Dreadnoughts, Rage and BOW.

[david5th]

Iam sitting painting my crew for my Thudd guns with the Beasts Of War videos playing in the background. they are discussing a BA dreadnought army -

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/army-list-dreadnought-themed-army-seven-days-of-sanguinius/

Throughout this and other videos they mention that Dreadnoughts have a 180 degree field of vision seemingly when it comes to the Rage USR.

Can someone tell me where this ruling appears?

I was under the impression that everyone could see 360 degrees but certain weapons - immobile and vehicle mounted one might no be able to target them due to restricted movement.

I'm fully aware thta it might be stairing me in the face but i cannot seem to find it.

Regards David5th.

[unseelied]

I am not sure how rage works but the recent chaos FAQ makes the chaos crazy dreads only "see" 180 in front of them so if they do go crazy they only shoot/move towards the closest thing they can see in front of them.

[DarkLink]

Pretty sure they're smoking something.40k doesn't have rules for "you can only see stuff in your front arc" or anything like that. It's only particular weapons that are limited in LOS based on how they are mounted on the vehicle.

[SeattleDV8]

Never, ever take rules advice from the clown shoes on BOW.
Those guys are known for their weird take on rules.
The 180 firing arc was from an earlier edition, there is no such rule in 5th.
The only ruling GW has made was in the chaos SM FAQ
Q: When working out which targets are visible to a
Chaos Dreadnought suffering from a Fire Frenzy result,
are you limited to those units within the 45 degree line
of sight of its weapons? (p40)
A: Yes.
Which seems to say that only enemy units in that 45 degree arc are 'visible'.

[EnglishInquisition]

Page 72 BRB- walkers pivot on the spot in the shooting phase and weapons then have a 45 degree arc.
Hence the fire frenzy los ruling- as it's not the shooting phase it can't pivot so only has a 45 degree arc.

Hope that helps!

[daboarder]

not quite right, firefrenzy states you determine the target and THEN pivot, therefore you cannot determine a target you cannot see.

Rage itself however as on a DC dread stipulates that you move towards the nearest visible unit. The TLOS rules state that you can only see what the model can see from its eye, in the case of the dread its that little vision slit on the sarcophagus. Therefore if you cannot draw LOS from the front of the dread to the unit you do not have to rage towards it. Also note that rage only applies to movement (and consolidation) NOT to charging, you can charge whoever you please.

[Kaika87]

Exhibit A of something I like to call, "Why BoW is Full of Crap When it Comes to 40k Rules"

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/bow-tips-baals-cant-shoot-forward-seven-days-of-sanguinius/

I rest my case.

Oh and the reason chaos Dreads can only shoot forward is because the FAQ was made based off its firing arc. DC dreads are capable of drawing LoS all the way around them, so they must go to the closest unit even if it isn't in their firing arc. Firing arc =/= line of sight.


not quite right, firefrenzy states you determine the target and THEN pivot, therefore you cannot determine a target you cannot see.

Rage itself however as on a DC dread stipulates that you move towards the nearest visible unit. The TLOS rules state that you can only see what the model can see from its eye, in the case of the dread its that little vision slit on the sarcophagus. Therefore if you cannot draw LOS from the front of the dread to the unit you do not have to rage towards it. Also note that rage only applies to movement (and consolidation) NOT to charging, you can charge whoever you please.

The dreadnought is freely able to pivot to get line of sight on anything in the movement phase. Thus you must do so. Your argument holds no water, but you are correct about charges with Rage.

[daboarder]

The dreadnought is freely able to pivot to get line of sight on anything in the movement phase. Thus you must do so. Your argument holds no water, but you are correct about charges with Rage.

pg 16 BRB "....line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit...."


pg 76 BRB Rage "in the movement phase , units subject to rage must move as fast as possible to the closest visible enemy unit"

see the key words there? no where does it say the dread has to pivot, if you cannot see the unit at the start of the dreads movement phase it is clearly NOT visible.

[Kaika87]

pg 16 BRB "....line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit...."


pg 76 BRB Rage "in the movement phase , units subject to rage must move as fast as possible to the closest visible enemy unit"

see the key words there? no where does it say the dread has to pivot, if you cannot see the unit at the start of the dreads movement phase it is clearly NOT visible.

Your argument is flawed and assumes line of sight is drawn based on the direction the model is facing. By your logic, if I have a squad of marines that are facing in one direction, and an enemy unit appears behind them, whoops the enemy unit is out of LOS because all eyes in your unit are facing one direction! When you draw line of sight from the eyes, that's not meant to say if something is behind the model, the model can't see it, because that would be ridiculous. Similarly, if I have a unit of Death Company, it doesn't matter if not a single model is facing the direction of the closest visible enemy unit, I still have to move towards that unit.

So explain to me how a Dreadnought is different to an infantry model in this regard? Because according to my copy of the BRB, on pg 72, "Walkers move in exactly the same way as Infantry."

[SeattleDV8]

How walkers move isn't important.
Walker take some rules from infanty and several from vehicles.
LOS from a Dread is determined with the vehicle rules.
Before the Fire Frenzy FAQ I would have agreed that Dreads have a full 360, but GW has changed that.
The Dread affected by FF must pivot and target the closest 'visible' target, but what is 'visible' to the dread is only what is in it's Arc of Fire (45 degrees) at the start of the turn.
What is 'visible' to vehicles has to be in their Arc of Fire.

Therefore a dread with Rage could avoid chasing the nearest enemy unit by never turning toward that unit during his move.
Because if it isn't in the Arc it isn't 'visible' to the dread.

[plawolf]

Your argument is flawed and assumes line of sight is drawn based on the direction the model is facing. By your logic, if I have a squad of marines that are facing in one direction, and an enemy unit appears behind them, whoops the enemy unit is out of LOS because all eyes in your unit are facing one direction! When you draw line of sight from the eyes, that's not meant to say if something is behind the model, the model can't see it, because that would be ridiculous. Similarly, if I have a unit of Death Company, it doesn't matter if not a single model is facing the direction of the closest visible enemy unit, I still have to move towards that unit.

So explain to me how a Dreadnought is different to an infantry model in this regard? Because according to my copy of the BRB, on pg 72, "Walkers move in exactly the same way as Infantry."

Your counter argument makes little sense.

In normal gaming, you have your movement phase before your shooting phase, so you naturally would pivot/turn your units to face whatever they are shooting at. How can you draw TLOS to see if a target gets a cover save unless you spot it from the POV of the gunner?

It might sound like a dickish move, but I could quite easily see why someone would not allow one of my devastators to shoot at a unit it wasn't facing. I would never do that, but I can see why someone might.

Now, having said that, I actually agree with you wrt what is visible for rage (and I play blood angels so I would love it if rage was as suggested as that would greatly benefit my army). Eyes and vision ports were never meant to limit what a unit/model could detect, because there has never been any rule that limits what units could see or not in terms of knowing that they are there. They are meant to limit what a unit/model can shoot at, but that is an entirely different issue from this.

After all, would anyone suggest that a unit cannot attack a model in CC if it is behind it?

The chaos dred ruling is actually a completely different thing, as that is a rule regarding an out of sequence shooting attack.

The 'visible' part of rage USR is meant to LOS the same as shooting, and only applies if something is behind a wall or similar obstruction that makes it impossible to draw any LOS to it from your model.

Just think about it logically, how could you tell what is closest to you unless you have a look around to see what is there in the first place? If rage wanted the unit afflicted to only move forward, that's what it could have said.

Just imagine the dred doing a 360 pan about or marines turning their head and having a look of the battlefield to see what is there before deciding where to go. That's not at all strange or unusual now is it? Hell, it would be pretty strange and unusual for someone to NOT look around to check what is about before moving off on a battlefield.

[Rapture]

Kaika87's explanation is only lacking (although the reference to movement is perplexing) in that the 'visible' and 'eyes' language is there to keep people from drawing LOS from a Dreadnought's feet - not to block to functionality of other rules.


Therefore a dread with Rage could avoid chasing the nearest enemy unit by never turning toward that unit during his move.
Because if it isn't in the Arc it isn't 'visible' to the dread.
I can't do any RAW research right now and I try to stay away from RAI, but this stinks. A lot. It is like a desperate game of reverse Red Light - Green Light.

DC Dreadnoughts should simply be able to declare that he is covering his eyes and then he won't have to worry about Rage.

[daboarder]

So explain to me how a Dreadnought is different to an infantry model in this regard? Because according to my copy of the BRB, on pg 72, "Walkers move in exactly the same way as Infantry."

cool so you move like infantry......how is that relevant to a discussion on LOS?

Rapture, it may sound like a dirty tactic but that's how the rules work, the downside of course is that your dread is exposing his easily penetrated rear armour.

none of you have brought actual references to this argument yet, you show me a reference that a dread can see whats behind it then I'll admit you might have a point, until then everything in the rules as demonstrated says otherwise.

[SeattleDV8]

Kaika87's explanation is only lacking (although the reference to movement is perplexing) in that the 'visible' and 'eyes' language is there to keep people from drawing LOS from a Dreadnought's feet - not to block to functionality of other rules.
Except a Dreadnought does not draw LOS from his 'eyes'. BRB pg. 72
...and line of sight from the mounting point of the weapon and along it's barrel, as normal for vehicles.
So the infantry rules are not used for a Walker, but rather the vehicle rules.



I can't do any RAW research right now and I try to stay away from RAI, but this stinks. A lot. It is like a desperate game of reverse Red Light - Green Light.


Sadly it is that way, the Fire Frenzy FAQ was a silly call, but it did define what is 'visible' to vehicles.
On walkers it's not 360 or even 180 it's the arc of fire(45 degrees).

[karandras]

Therefore a dread with Rage could avoid chasing the nearest enemy unit by never turning toward that unit during his move.
Because if it isn't in the Arc it isn't 'visible' to the dread.

DV8 - I do not recall ever disagreeing with you in regards to any rules on this forum as your interpretation is often in line with mine...

That being said, I beg to differ on the interpretation of this one. Even if it is justifiable with RAW, the thought of clearly circumventing Rage by walking a dreadnought sideways across the board is simply not in the spirit of the game. That is ultimately why I have to disagree with this interpretation. I was agreeing until I read that last part. Clearly, that is not RAI and I think even one who stays away from RAI or discounts RAI, would have to agree that a side-stepping or moonwalking dreadnought is shenanigans!!!

:)

[SeattleDV8]

I agree, it is a case of 'Silly RAW'.
Which is why I think the Fire Frenzy FAQ was a bad call, it allows nonsense like this.
In no way do I think it should be played like that, but in order to deal with issues like this pre-game you have to know what the RAW is.
As a wise man said (Culven)
We debate RaW, not in an attempt to gain an advantage, but rather to better understand the rules as they are written so that problems can be identified, addressed, and possible solutions developed before we get to the game table.

[karandras]

Ah, "Silly Raw"... it's all the new rage! Hilarious!