Chaos Dreadnoughts

[Brother Vader]

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

 

True, the only difference was that in 4th ed Walkers had a 180 degree front arc. Looks like fire frenzy has been

misinterpreted for a loooong time!

 

However, seeing as we're now in 5th, there's a useful little phrase on page 72;

 

"Unlike infantry, a walker has a facing, which influences where it can fire and it's Armour Value when fired at".

 

Just don't walk in front of your dreads.

[the jeske]

'pivot on the spot towards the unit that is closest to it and on which it can draw LoS'

it would only be worded like that , if the chaos dex was a 5th ed dex .

[Dan The Deamon]

There are those who treat what is written, as what is law.

On the RAW side, what's written allows us to legally use dreads in our favor.

 

There are those who suppliment what is written with intentions and interpretations.

On the RAI side, it's obvious it's only intented to work a certain way, yet it wasn't written that way.

 

Both are valid gaming systems, but people usually stick by one or the other, leaving us with an endless argument.

Until there is finally word from a reputable source (Faq, JJ, ETC) both of these rules are legal even in their own contradiction.

 

We can spit endless rulebook quotes and citations to eachother, I think we've scoured the book and we're left without enough evidence to make a proper ruling.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Let's not forget that the chaos codex was supposedly written with 5th ed in mind as well.

[Brother Vader]

On the RAI side, it's obvious it's only intented to work a certain way, yet it wasn't written that way.

 

Hmmm, it's not that obvious. That's the problem with RAI. Trying to second guess what games designers were thinking

and extrapolating intent from fluff is a highly subjective thing.

 

It is fluffy for a chaos dreddy to go postal and gun down the chaos space marines nearest to it. It's also fluffy to

have the dreddy blast the closest thing in it's fire arc. That is, after all, the first target it sees when it goes nuts.

The dreddy isn't thinking "Hmmm, I feel a bit like blasting something, I'd better check behind me to see if there's

anything closer than those guys I can already see up ahead."

 

I have always played the dreddy as just blasting the closest target, but this thread has changed my mind. The blood

rage result doesn't force you to charge your own troops with the dreddy, so why should the fire frenzy rule be any

different in intent. That is, of course, a highly subjective RAI argument. :D

[Chimerical]

'pivot on the spot towards the unit that is closest to it and on which it can draw LoS'

it would only be worded like that , if the chaos dex was a 5th ed dex .

 

That's beside the point. ' Pivot towards closest visible unit' is how the rule is written and that has a specific meaning under 5th ed rules, despite whether or not the meaning was different in 4th.

[the jeske]

well the problem is rule book < codex . IF a dex tells you [and only god knows what the dread rule says , because it makes no sense] to do something that is illegal for every other unit/model/codex you do it.

 

there are two good things about the dread situation . It is a crapy unit that no one uses , so the problem is small . Even if it worked better , if fills the slots[not actuall FoC] for support units and there are other which are superior , so again problem is small.

Without a FAQ no one knows how it works . It is very close to the BA transports without fire and exit points to be honest.

[CuznP]

I think the rules are quite clearly laid out in both the rule book and the codex, as per my original post.

 

It's convoluted, granted, but not a mystery.

[satanaka]

The issue is that all models in 40K have a 360 degree arc of LOS.

 

I use do dreds and have interpreted them to also have a 360 degree arc for purposes of FF.

[CuznP]

The issue is that all models in 40K have a 360 degree arc of LOS.

 

Please give me a page number where I can find this rule that I must have overlooked.

 

This is not 4th ed. anymore.

[Brother Vader]

I'd also like to see a page reference for that in 4th ed too, 'cos I've just dug out my old rulebook and can't find it.

 

What I did find in the 4th ed rulebook (page 64) is this;

 

"Just like infantry, vehicles need to be able to a draw line of sight to their targets in order to shoot at them. Vehicles trace their line of sight for shooting directly from their weapon mountings. Weapons mounted on vehicles often have a limited arc of fire and may not fire on units that are outside this arc."

 

Even 4th ed rules support CuznP's argument. We have all been playing dreddys wrong for years.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

There is still the issue of interpreting the word "visible". We don't know that it means "visible" to the dread, it may mean visible to the player, or not-invisible.

[CuznP]

Actually... the BRB does address what the term "visible" means. On page 16. "Line of sight must be traced from the eyes [or weapon mounts in the case of vehicles] of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit... Sometimes, all that may be visible of a model is a weapon...."

 

Visibility is what the model can see when drawing LOS.

 

:rolleyes:

[Drudge Dreadnought]

That is hardly a definition of the word, or of its use. In fact, in that quote, its using "visible" to mean "not-invisible". So that passage actually supports the other position.

[CuznP]

I do agree that the rules in that section do describe what is "Not visible" rather than visible. But it gives clear instructions on how to find out if something is "Not visible" (ie. Check LOS and see if you can see a body part of a member of the unit, not just weapons banners and whatnot.) and then if it is not "Not visible" then it must be visible.

 

It's how English works.

[Chimerical]

Whoa slow down there guys. I don't think you need to get into the semantics like that.

 

What we can say about that passage is something about the way GW uses the word 'visible'. Basically if you can draw a bead (laser pointer) on a model within the field of your model's line of sight, it is visible to your model. There's none of this 'defining not-visible', they just give an exception (i.e. wings, standards, sword tips etc. may be visible but they don't COUNT AS visible, for the sake of not penalising creative modelling or rewarding LoS blocking abuse).

 

Honestly, I see nothing confusing or ambiguous in that passage at all. If we're gonna hammer GW for bad writing, we should recognise when they don't screw up as well.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

The issue is not the meaning of visible. The issue is that fire frenzy doesn't say it shoots the nearest unit visible to the dreadnought. Just the nearest thing visible. It could mean to the player, or to anybody.

[LuNCHBiZZLe]

I called a few days ago about choosing to fire my smoke launchers after rolling and getting fire frenzy,the person I spoke on the phone with said that was a legal action,I then had him repeat that while on speaker phone so everyone at my local gaming store could hear it.

[Brother Vader]

The person you spoke to doesn't know what they're talking about. Check the current CSM FAQ.

You can't fire smoke launchers to prevent fire frenzy.

[the jeske]

what is also the base for why you cant run to prevent a dread going crazy. if you had a unit that had to charge something in range , you couldnt double tap with HQ attached to it to stop the from charging etc.

[Chimerical]

The issue is not the meaning of visible. The issue is that fire frenzy doesn't say it shoots the nearest unit visible to the dreadnought. Just the nearest thing visible. It could mean to the player, or to anybody.

 

Before I can respond to that I have to ask: Are you being sarcastic?

[trolly]

hi,

 

after reading the thread twice i'm sorry being late to join.

let see what is lack??

what lack is IMAGINATION.

guys we playing 40K here not fantasy.

guys we playing round bases here not square bases.

guys we play with imagination that follow the rules.

can you imagine how to teach someone new playing 40K in measuring distance and explaining why bolt=RPG and why lasgun not as powerful as bolt round. ( remember that laser is futuristic stuff that supposed to be uber weapon ).

we have 360 facing for model view not just 45 or 180.

dnought have 360 bases not square one.

 

see the basic movement on page 11. ( not about turning and facing but the movement distance )

there said that creature moving 6 in to represent the fact that they scan the surrounding. that is the basic of movement and also implied that creature ( vehicle included ) see their surrounding in 360.

if someone said that the bulk block LOS that not true coz it is for shooting purposes NOT about seeing to find target that is visible or not.

 

what i can imagine ( and understand ) in page 58 BRB is, that the predator pilot see both threat ( boyz and trukk ) but decided that the trukk is the bigger threat than the boyz, and too bad his lascannon in right sponson is blocked by the hull.

and please if you support that the bulk is block LOS, the next time greater daemon deep striking behind your terminator, please dont face your termy to face that greater daemon, so they can shoot it.( just like playing fantasy i mean )

imagine that ( once again you need imagination for this ) you are a tanker and see from only weapon view. when the weapon is out you are blind and you have to show your head to see what the road in front of you, to be blown off by a sniper bullet. no sane people, including me, will ride that vehicle. that why vehicle, such as land raider, have cupola in it, that can see 360.

thus explain that what can see the surrounding is not the vehicle but the pilot inside that vehicle. and this including dnought.

we have to imagine that pilot always want to know their surrounding.

 

why dnought have 360 view?

coz it have a WAIST, just like infantry. he move like infantry, act like infantry. but their hull facing and how to shoot weapon is what make the difference than infantry.

because it have a waist, that mean that it can pivot 360.

as per frenzy rule. that mean a crazed pilot see his surrounding and if he find some one in the back and close to him ( friend or foe ), he unleash his weapon, TWICE. just because he is held too long in stasis. ( imagine yourself being in stasis please ).

imagine that he can move his waist move his arm, jumping, shouting, scream, etc, etc.

 

if you still think that dnought see in weapon view and cant see his back, let me ask about vehicle weapon mounting mechanic.

can you imagine why hull mounted weapon only 45 degree on turret is 360?

before we continue let use agree that from front to back of the vehicle is x-axis, side to side is y-axis and top to bottom is z-axis.

hull mounted weapon is 45 because it can moved in z-axis but limited because it mount in the chassis. sponson can move in 180 coz it can move in z-axis but blocked by the hull, and in the case of leman russ limited in 90 because it mounting prevent them to move in 180.

what about defiler that have head and sponson weapon. how it see its surrounding?

then come the dreadnought, its hull mounted and traverse it weapon only in 45, per weapon.

but can you guys imagine that from its weapon mounting, dnought can traverse his arm 360 in y-axis?

though 40K robot mechanic is not complicated as japanesse Gundam, i can imagine how dnought arm move.

imagine that if dnought going crazed, he turn his waist, but if he cannot ( as you guys who believed it cant see his back ), imagine that he rotate both his arm in 360 along the y-axis, to find his target.

i can also imagine that dnought sarcophagi act as a turret in its chassis same as defiler hull as turret in its leg.

 

in my conclusion is.

dnought can see his surrounding in 360, but his weapon only 45, and when crazed he must find the closest unit ( friend or foe ) and fired his weapon twice.

 

i'm writing it not in purpose of insult or anything, just unleashed my thought.

once again guys, USE YOUR IMAGINATION.

 

cheers,

:lol:

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Imagination can go either way, which is why we have rules in the first place.

[trolly]

hi,

 

yes rule is rule.

but by playing the games also force you to use your imagination.

 

 

cheers,

:D

[the jeske]

i'm writing it not in purpose of insult or anything, just unleashed my thought.

once again guys, USE YOUR IMAGINATION.

but you do know that this is a game which rules set has nothing to with fluff , balance or anyform of imagination?