Dreadnought

[Scrambles]

The fluff behind the Chaos Dreadnought is that it is possessed,

Why doesn't it get the possessed ability?

Are there corrections to be made to the Chaos Dreadnought?

[Corpse.]

The fluff goes as follows.

 

Dreadnoughts are cyborg marines revived from death or near death. They are often in savage pain while awake, and disconnected from reality in their metal prison. Being in a dreadnought is being on your deathbed. Marines go insane after even a dozen years of being inside one. They are often and sometimes always kept in stasis, or unconscious between battles.

 

Chaos dreadnoughts are not put out, rather the suffering is enhanced being a chaos denizen.

 

That is why they go insane. They are not possessed, but sometimes they use daemons for various functions. Most of the representation of that part was removed when the recent chaos codex was brought out.

 

GW has yet to fix it.

[Atheist]

However the latest rules' analysis on the dreads cannot be disproved ( by existing rules - while at the same time is solidly proved by existing rules ) , which means that even though unfixed , they can at least be playable under certain ( tactical ) conditions , whichever weapon they "wear" , which is good enough for me .

 

( At least compared to the total randomness of the 4th edition interpretation of their Fire Frenzy rule , which was , well , insanely stupid . )

[David the Despoiler]

I like this rules analysis very much! Makes using Dreadnoughts much more tempting.

[Brother RedAxe]

I have never had a good time with Dreads in any game I have used it in. Every time I get a first turn sane, that leads to nothing gained, then spend the rest of the destroying my own tanks and shooting my termie lord in the back, he always lives but it is never fun having my own troops shoot up by it. If it were possessed it wouldn't shoot as well. Nothing in the fluff says demons have anything to do with dreads, it would make them more like a baby defiler then.

[Hellios]

That is how I read the rules ;). Also I thought Dreads were insane rather than possessed although I guess the interned person could be possessed but certainly not all of them are possessed.

[Legatus]

I am affraid that rules interpretation is a mis...interpretation.

 

That interpretation is based in the assumptions that a) the "Vehicle's Line of Sight" is the sum of all the "Vehicle's Weapons Lines of Sight", and that ;) vehicles usually chose their targets before checking whether or not it is within Line of Sight.

 

 

Assumption b: "Vehicles normally chose targets before checking whether they are within LOS"

 

Infantry units are not allowed to pick a target unless "the unit" (p. 15) or "at least one model of the unit" (p. 16) has LOS to the target. Once the target has been chosen, a later step is then to check the LOS of each individual unit member to determine whether it can fire it's weapon or not.

 

Since the vehicle rules do not explain that vehicles can pick targets out of LOS, I conclude that they too can only pick targets that are within LOS. The paragraph about "Vehicle Weapons & Line of Sight" then explains that for that later step of determining which weapon can fire (analogue to which unit member can fire) you trace LOS from each weapon individually.

 

Similarly, the rules for walkers explain that they pivot on the spot to face the selected target, so for all intends and purposes I conclude that the walker has already had LOS to that target in order to chose it in the first place. So the shooting phase progression would actually be:

 

1. Pick an enemy unit and ckeck whether it is within LOS of the walker

2. If within LOS, determine that unit as your target

3. Pivot the walker to face the target unit

4. Check individual weapon LOS to see which weapon can fire or against which weapon the target may get a cover save

5. etc.

 

Vehicles have special rules for step 4, where individual weapon LOS is determined. It does not say anything about their overall LOS and the ability to pick an enemy target in the first place.

 

 

Assumption a: the "Vehicle's Line of Sight" is the sum of all the "Vehicle's Weapons Lines of Sight"

 

Since the rules for vehicles give no limitations, I assume that they can draw LOS from any part of their hull in order to determine whether an enemy unit is within their LOS or not, similar to how Infantry models draw LOS from their "head" into any direction, and that then the weapon LOS arcs are used to determine whether that particular weapon can fire at the selected target or not. You would not have to face Infantry into the correct direction in order to have viable LOS to an enemy unit in the shooting phase, do you? I am sure everyone agrees that infantry can also pick a unit in their back that no member of the unit is actually facing. As Dreadnoughts are allowed to turn and face the picked target with their weapons, I assume it is teh same for them. Once a target has been picked, not all models of a unit would be allowed to shoot at it, though, as their individual LOS may be blocked.

 

Also, if you claim that vehicles can only draw a LOS to units based on their weapon arcs, then some vehicles will not prevent infiltrators to be placed within 12" right next to them in the open. Imagine for example a Dreadnought facing forward, and a unit of Genestealers being placed 12" away from him, as "the Dreadnought only has a 45° LOS arc forward".

[Forgerer]

Once a target has been picked, not all models of a unit would be allowed to shoot at it, though, as their individual LOS may be blocked.

 

Members of the same squad do not block line of sight

[Lorgars Servent]

I think he means other battlefield objects getting in the way (like the rocks in the W40k rule book rather than models in the same unit.

 

could be wrong thou

[Legatus]

You are not wrong. Only those models of a unit that can draw a LOS of their own can shoot at the target. Individual models with no LOS can not shoot. Their LOS is not blocked by their own squad mates, but possibly by terrain or other units.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Actually Legatus, vehicles los IS their firing arc. See Vehicle Weapons & Line of Sight on page 58.

 

This topic has bee debated to death in several threads here. I suggest you look one of them up. The originally linked blog post does not do the issue justice. This interpretation is widely accepted now. It has even been ruled in some of the large tournament FAQs.

[Legatus]

Actually Legatus, vehicles los IS their firing arc. See Vehicle Weapons & Line of Sight on page 58.

I have seen page 58, and all it discusses is individual weapon's LOS for the purpose of determining whether that weapon can fire or not.

 

"When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them against the target and then trace the line of sight from each weapons' mounting and along its barrel, to see if the shot is blocked by terrain or models."

 

"In the rare case when it matters (your tank might be targeting a sniper high up in a bell tower), assume that guns can swivel vertically roughly by 45°"

 

The important element is that "in order to select an enemy unit as a target" it has to be within LOS of the firing unit. Otherwise it cannot be selected as a target in the first place. Once that target has been selected, the "Vehicle Weapons & Line of Sight" rule comes into effect to determine which weapon is allowed to shoot at the selected target or against which weapons the enemy would count as being in cover. This is highlighted very well by the final example with the high up sniper, as it may even happen that a vehicle selects a target that it can then not shoot at with any of it's weapons.

 

The walker rules are even more clear about how the rules work out:

 

"When firing a walker's weapons, pivot the walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target (...) and then measure range from the weapon itself and line of sight from the mounting point of the weapon and along its barrel, as normal for vehicles."

 

It cannot really be contested that in that description the target is picked first (with LOS being a requirement for that, according to basic shooting rules), then the walker pivots to face the target, and then you proceed to check individual weapon LOS according to the "Vehicle Weapons & Line of Sight" rules.

 

The interpretation given in that link is a terrible case of rules lawyering even before getting into the issue of turning a vehicle during the movement phase even though it is forbidden to move.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

I don't feel like going through this whole discussion again, so i'll just say this: Show me the page in the rulebook that says vehicles have any LOS other than firing arc. I'll see if i can find the thread where this was already discussed.

 

EDIT: Thar you go http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...howtopic=184451

[Brother Vader]

Why is this argument not put to bed yet!?!

 

People have been playing it wrong since 4th ed. If you dig your 4th ed rulebooks out and check p64 you will see a diagram of a dreadnought with a 180 degree line of fire to the front. Under the heading 'Vehicle line of sight' are the sentences: "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."

 

Pivot or no pivot, if it was out of weapon LOS at the start of the shooting phase it wasn't a viable target and the dreddy therefore wouldn't pivot to face it. It's the same in 5th.

[tyrannosaurus]

As far as I can see that thread's far from conclusive, until there's an official FAQ from GW it's open to opinion.

 

Rulebook says "It must pivot on the spot towards the closest visible unit". Visible means 360 degrees. If something deepstruck behind a dread, it could pivot in its shooting phase to face the deepstriking unit.

Deepstriking unit is then within LOS of dreadnought's guns [and eyes].

 

If tanks can pick out any target within 360 degrees then pivot so that they draw LOS with their guns, seems a bit silly to say that dreadnoughts can't.

 

Crazed dreadnought pivots to face closest visible unit within 360 degrees then fires guns. To me that's the 'spirit' of the rule too.

 

Crazed is a stupid rule anyway, if loyalists can handle the pain of being half dead, then it must be a doddle for CMs.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

As far as I can see that thread's far from conclusive, until there's an official FAQ from GW it's open to opinion.

 

Rulebook says "It must pivot on the spot towards the closest visible unit". Visible means 360 degrees. If something deepstruck behind a dread, it could pivot in its shooting phase to face the deepstriking unit.

Deepstriking unit is then within LOS of dreadnought's guns [and eyes].

 

If tanks can pick out any target within 360 degrees then pivot so that they draw LOS with their guns, seems a bit silly to say that dreadnoughts can't.

 

Crazed dreadnought pivots to face closest visible unit within 360 degrees then fires guns. To me that's the 'spirit' of the rule too.

 

Crazed is a stupid rule anyway, if loyalists can handle the pain of being half dead, then it must be a doddle for CMs.

 

This comes down to what "visible" means. Does it mean visible to the player, or visible to the dreadnought? If it means to the player, then you are correct that it could be anything on the board. If it means visible to the dreadnought, then it means within firing arc. There is no text indicating exactly which it is. But since it is the dreadnought doing the shooting, the most direct assumption is that its what the dreadnought sees. There is no example anywhere in the rules of stuff being based on what the player sees, only what units see.

 

Furthermore, the meaning of visible is implied. 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...."

 

Also note that fire frenzy is a special rule with its own set of conditions. It does not necessarily follow the normal shooting sequence. It follows whatever sequence it says.

 

Normal shooting sequence for a dread:

1 - Pick a target

2 - Pivot towards the target to bring it within weapon arcs

3 - check LOS

4 - shoot

 

Notice that you do not need los to try to shoot something. You only need it to actually shoot something.

 

Fire frenzy shooting sequence:

1 - Figure out what the target is. It isn't selected by the player. The target is "the nearest visible unit". As explained above, this means visible to the dread. And visible means within the firing arc. So it is the nearest unit within its firing arc(s).

2 - Pivot towards the target

3 - shoot it twice.

 

It is important to understand the historical context. In 4th edition, there was a rule stating that units could see 360 degrees. In 5th, that rule is gone. It is replaced by model's eye view for infantry, and weapon arcs for vehicles. So it is easy to see how the new LOS rules have changed how fire frenzy works.

[Legatus]

I don't feel like going through this whole discussion again, so i'll just say this: Show me the page in the rulebook that says vehicles have any LOS other than firing arc. I'll see if i can find the thread where this was already discussed.

 

EDIT: Thar you go http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...howtopic=184451

My interpretation is based on the premise that vehicles follow the same rules as infantry except for the cases where the rules explain that they follow different rules.

 

In that thread there have been claims that infantry (and by transition vehicles) have a 360° LOS, while others have claimed that there is no 360° LOS for infantry in the 5th Edition rules. Well, there is on page 11:

 

"Turning and Facing

(...) Infantry models can also be turned to face their targets in the shooting phase, so don't worry about which way they are pointing at the end of their Movement phase"

 

I.E. a regular model can target (= draw LOS to) enemy units everywhere within 360°.

 

Edit: As far as I can see the same paragraph was the origin of the 360° LOS for regular models in 4th Edition as well, so the 5th Edition actually is identical in this respect. End Edit.

 

While the general vehicle rules only speak of turning turrets and weapons towards the chosen target, the walker rules speak of turning the whole model, similar to regular models.

 

 

People have been playing it wrong since 4th ed. If you dig your 4th ed rulebooks out and check p64 you will see a diagram of a dreadnought with a 180 degree line of fire to the front. Under the heading 'Vehicle line of sight' are the sentences: "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."

 

Pivot or no pivot, if it was out of weapon LOS at the start of the shooting phase it wasn't a viable target and the dreddy therefore wouldn't pivot to face it. It's the same in 5th.

Also from 4th Edition page 64:

 

"Any vehicle that is not immobilised, and did not move in the movement phase, can pivot on the spot in the Shooting phase before they shoot without counting it as movement, so they can fire as if they were stationary."

 

 

This is how shooting worked for infantry (4th ed BBB, page 20/21):

 

"You can only select an enemy unit as a target if your unit can see it"

 

"Any individual models in the unit that don't have a line of sight to the target unit can't fire"

 

Note how the first line (page 20) speaks of being allowed to select a target, while the second line (page 21) then describes that models need individual LOS to fire their weapons at the target.

 

 

And this how it worked for vehicles (4th ed BBB, page 64):

 

"Just like infantry, vehicles need to be able to draw a line of sight to their targets in order to shoot at them. Vehicles trace their line of sight for shooting directly from the weapon moutings."

 

Note how the viability of the selected target is not questioned due to limited LOS, which had been a requirement in the basic shooting rules. The issue is which weapons can shoot at the selected target, similar to the second line from the infantry rules. Hence the term "Arc of Fire" instead of "LOS". It is not about picking a target, it is about being able to shoot individual weapons at it.

 

Combine that with the paragraph of vehicles pivoting in the shooting phase before shooting and try to explain why a dreadnought should not simply pick a target right behind him, turn around to face it, and then fire it's weapons that now have a viable arc of fire at that target.

[Brother Vader]

Well if you really want to uber-nerf your own unit go for it. Fire Frenzy pivots come after target selection though, Drudge Dreadnought is correct.

 

In 4th edition, there was a rule stating that units could see 360 degrees.

 

No there isn't. There is a rule stating that infantry can be turned to face in the shooting phase (page 16). But that's infantry, not walkers.

 

explain why a dreadnought should not simply pick a target right behind him, turn around to face it, and then fire it's weapons that now have a viable arc of fire at that target.

 

Because it's 10,000 years of bat-poop mental and shoots the first thing it sees when it has one of it's "turns", which will be what's in front of it.

[tyrannosaurus]

If I can pivot and fire my vehicle at anything on the board [within range and LOS of the guns once I have pivoted] then I can't expect to be allowed to follow different rules for my dreadnought. If I can turn my dreadnought to fire at a deepstriking unit behind it then the same must be true for a crazed dreadnought whether the unit is friendly or not. Making a distinction between what is visible to the player and what is visible to the dreadnought is pure semantics.

 

Again it's about the spirit of the rules, and it's clear to me that the spirit of the rules would require a crazed dread to select the closest unit within 360 degrees, pivot and fire. Having a turn based system is necessary for the game mechanics to work, but in reality a unit/dread/vehicle would be constantly scanning their surroundings, checking their sensors etc. to pick up targets/threats. Just beacuse a dreadnought is crazed doesn't mean it would stop looking around or stop reciving information from its sensors, just that it would be less selective with its targets.

[Legatus]

Well if you really want to uber-nerf your own unit go for it. Fire Frenzy pivots come after target selection though, Drudge Dreadnought is correct.

Regular dreadnought pivoting comes after target selection as well, so where is the difference to fire frenzy?

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Well if you really want to uber-nerf your own unit go for it. Fire Frenzy pivots come after target selection though, Drudge Dreadnought is correct.

Regular dreadnought pivoting comes after target selection as well, so where is the difference to fire frenzy?

 

Yes. But in regular shooting the player picks the target. In fire frenzy it is determined by the special rule. This issue is really that simple.

[Brother Vader]

Just beacuse a dreadnought is crazed doesn't mean it would stop looking around or stop reciving information from its sensors, just that it would be less selective with its targets.

 

That's entirely hypothetical, it's a made up thing in a made up grimdark future and it's gone mental, who knows what's going through it's crazy little mind.

 

Again it's about the spirit of the rules, and it's clear to me that the spirit of the rules would require a crazed dread to select the closest unit within 360 degrees, pivot and fire.

 

Why? That is a totally subjective position that has no basis in the rules. There are different degrees of crazy. Not all crazy people shoot their friends, so why should the dreddy?

 

Making a distinction between what is visible to the player and what is visible to the dreadnought is pure semantics.

 

Er, no. It's an essential part of the rules. Otherwise nothing would be out of sight ever, because as a player you can see the whole table. The model's eye view is everything.

 

Legatus' argument is very long and comprehensive (though flawed) with quotes from all over the rulebook and codex. The other argument is concise and elegant (not in weapon arc = not viable target. Pick target in weapon arc, then pivot). Seriously, which do you really want to go with!?! I don't know any chaos players in the real world that actually nerf their own dreddys like that. Why would you? Last time I played a Chaos player we played dreads the sensible way and his still shot his guys on the turn it fire frenzied purely because of the positions our units has ended up in following a string of assaults. So you can play with less crap dreads and still kill your own guys if you really want to. :tu:

[40kChrista]

The whole thing is touch confusing.

 

BRB

pg 72., When firing a walkers weapons, pivot the walker on the spot so that it's guns are aimed at the target(assume that all weapons mounted on a walker can swivel 45 degrees,

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 it's barrel, as normal

for vehicles.

 

pg 59, Hull-mounted weapons can fire in a 45 degree arc from their mounting point.

 

Chaos 'Dex

pg 40 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 it's weapons against it - twice! If the Chaos Dreadnought cannot fire any ranged weapons, treat this result as a '2-5 Sane' result

instead.

 

So it seems, initially, you use the hull-mounted weapon option to determine what the Dread can see... but then sight the weapons from their respective mountings. So wouldn't you use the 45 degree arc to find the Dreads target? And if there is an enemy army in front of it, within range from those weapons... and most of us can guesstimate that range before checking... wouldn't that be the closest target? Not the unit of Chaos marines behind it?

 

I like Dreads and just want to clarify this for myself more than anything.

 

Grim

[Brother Vader]

Yes Grim, that's how it works.

[40kChrista]

Ok I'm not crazy then... always did wonder about this. I was coverting up my Dreads as the current 'Dex came out and then all you saw on forums was how bad 'Dreads became.

 

Thanks Vader