your logic is sound, but i disagree...

 

RAI- nah nothings probably changed I saw it representing two different things every time i read it

 

we can interpret rules correctly or incorrectly (RAI)

we can fill in gaps to complete the Dev's intentions (RAIn)

and we can read them as written. (RAW)

 

I see three different things. Mainly because i played at a store with a HUGE misinterpretation of rules when 5th came out.

 

Like i said earlier in the post i'm working on sending Jervis a letter. I can't think of a more frequently asked question that Fire Frenzy. It doesn't make sense to let such a vague ruling continue, there are people playing Fire Frenzy both ways and GW is just watching.

[Magnus Thane]

So... can I pivot away or not in the gaze of Frenzy and does it affect the outcome?

What is the most common assumption in regards to Chaos Dreads?

[Daeghrefn]

People in my area have always played this such that the dreadnought will pivot towards anything that would be visible once it had turned in that direction; only a nearby model that los completely blocked was ignored. Then again, we don't see many people take the chaos dreadnought around here.

[CuznP]

It seems hat a lot of people are playing their Dreads with 4th Ed. still in their heads. Which I can completely understand because the rules are confusing and spread throughout a myrad of pages in the 5th ed. Rulebook. And this, in and of itself is fine providing the people you play with all agree on what's going on. But, we are now in the magical realm of 5th Ed. and I think it behooves us to play 5th Edition rules. Let's get up to date everybody.

[Magnus Thane]

I never even understood WHY GW made the Chaos Dread so useless and erratic. It makes no sense whatsoever.

[Corpse.]

4th Edition Chaos Codex in a 5th edition game.

 

Of course there is always conflictions.

[Chimerical]

Okay, I'm gonna weigh in on the side of the slightly-less- retarded dreads by responding to some of the totally-retarded-dread arguments.

 

 

Page 11: Turning and facing.

"Infantry models can turn to face the unit in the movement phase"

Is what I was referring to. Dreadnoughts move like infantry. Reading the whole paragraph may be a better insight.

 

That rule is not relevant to the situation in any case since part of the rule of 'fire frenzy' is that the dread does not move at all. The pivoting, if necessary, happens 'at the beginning of the shooting phase'.

 

 

A vehicle (well all models) LoS are 360 degrees.

 

The weapons are whats limited to a firing arc.

 

That's just flat out wrong, as Drudge, Dan and Cuzp have repeatedly shown and referenced in the BRB.

 

 

Just my two cents here, but why would they instruct you to pivot towards the target if you could only select something that was already within the weapon's arch of fire?

 

Well here I disagree with Dan's interpretation. I think it means you turn the dread so that it directly faces the unit it is going to shoot. This will have implications for armour facing and also for subsequent 'crazed' rolls.

 

 

Here's what I think it ultimately boils down to: 'pivot on the spot towards the closest visible unit'. RAW that means you determine 'what is the closest visible unit', then you pivot towards that target. As a vehicle, LoS is drawn from weapon(s) and walker weapons have 45 degree range. The leap we take here is that LoS defines 'visibility', anything out of LoS is not seen, which sounds perfectly sensible, unless GW has a secret technical meaning of 'visible' which differs from LoS and exists solely for the sake of this rule.

 

The naysayers must at any rate admit this: If the rule clearly meant that the dread pivots 360 degrees before choosing the target, it would be written something like this: 'pivot on the spot towards the unit that is closest to it and on which it can draw LoS'. This phrasing would mean you check first for proximity, then check for visibility.

 

As it is, 'closest' is a subset of 'what is visible', not vice versa.

 

 

4th Edition Chaos Codex in a 5th edition game.

 

Except they essentially did the exact same thing in 4th.

 

The way I look at it: Is it really that mysterious in a codex that also features spawn, possessed's daemonic gifts, 'lesser daemons', icons, Lash of Submission? In this context, idiocy is the norm.