Chaos Dread Fire Frenzy

[Seahawk]

You must remember though, this was written in 4th edition, which may have different rules than 5th edition regarding vehicle visibility. I'd list the differences but I also am at work...:D

[Something Wycked]

Seahawk, you may have hit it on the head there. If we can get to grips with the 4th edition LoS/visibility rules, we can probably put this one to bed one way or another. ^_^ If we can see how the rule was meant to work in 4th, we can assume that it should stay as true to that as possible in 5th. :D

[dswanick]

I can't while at work, but neither can you prove the Fire Frenzy rule states LoS must be drawn from a weapon mount. :D

Nor do I have to. The BRB contains the rules for determining LoS, and clearly states that LoS for a dreadnought is from the weapon mount in a 45' arc.

Vehicles have a 360 degree LoS; turrets and pintle mounted weapons take advantage of this by having a 360 degree arc of fire to match. I don't remember if Hunter Killer missiles require LoS to/from the vehicle or not, but I do remember they do not require a particular facing- it matters not in which area of the 360 degree circle around the vehicle the target is, the missile can be fired at the target.

Again, wrong. Nowhere do the rules give a 360' "field of vision" for vehicles. Vehicles have LoS rules which are dependent on the weapon mount and type.

The rule does not state: "At the beginning of the shooting phase the Dreadnought must pivot on the spot towards the closest unit within line of sight of its weapon mounts (friend or foe!) and fire all of its weapons against it - twice!"

Unless, of course, "visible" equals "in line of sight" - in which case that is exactly what the rule states.

The rule does state "[the Dreadnought] must pivot on the spot towards the closest visible unit (friend or foe!)..." The grammar clearly indicates the visibility is from the Dreadnought itself, not the weapon mounts.

Again, only when you assume that Dreadnoughts have a 360' "field of vision" which trumps the RAW LoS rules. Just as an aside - In fluff, you realize that a dreadnought is piloted by a guy stuffed in a sarcophagus with just a tiny vision port cut into one face. That without the hardware of the weapons mounts and targeting arrays the pilot may not even be able to see in a 45' arc to the front of the Dreadnought, right?

The rules clearly indicate that Dreadnoughts may pivot 360 degrees prior to determining line of sight or weapon mounts' arc of fire when shooting even when not in a Fire Frenzy state.

This is not in debate, or particularly relevant.

Consider the context of the rest of the rules in the BRB. When checking if a target is in LoS, you get a model's eye view to see if the target is "visible" or not. Also consider this rule is supposed to be random and a drawback. Friendly models are supposed to get targeted because of this rule ("friend or foe!"). Chaos Dreadnoughts are insane.

And even if we go with the interpretation that Fire Frenzy only targets the nearest model within the 45' arc of the weapons - the unit still has a 1 in 6 chance of not moving in the Movement Phase and Assaulting in the Assault Phase. Aren't these drawbacks enough? Add to that the chance that the player may have made a mistake and moved one of his own units into the LoS of the Dreadnought, and you have drawbacks aplenty to punish the player. The rule as you interpret it punishes the player even more, so much so that few people even want to use the thing.

[thade]

If we can see how the rule was meant to work in 4th, we can assume that it should stay as true to that as possible in 5th.

Indeed. After all, the GK had their uber Force Weapons right up until their new codex release.

[Saiisil]

How about this, if the Dreadnaught can fire it's weapons but there exist no units within visible LOS of it's weapons what do you do? treat it as a result of 'Sane'? I ask because the only criteria that the dreadnaught has to act sane in issue of Fire Frenzy is if the Dreadnaught can not fire.

 

 

I would like to restate this as it hasn't been addressed, specifically I will ask this of you dswanick how do you solve this issue? Dreadnaught can fire (not shaken/stunned and has ranged weapons not destroyed) but there are no targets in weapon LOS, how then does the Dreadnaught act? Do you pivot till you have targets in weapon LOS even if they aren't the closest unit or does the Dreadnaught act as if a 'Sane' result was rolled?

[dswanick]

You must remember though, this was written in 4th edition, which may have different rules than 5th edition regarding vehicle visibility. I'd list the differences but I also am at work...:D

VEHICLE LINE OF SIGHT

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 mountings. Weapons mounted on vehicles often have a limited arc of fire and may not fire on units that are outside this arc. Trace the actual line of fire from the weapon mounting to see if it will be blocked by terrain or other vehicles. Weapons mounted on walkers can fire in a 180' arc. Fixed weapons have a 90' fire arc from their mounting point.

So we would be having this same debate under the 4th edition rules.

 

Further, is it really a good idea to want a legacy unit to adhere to legacy rules? Fir example, in 4th edition blast weapons rolled to hit, and on a miss did nothing. In 5th we roll to scatter a blast weapon, meaning it will always hit somewhere. Or, for that matter, would you want the Dreadnought to be bound by Target Priority tests as well?

 

How about this, if the Dreadnaught can fire it's weapons but there exist no units within visible LOS of it's weapons what do you do? treat it as a result of 'Sane'? I ask because the only criteria that the dreadnaught has to act sane in issue of Fire Frenzy is if the Dreadnaught can not fire.

 

 

I would like to restate this as it hasn't been addressed, specifically I will ask this of you dswanick how do you solve this issue? Dreadnaught can fire (not shaken/stunned and has ranged weapons not destroyed) but there are no targets in weapon LOS, how then does the Dreadnaught act? Do you pivot till you have targets in weapon LOS even if they aren't the closest unit or does the Dreadnaught act as if a 'Sane' result was rolled?

No, you wouldn't count it as a 'Sane' result. On a roll of 1 the model loses the ability to Move or Assault, that it has no target to unload on doesn't change that.

[Saiisil]

ok, dswanick then would you pivot the Dreadnaught till it has a target and if so would you pivot it to face towards any target or the closest target?

[dswanick]

ok, dswanick then would you pivot the Dreadnaught till it has a target and if so would you pivot it to face towards any target or the closest target?

That would be entirely house rules. If there is no "closest visible unit" (visible being equal to "in line of sight" for this point of debate) why pivot the dreadnought at all? Even if you go with the "visible" does not equal "in line of sight" the answer is the same. If there are no visible units, there is no need to pivot the dread - but it still can't move or assault because result #1 says so.

[Saiisil]

Yet what you are saying sounds much more like a house rule then what I am saying. The rules tell you to pivot then you must pivot, if there is a unit that LOS can be drawn to that is closer then any other unit while pivoting you fire at that unit twice. I don't see how the RAW can be interrupted any other way then that.

[dswanick]

Yet what you are saying sounds much more like a house rule then what I am saying. The rules tell you to pivot then you must pivot, if there is a unit that LOS can be drawn to that is closer then any other unit while pivoting you fire at that unit twice. I don't see how the RAW can be interrupted any other way then that.

Well, obviously it can - and is. ;)

Both interpretations are House Rule, at best. Because both interpretations assume a definition for "visible" which is given no definition by the Rules As Written. And therein lies the crux of the debate. We (the groups on both sides of the debate) can go round and round until we're blue in the face but the needed piece which is lacking is a Game Terms definition of visible. Unless GW provides us with one (through errata or FAQ) then INAT will continue to be the standard for many game groups, and your interpretation will be the standard for many others. As has been stated a few times already, the only conclusion we can reach is to discuss it with your opponent before a game were it may become an issue and don't assume that everyone will automatically see this rule your way.

[Something Wycked]

Dammit, dswanick. Here I was in the middle of a long, glorious, pseudo-angry post and you had to go and edit your post and say exactly what needs to be said :lol:

 

Both interpretations assume a definition for "visible" which is given no definition by the Rules As Written. And therein lies the crux of the debate.

I made exactly this point in the post that will not be posted ;)

 

I borrow heavily from what I see as RAI, using the "model's eye view" for what is visible. It doesn't make any sense to me that vehicles of any stripe can only draw LoS via weapon mount arcs of fire. As an example, you declare that a vehicle is targeting an enemy, and both are completely in the open with nothing to block LoS between them, but the target is out of the arc of fire for the weapon. Exactly as it says- the target isn't in the available arc of fire of the weapon mount, not out of LoS.

 

If vehicles could only "see" what their weapon arcs could see, they'd be running around blind without the godlike input of what the player can see... or GW would have to institute some arcane and nearly impossible to decipher rules about determining what vehicles can or cannot see and what they can or cannot react to, and none of us want that. The simple, easy, way-everyone-plays-it solution is that vehicles utilize a 360 degree vision arc.

 

As a side note, why isn't this in the Grey Area Rules? :lol:

[awfulawful]

If we were to define what is visible to a dreadnought as only what lies in that front 45 degree arc for which line of sight for the weapons is defined, then the dreadnought would never have to pivot to face a visible target. as it would already be facing it. Therefore that first bit in the Fire Frenzy rule would not have been necessary, and we can presume, not included.

[Saiisil]

If vehicles could only "see" what their weapon arcs could see, they'd be running around blind without the godlike input of what the player can see... or GW would have to institute some arcane and nearly impossible to decipher rules about determining what vehicles can or cannot see and what they can or cannot react to, and none of us want that. The simple, easy, way-everyone-plays-it solution is that vehicles utilize a 360 degree vision arc.

 

This actually makes sense to consider a vehicle to have such a vision arc, why because the vehicles can easily have cameras placed at points on the hull the feed video to view screens in the cockpit, or in terms of the Dreadnaught to a HUD. While there are no hard rules to support this there is fluff that supports the concept, lets not forget that when speaking fluff the Chaos Dreadnaughts are partially mutated and have gained the abilities to smell, and they can also hear what is going on around them.

 

Until an official FAQ, Errata, or even new Codex is released it can be easily considered an agree to disagree statement.

[dswanick]

Dammit, dswanick. Here I was in the middle of a long, glorious, pseudo-angry post and you had to go and edit your post and say exactly what needs to be said :lol:

Thanks

Both interpretations assume a definition for "visible" which is given no definition by the Rules As Written. And therein lies the crux of the debate.

I made exactly this point in the post that will not be posted :D

 

I borrow heavily from what I see as RAI, using the "model's eye view" for what is visible. It doesn't make any sense to me that vehicles of any stripe can only draw LoS via weapon mount arcs of fire. As an example, you declare that a vehicle is targeting an enemy, and both are completely in the open with nothing to block LoS between them, but the target is out of the arc of fire for the weapon. Exactly as it says- the target isn't in the available arc of fire of the weapon mount, not out of LoS.

 

If vehicles could only "see" what their weapon arcs could see, they'd be running around blind without the godlike input of what the player can see... or GW would have to institute some arcane and nearly impossible to decipher rules about determining what vehicles can or cannot see and what they can or cannot react to, and none of us want that. The simple, easy, way-everyone-plays-it solution is that vehicles utilize a 360 degree vision arc.

Well, have you ever been inside an armored vehicle in combat? The crew of an AFV has a very restricted view of the world around them, limited to what little they can see through fireports and periscopes. Similarly, the fluff for a Dreadnought describes a guy who's been stuffed in a box and wired into a walking tomb. His sarcophagus has a tiny little window which might give him a 45' field of view directly in front of his coffin. Other than that, his only inputs from the real world may well be the targeting arrays slaved to the weapons mounted to his final resting place. Would you really be so surprised if the guy can barely see anything other than what his weapons are pointed at? :lol:

As a side note, why isn't this in the Grey Area Rules? :lol:

I'm pretty sure it is. :yes: As an aside - let me reiterate :

I'm pretty sure the rule was written intending that it work the way you guys promote.

That the rule can easily be interpreted in the way INAT has interpreted it and I have argued it is a reflection on GWs rule writting skills, not on the worth of either of our arguments.

The Chaos Space Marine Dreadnought is over-priced and underwhelming as written - as evidenced by the rarity of seeing it fielded.

I accept that most people I know will play it the INAT way because arguing the intent just isn't worth the effort just to have my opponents pull the model from his list and spend an hour arguing/sulking/hunting for enough replacement models to make up the points difference.

[dswanick]

If we were to define what is visible to a dreadnought as only what lies in that front 45 degree arc for which line of sight for the weapons is defined, then the dreadnought would never have to pivot to face a visible target. as it would already be facing it. Therefore that first bit in the Fire Frenzy rule would not have been necessary, and we can presume, not included.

Not true. The nearest visible target unit could be within the 45' arc of the left-arm twin-linked Bolter, but without pivoting not within the LoS of the right arm Plasma Cannon. The pivot part is still needed to align all mounted weapons onto a unit so positioned.

[Seahawk]

Further, is it really a good idea to want a legacy unit to adhere to legacy rules?

I'm saying that the legacy rules should be considered when trying to clarify how to play a badly worded rule, such as in this case. Is "visible unit" defined at all in 4th edition? Can 4th ed walkers pivot in the movement phase as they do now? Compare such things to now and see if any conclusions can be drawn from that.

 

For instance, a walker's LOS was 180 degrees in 4th. Now...did they pivot to face their target in the Shooting Phase as they do now? If not...then we have our answer. Heck, we can even glean the writer's intent (RAI). Normally the walker wouldn't pivot and could nearly show it's side to its target and still fire. The 4th ed Chaos Dreadnought rules would force the slightly less desirable position of facing directly at the target, leaving the rear exposed. Still, it would have it's front 180 degrees in which to get a target. Now, it would be forced into a much narrower 45 degrees, lessening the downside of the Fire Frenzy.

 

Now this could all be bollocks if it turns out that dreads pivoted freely last edition (don't remember, but will find out in 45 minutes or if someone finds the rule first :D), in which case completely disregard what I wrote. Still, the process is something to be considered for these older rules that have their share of difficulty in the new editions.

[Dan VK]

'visible' is used interchangeably with 'line of sight'. If visible means something other than 'in line of sight', then large sections of the shooting rules do not function as we currently understand them to, including the BRB's explanation of line of sight itself.

 

"When firing a walker's weapons, pivot the walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target (assume that all weapons mounted on a walker can swivel 45^o, like hull-mounted weapons) and then measure the range from the weapon itself and line of sight from the weapon itself and line of sight from the mounting point of the weapon and along its barrel, as normal for vehicles." BRB page 72

 

Here is an edited version: "When firing a walker's weapons, pivot the walker [sNIP] and then measure the range[sNIP] and line of sight [sNIP]." The vehicle pivots before line of sight is determined.

[Something Wycked]

Well, have you ever been inside an armored vehicle in combat? The crew of an AFV has a very restricted view of the world around them, limited to what little they can see through fireports and periscopes. Similarly, the fluff for a Dreadnought describes a guy who's been stuffed in a box and wired into a walking tomb. His sarcophagus has a tiny little window which might give him a 45' field of view directly in front of his coffin. Other than that, his only inputs from the real world may well be the targeting arrays slaved to the weapons mounted to his final resting place. Would you really be so surprised if the guy can barely see anything other than what his weapons are pointed at? :yes:

As a student of history, I'm well aware of the amount of vision an AFV has :) What I propose makes a lot of sense in the 40k world, however; consider a Space Marine commander on the ground who has a HUD inside his helmet (or bionic eye or what have you) that feeds him positioning information for all of his Astartes on the field and all observed enemy units. Its not hard to imagine that just such an information feed assists the pilot of a Dreadnought. Or that its piloted by a Daemon who has other means of sensing 360 degrees :lol:

 

As a side note, why isn't this in the Grey Area Rules? :lol:

I'm pretty sure it is. :D

I checked just before I posted that, and it isn't in there :lol:

 

As an aside - let me reiterate :

That the rule can easily be interpreted in the way INAT has interpreted it and I have argued it is a reflection on GWs rule writting skills, not on the worth of either of our arguments.

Agreed.

 

The Chaos Space Marine Dreadnought is over-priced and underwhelming as written - as evidenced by the rarity of seeing it fielded.

Agreed.

 

I accept that most people I know will play it the INAT way because arguing the intent just isn't worth the effort just to have my opponents pull the model from his list and spend an hour arguing/sulking/hunting for enough replacement models to make up the points difference.

And heartily agreed! I know my friend greatly appreciates being able to field his cool-as-hell dreadnoughts without worrying that I'm going to try to enforce the strictest reading of RAW on him :)

[Jacinda]

Does "visability" = "weapon's arc?"

 

Just going by the look of the model, I would say that a dread could see 90 degrees left or right because the coffin is mounted in the front, the "eyes" are fixed in the front and there is a huge structure filling all around behind those. But of course nothing like that has ever been mentioned in the rules. But then neither is having to be within a weapons firing arc before it can be seen. This would be a cool way of deploying infiltrators; placing a model directly behind a Land Raider using it to blok LoS from the rest of the army and being out of the LR's visability .... but that's something different.

 

I play CSM and sometimes field a dread. I play it that I will pivot 180 and fire on my own troops if they are closer. I just plan accordingly. If anyone can find a difinative answer or some blurb somewhere that limits a vehicles visability to its weapon's arc I would LOVE to hear.

[dswanick]

Now this could all be bollocks if it turns out that dreads pivoted freely last edition (don't remember, but will find out in 45 minutes or if someone finds the rule first ;)), in which case completely disregard what I wrote. Still, the process is something to be considered for these older rules that have their share of difficulty in the new editions.

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.

I play CSM and sometimes field a dread. I play it that I will pivot 180 and fire on my own troops if they are closer. I just plan accordingly. If anyone can find a difinative answer or some blurb somewhere that limits a vehicles visability to its weapon's arc I would LOVE to hear.

Well, that's what todays debate has been about. ;) Just be aware INAT FAQd it that "visible" = "in weapons line of sight" so if you play where INAT is rehularly used - game on! ;)

[Jacinda]

Yeah, I know. But there is no smoking gun yet. And the INAT FAQ holds as much weight as wet tissue paper. I would have better luck asking my magic 8-ball how to interpret the rule this time. A lot of time people tell me to play as in visability is weapon arc but I don't know if they are felling sorry for me for playing Chaos, for taking an over cost dread or both ;)

[dswanick]

Yeah, I know. But there is no smoking gun yet. And the INAT FAQ holds as much weight as wet tissue paper. I would have better luck asking my magic 8-ball how to interpret the rule this time. A lot of time people tell me to play as in visability is weapon arc but I don't know if they are felling sorry for me for playing Chaos, for taking an over cost dread or both :P

Both, no doubt. ;) But don't expect a "smoking gun" on this one, we'll be debating nuances of 6th Edition rules before you have any chance of getting a resolution on this issue.

[Hellios]

So you find the unit that bis visible... as this isn't really defined... I understand this to mean LOS and I'm happy to accept weapons or front visor slot if it makes a difference.... If someone says sensor bundles then the next time my tactical can't draw LOS, I'll just say LOLZ I have a scanner... They are on my models...

 

So yeah... find the nearest visible unit (If someone can define this within the game... that would help... as I say I go along what was given for LOS...), THEN you pivot... and THEN you fire.

 

You DON'T pivot towards the nearest unit and then fire.

 

 

You DON'T pivot towards the nearest unit and then fire.

;)

 

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!

Lets compare...

 

"You DON'T pivot (it must pivot) towards the nearest unit (towards the closest visible unit (friend or foe!)) and then fire (and fire all of its weapons... twice!)"

 

 

Hey purposefully misquoting me isn't cool! It either makes you look dishonest (as you are trying to mislead people) or stupid because you don't understand the argument The line you quoted was used to clarify the previous line and not meant to stand on it's own. Let me explain it for you.

 

So yeah... find the nearest visible unit (If someone can define this within the game... that would help... as I say I go along what was given for LOS...), THEN you pivot... and THEN you fire.

 

At the beginning of the shooting phase it must pivot on the spot [2. It then pivots towards that unit.] towards the closest visible unit [1. Prerequisite... A unit must be visible.] (friend or foe!) and fire all of its weapons against it - twice! [3. You shoot twice.]

 

Was that so hard?

[Saiisil]

At the beginning of the shooting phase it must pivot on the spot [2. It then pivots towards that unit.] towards the closest visible unit [1. Prerequisite... A unit must be visible.] (friend or foe!) and fire all of its weapons against it - twice! [3. You shoot twice.]

 

Was that so hard?

 

 

You just brought something to mind. You are arguing that you check visibility before pivoting, yet what you yourself just quoted does not say anything about doing that. It tells you Pivot first then check for nearest visible then commence firing.

[Hellios]

At the beginning of the shooting phase it must pivot on the spot [2. It then pivots towards that unit.] towards the closest visible unit [1. Prerequisite... A unit must be visible.] (friend or foe!) and fire all of its weapons against it - twice! [3. You shoot twice.]

 

Was that so hard?

 

 

You just brought something to mind. You are arguing that you check visibility before pivoting, yet what you yourself just quoted does not say anything about doing that. It tells you Pivot first then check for nearest visible then commence firing.

 

I'm going to try and explain once more... While I know I'm not always the clearest communicator, I feel GW's rule is pretty plain English and so in my mind I don't know why people don't comprehend what it says. I understand the contention regarding what is visible but I have no idea why people would suggest you pivot before you have chosen a visible target (If you have 360 degree vision you could pivot to a unit behind you.)...

 

So...

 

If you pivot towards the closest visible unit BEFORE you have determined which unit is the nearest visible unit HOW do you know where to pivot to? This sentence suggests you have already determined what unit is the closest visible unit... If we do things your way we pivot before we have decided which unit is the closest visible unit and so would pivot if only the chaos dread was on the board or if the only other unit was to it's rear and behind a fantasy fortress wall... (Where the dread couldn't see it.)

 

So you see... you need to determine which unit is the target of fire frenzy BEFORE you pivot to face that unit.