Jump to content

Chaos Dreadnoughts


CuznP

Recommended Posts

hi,

 

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

 

oh yes.

as i said rule is rule. which can swipe away fluff and imagination.

but some of the rule is need imagination.

such as why a space marine still need to roll a scatter dice when firing blast weapon, when they supposed to be good at shooting.

my imagination said that he maybe shaken by seeing hordes of ork or maybe the ground shaking, that why his missile missed or something.

what i write in above is what i thought, and thus need to be discussed with my opponent ( if they field chaos dreadnought also ).

i feel if i not use my imagination then it is the same as playing fantasy.

 

cheers,

:D

Afaik the rulebook states that all written rules are meant to be used as a basis for gameplaying and that in every case where a rule might not work out or not "fit the case" one should use common sense and imagination...

You can find this on the first page of the "Rules" section, just take a good look ("The most important rule" as GW states in there)!!

Gotta love people using their imagination to interpret rules!

 

Here's what my imagination tells me.

 

1) Dreddy goes crazy

2) Dreddy has 2 units nearby, a friendly unit 6 inches behind him in cover and an enemy unit 7 inches in front that just fired a Lascannon at him. Which does he shoot, hmmmmm decisions, decisions!?!

 

Some people will claim he's mental, so it makes sense for him to spin around looking for targets first, then shoot. That makes sense, he's obviously crazed, it says so in the fluff. Others (me included) will say that it makes more sense for him to shoot the first target he sees, without doing any pivoting to check for targets, especially if that's a unit right in front that just shot at him. That's fluffy, an enemy unit shoots the dreddy, dreddy survives, goes mental and double-taps them in a mad fit of vengance. For me, that's much more cinematic and in keeping with how GW like their games to be imagined. But this is the problem with bringing imagination into interpreting rules. Different people imagine different things. Stick to the rules.

 

The pivot comes AFTER target selection, not before and it's there to bring both weapons to bear and changes your armour facing for return attacks. It's not there to make dreddys spin around and blast people behind them. Dreddys have a 45 degree arc of fire to the front, not a 360 degree field of view. You can 'imagine' all you like, but that's not what the rulebook says.

In response (can't find the citation right now, will try when not at work) to a question regarding LoS and Infiltration, GW said that everything is considered to have 360 degree LoS (so weapon arcs <> LoS) because otherwise when Infiltrating, players would have to spend time arranging the facing of all the models in a unit and/or orientating their vehicle turrets to cover potential angles of Infiltration as LoS affected the distance Infiltrators could deploy.

Unless some one can point to where the rules counter what was written by Steve, thats the version I will be going by and handing out to other Chaos players next games night.

 

And when I say rules, I mean in b&w in the current rule book or codex, not what maybe hidden between the lines or maybe true but not written as true.

Ok let me clear with something that abuses one rule, to adhere to the basis of what people stick to here.

 

Our own models are impassible.

All models must be applied to the base they come with. Older chaos dreads did not come with a base.

Put a single model directly behind the dreadnought so it cannot pivot and is stopped pivoting. Just like with tanks, a pivot needs room to happen.

 

Bud of mine uses this but it completely slipped my mind until recently.

Our own models are impassible.

All models must be applied to the base they come with. Older chaos dreads did not come with a base.

Put a single model directly behind the dreadnought so it cannot pivot and is stopped pivoting. Just like with tanks, a pivot needs room to happen.

 

Just like your "you can choose to run after you roll a FF" theory, this has no basis in RAW or RAI, and really no basis in reality.

Where do you come up with this stuff ?

It's not an official GW FAQ, but it seems like common sense is winning this argument on the

tournament scene. Check page 30.

 

http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/inat/INATFAQv3.0.pdf

Time to dust off the ol' crazy dreads! :) :lol: :lol: Excellent find!

That FAQ in it's entirety.. wow, just wow.

I suddenly feel the urge to participate in Adepticon.

 

Can we please get a new FAQ from Games Workshop, one that addresses the issues we keep arguing over (e.g. like the FAQ above)? :)

Yeah, that FAQ is amazing. I've seen a lot of what went into making it since is read the DakkaDakka forums too.

 

Well in light of the more convincing arguments for the definition of visibility i might be trying dreads out again myself.

Our own models are impassible.

All models must be applied to the base they come with. Older chaos dreads did not come with a base.

Put a single model directly behind the dreadnought so it cannot pivot and is stopped pivoting. Just like with tanks, a pivot needs room to happen.

 

Just like your "you can choose to run after you roll a FF" theory, this has no basis in RAW or RAI, and really no basis in reality.

Where do you come up with this stuff ?

 

Turn like infantry, however like with bike models, you cannot spin the model if something is right up against along side its long base. Since its not perfectly round. For all intents and purposes through the rulebook our own models are treated as impassible terrain, you cant have a model's base step on another models base or move between bases leaving space too small for the model to pass through. Unless its a model that ignores terrain that is.

 

Older dreadnoughts, by RAW do not have to be based. If they need to turn to face, sure they can twist, only as far as other models allow it to.

 

 

And, if you want to revert to "I'm challenging your credibility for my statement against yours with no viable proof how it cannot be done" level, I'll be in a better mood tomorrow to talk to you about it. For now, I'll pretend your 4502 posts' experience went a bit dark and ignore it.

All I have read so far is the opposition saying its wrong with out sighting anything to back up there arguments, while the other side has. I have looked up the pages listed and sure enough they're right. I have been using my dreads wrong for a while now it seems.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.