Chaos Dread Fire Frenzy

[Saiisil]

As no rules exist that give or limit field of vision no such quotes can be found to prove either side, in fact the last time 40k actually dealt with individual models field of vision was 2nd ed when even infantry had a limited field of vision (180 degree IIRC been a little over a decade since I last played 2nd). The reason the line of sight rules exist for vehicle is not rules for the vehicle itself it is rules to be used on a weapon by weapon basis and something that many people seem to be forgetting is that even in these rules the arcs of fire presented are not set in stone as the book says they are guidelines which means that while they have examples of what they recommend they leave it up to the players at the beginning of their games to determine actual arcs of fire for vehicle weapons. Page 59 first paragraph last sentence if you were wondering where I got the word guidelines from.

[Jacinda]

I think I have as good a definition of visibility as it gets. If you can not draw a line from the firing models eyes to any part of the target, then the target is not visible. Whether the eyes are the coffin on the chest or the robotic head of the dreadnought is a rather minor point since they are both mounted in the front and have more or less a 180 degree field of vision. This also fits with the older rules. I plan on running this by the LGS players this weekend and see if it is acceptable to them. This is, after all, the only result that matters to me; do the people I play with agree on the ruling. But whatever we decide, it will be a house rule only.

[Hellios]

As no rules exist that give or limit field of vision no such quotes can be found to prove either side, in fact the last time 40k actually dealt with individual models field of vision was 2nd ed when even infantry had a limited field of vision (180 degree IIRC been a little over a decade since I last played 2nd). The reason the line of sight rules exist for vehicle is not rules for the vehicle itself it is rules to be used on a weapon by weapon basis and something that many people seem to be forgetting is that even in these rules the arcs of fire presented are not set in stone as the book says they are guidelines which means that while they have examples of what they recommend they leave it up to the players at the beginning of their games to determine actual arcs of fire for vehicle weapons. Page 59 first paragraph last sentence if you were wondering where I got the word guidelines from.

 

Oh that isn't the only place that GW uses guidelines... GW line of thought is.... wait for it... Play however you want as long as you buy our models. I know that they exist for the weapons and I am happy to use weapon LOS to determine what is visible... I'm also happy to use vehicle driver LOS (By this I mean from the driver if he can be seen... open-topped vehicles as an example or from the view slot/port that most vehicles have) for determining what is visible to a unit.

 

Now if a model (infantry here...) could see 360 degrees and draw LOS (which yes might not be the same thing) why would you need to pivot... Now I'll admit many people don't pivot in the shooting phase... and I'll give two reasons... 1 People already know what they want to shoot and so are facing that way anyway and... 2 Since the direction an infantry models is facing makes pretty much no difference at any other point in the game (except maybe with something like rage...) most players won't pivot the infantry to save time... A gentleman's agreement if you will.

 

If I understand the rules correctly (Feel free to enlighten this dark soul.), they are not playing the game properly but using their own house rules... a rule of which I approve of as it saves time without any real impact on the game.

 

What you have here is badly written rules... RAW Wraithlords can't attain LOS because they have no eyes to draw LOS site from... Space marines with helmets on can't draw LOS as well... However I think we can all agree that is taking things a bit to far and the designers meant that you draw LOS from the eye area/helmet lenses, forward sensor array... nose or whiskers... whatever sensory organs it has on the front of its head. FYI my wraithlords all have eyes painted on them anyway... so it isn't a problem for me... :P

 

So if you want me to agree that writing for the 40k rule book and at least some of the codices is poor... I can do that. If you want me to agree that your argument is RAW then you need to provide quotes of the rules with page numbers.

 

If you can't do that and you don't want to agree with my view then play the game however you want... but don't tell other people it is RAW.

[Saiisil]

Actually Hellios, No I don't want you to agree that my interpretation of vision is RAW, if you noticed my post before that one I didn't say that if you can't prove that the Dreadnaught only has the 45 degree sight arc that I was correct in the RAW, I only said that you were incorrect in the RAW, I have stated in a post before that, that there does exist some fluff to support the idea of a 360 degree sense(sight via cameras, sensor arrays, or mutation in case of some Chaos Dreads) zone but I never said that it was RAW. Yes I have mentioned RAW in a few of my posts but my mentioning of RAW has been with the wording of Fire Frenzy itself not the fluff that supports the 360 degree. There are people on other forums that will argue that Fluff is RAW because of some callings that GW has made that make fluff into RAW but unless they do that with this then there is no point to try to argue it as RAW.

[Spacefrisian]

When i made my comment nowhere did i state firing any sort of weapon.

 

So i give my explanation as to the 360 degrees view.

 

Most other tabletop game talk about a front and rear arc, however this is absent in 40k as such a model has 360 degrees view, and thus in my oppinion (and most other players around here) the dreadnought first pivots around to his nearest target, even if it stands behind him.

[Morollan]

This entire argument boils down to "what does 'visible' mean in gaming terms". This is not answered in the rules and therefore cannot be answered on this forum. We can argue all week about it but it will still come down to this issue.

[Grey Mage]

This entire argument boils down to "what does 'visible' mean in gaming terms". This is not answered in the rules and therefore cannot be answered on this forum. We can argue all week about it but it will still come down to this issue.

Wich is why Im closing this thread.