LOS for a walker

[gwensdad]

This has recently come up and our group was in a debate as to what counted as line of sight for a walker (dread in particular). One person has it that a walker can only see within the 45degrees of it's weapons while most of the rest of us believe it has the regular infantryman's 360. Is there anyplace where this is spelled out (stupid question, I know but rules lawyers are rules lawyers)

[DarkLink]

The walker itself can SEE 360 degrees. This was resolved with regards to Chaos Dreadnoughts (some people thought that they could only see units within the weapon fire arc, meaning the Dread wouldn't turn around and shoot the closest unit). I belive GW FAQ'd this.

Now, the walker can only FIRE within the 45 degree arc. This is done due to armor facing issues. So a dreadnought can't shoot a unit, then pivot to prevent another unit from hitting it in the rear armor.

[zed]

I thought it was 180 degrees to the front. Pretty sure we've been playing that for a while

[SeattleDV8]

The 180 was a 4th (or was it 3rd) Ed rule.
Walkers have a 45 degree LOS, but in the shooting phase it is allowed to pivot on the spot so( as long as it is not immobilised) it has a 360 degree LOS.

[Aldramelech]

The 180 was a 4th (or was it 3rd) Ed rule.
Walkers have a 45 degree LOS, but in the shooting phase it is allowed to pivot on the spot so( as long as it is not immobilised) it has a 360 degree LOS.

Agreed.

[gwensdad]

The walker itself can SEE 360 degrees. This was resolved with regards to Chaos Dreadnoughts (some people thought that they could only see units within the weapon fire arc, meaning the Dread wouldn't turn around and shoot the closest unit). I belive GW FAQ'd this.

Now, the walker can only FIRE within the 45 degree arc. This is done due to armor facing issues. So a dreadnought can't shoot a unit, then pivot to prevent another unit from hitting it in the rear armor.

any chance I can get the source of this, since (without saying too much) it does involve a chaos dreadnought?

[Exitus Acta Probat]

I am quoting myself from a different forum here, but it's easier than re-writing/hashing everything..so if it seems out of place (12" ref or what have you) that is due to a specific question response.

"actually, 12" refers directly to LOS, and LOS is VERY specifically handled by vehicle rules differently than it is by infantry units.
LOS from a vehicle is drawn from weapon mounts(BRB pg 58/59), at a 45 degree arc from each mount. You COULD very easily argue that an infiltrating unit could ignore the north bound end of a south bound Leman Russ if the turret was facing same. We don't think in those terms, because it is very rare for vehicles to be in a situation without ground support/other units nearby...(not and live for long anyway).

Walkers provide a conundrum, in that they operate like a mix of infantry and vehicles. The key here is this, and that is the fire frenzy rule actually overrides the steps found on pg 72 BRB. The basic walker rules state that you pivot during the movement phase, pick your target, then shoot (paraphrase).
The rules in the chaos codex state "at the beginning of the shooting phase it must pivot on the spot towards the closest VISIBLE(emph mine) unit..." (pg 40 CSM),
not "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 deg like hull mounted weapons) and then measure the range from the wepaon itself and line of sight (emph mine) from the mounting point of the weapon and along it's barrel as normal for vehicles." (pg 72 BRB)

note that on page 16 BRB (1st paragraph second column) "Line of sight represents your warriors' view of the enemy- they must be able to see their foe though." Now we assume, falsely, that all units have visibility independent of LOS, but here we see that is not the case. It is just a comfortable place because we've grown accustomed to using infantry as a primary locus. Not anymore, with MECH prevalence, we really need to re-evaluate how we 'SEE' things on the battlefield.

Fire Frenzy specifically overrides the basic shooting steps, and forces you to choose a visible target PRIOR to pivoting on the spot and nuking the shasta outta it. Visibility for a vehicle, as we have now determined, is a result of LOS determined from it's weapon mounts. It really is going BS crazy, and this could easily have a detrimental effect as well. Jump a death co behind one to run up in your grill, and watch what happens when it fire frenzies against that 5 man combat squad in front of it just barely in range...that''ll be one PISSED OFF chaos player."

[DarkLink]

If it is regarding Chaos Dreadnoughts, then I think these links will help.

[url]http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2009/03/goatboys-40k-thoughts-how-i-plan-my.html[/url]

[url]http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2009/03/goatboys-40k-thoughts-dont-get-ruled.html[/url]

The first raises the issue that you're probably encountering, the second resolves it.

[gwensdad]

Those 2 articles were exactly what happened. I only wish Goatboy had a link to GW that "proved" dreadnoughts could see 360. The person we're having the problem with was arguing against even seeing 180 degrees in front.

[DarkLink]

Heck, it'd be kinda nice to get more common FAQ updates. I mean, GW doesn't really deserve most of the bad rep a lot of players give it with regards to rules development and supplementary support, but I can't imagine it take that much time to throw a FAQ together.