Sir_Prometheus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Is a Vulcan Mega Bolter a bolter?

It is a bolter. It is not a boltgun=bolter, bolter. This is why GW started referring to "bolters" as boltguns, btw.

Look, you KNOW what the RAI on this is. I know that not a dingle one of you wonders what the FAQ would say if GW bothered to FAQ it. so why are we still discussing it? That's my point.

Because people are claiming that RAI is RAW. and according to GW Bolt Pistols, Boltguns, Storm bolters, Heavy bolters and Vulcan mega-bolters are boltguns, or bolters.

Because there's a difference between RAW and RAI. Some people enjoy discussing RAW after determining that its silly in this case and the Intent is obvious.

So if the VMB is a bolter, how do you know if a given rule refers to "boltgun" or "VMB" when it says bolter?

Page 100 C:SM bikes for example.

rigeld2 wrote:
Because there's a difference between RAW and RAI. Some people enjoy discussing RAW after determining that its silly in this case and the Intent is obvious.

So if the VMB is a bolter, how do you know if a given rule refers to "boltgun" or "VMB" when it says bolter?

Page 100 C:SM bikes for example.

Actually rigeld, the section in the BRB is entitled BOLTGUNS. So apparently I was right in regards to my Space Marine question earlier. Huzzah!

 Happyjew wrote:


You claim that because Venerble Dreadnought has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I make the same claim with something else, and I am wrong?

No, you didn't, not even vaguely. You said that if a heavy Flamer must also be a heavy weapon, because it has "heavy" in it. Except that one is a class of weapons and another is a specific weapon. If there were a weapon called "Heavy" (let's say it was rapidfire, for kicks) you might have a point, except for the simple fact that "heavy" is an adjective and you're just being silly. But you see a Heavy Flamer IS a flamer.....which is the very essence of why you're talking nonsense.

And what is a bolter? According to GW it is also known as a boltgun which encompasses 5 weapons who have exactly one thing in common, their ammunition. Since a Vulcan mega-bolter is a boltgun and Space Marines are armed with boltguns...

You are very specifically wrong, here. "A bolter" can sometimes refer to whole class of bolt-weapons (because GW was much more loose with the term in the past), or more commonly a boltgun. But a "boltgun" is only ever one thing, the Str 4, AP5 rapidfire weapon.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

And what is a bolter? According to GW it is also known as a boltgun which encompasses 5 weapons who have exactly one thing in common, their ammunition. Since a Vulcan mega-bolter is a boltgun and Space Marines are armed with boltguns...

You are very specifically wrong, here. "A bolter" can sometimes refer to whole class of bolt-weapons (because GW was much more loose with the term in the past), or more commonly a boltgun. But a "boltgun" is only ever one thing, the Str 4, AP5 rapidfire weapon.

No a boltgun is 1 of 5 weapons as per GW on page 56 of the BRB.

rigeld2 wrote:
Because there's a difference between RAW and RAI. Some people enjoy discussing RAW after determining that its silly in this case and the Intent is obvious.

RAW as written inherently depends on the definitions being used. GW is, as rule, quite loose with their definitions. I assure you that Ironclads, BA libby dreads, fruiosos, venerable dreads, are all still dreadnoughts, by "definition".

 Happyjew wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because there's a difference between RAW and RAI. Some people enjoy discussing RAW after determining that its silly in this case and the Intent is obvious.

So if the VMB is a bolter, how do you know if a given rule refers to "boltgun" or "VMB" when it says bolter?

Page 100 C:SM bikes for example.

Actually rigeld, the section in the BRB is entitled BOLTGUNS. So apparently I was right in regards to my Space Marine question earlier. Huzzah!

Wait - the only valid definition is the fluff one though, remember?

 Happyjew wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

And what is a bolter? According to GW it is also known as a boltgun which encompasses 5 weapons who have exactly one thing in common, their ammunition. Since a Vulcan mega-bolter is a boltgun and Space Marines are armed with boltguns...

You are very specifically wrong, here. "A bolter" can sometimes refer to whole class of bolt-weapons (because GW was much more loose with the term in the past), or more commonly a boltgun. But a "boltgun" is only ever one thing, the Str 4, AP5 rapidfire weapon.

No a boltgun is 1 of 5 weapons as per GW on page 56 of the BRB.

That however doesn't quite follow the precedent set by the Tyranid FAQ. That FAQ answer was in relations to models and their subtypes. Weapons would exceed the grasp of that.

Now, since I showed, using both of your examples, that the FAQ don't change rules merely clarify how they are to be read, do you agree that an Ironclad Dreadnought is a Dreadnought?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Wait - the only valid definition is the fluff one though, remember?

That assertion is incorrect. The only definition for that particular unit, Dreadnought, is located in the "fluff". No one ever said that was the case in all situations.

 Happyjew wrote:
only says "Dreadnought" which is a proper noun

It's not a proper noun. Happy Jew is a proper noun. Bjorn is a proper noun.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Just as an aside to the back and forth don't GW sometimes capitalise classes too?
So the group might again be the one being referred to?

They capitalize darn near everything, probably for trademarking purposes. That's why Dreadnought is always capitalized, as well as Space Marine and Ork. Ork is not a proper noun any more then Bike. But Bike is capitalized all the same.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
only says "Dreadnought" which is a proper noun

It's not a proper noun. Happy Jew is a proper noun. Bjorn is a proper noun.

So what is the name (by which I mean proper noun) for the walker-type vehicle in Codex Space Marines that is not an Ironclad Dreadnought or Venerable Dreadnought?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Just as an aside to the back and forth don't GW sometimes capitalise classes too?
So the group might again be the one being referred to?

They capitalize darn near everything, probably for trademarking purposes. That's why Dreadnought is always capitalized, as well as Space Marine and Ork. Ork is not a proper noun any more then Bike. But Bike is capitalized all the same.

Except for bolters, which led to the whole are heavy bolters and bolt pistols affected by that one DA Banner that makes bolters Salvo 2/4 weapons.

 Happyjew wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
only says "Dreadnought" which is a proper noun

It's not a proper noun. Happy Jew is a proper noun. Bjorn is a proper noun.

So what is the name (by which I mean proper noun) for the walker-type vehicle in Codex Space Marines that is not an Ironclad Dreadnought or Venerable Dreadnought?

It's not a proper noun. Neither is Ironclad Dreadnought. Neither is Scout, Bike, Veteran, or Terminator. Cato Sicarius is a proper noun.

 Happyjew wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
only says "Dreadnought" which is a proper noun

It's not a proper noun. Happy Jew is a proper noun. Bjorn is a proper noun.

So what is the name (by which I mean proper noun) for the walker-type vehicle in Codex Space Marines that is not an Ironclad Dreadnought or Venerable Dreadnought?

Dave

 Happyjew wrote:

Except for bolters, which led to the whole are heavy bolters and bolt pistols affected by that one DA Banner that makes bolters Salvo 2/4 weapons.

I wasn't involved in that and I don't have those rules. Any opinion that I have would be ill informed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

So what is the name (by which I mean proper noun) for the walker-type vehicle in Codex Space Marines that is not an Ironclad Dreadnought or Venerable Dreadnought?

Dave

rigeld2 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:


Sure they are. You are basing an argument on the fact that the unit composition defines the unit. If that is true, then there are no orks in the ork codex aside from boyz. That is just as silly as the bolters being vulcan mega-bolters.

So the line of reasoning should be dropped because it creates issues across the board.

And.., that's a lie. That is not how I'm basing my argument. You've made the same mistake Idolator did.

It's a lie? Hm, that's funny:

rigeld2 wrote:

Guess what's relevant for embarking? Unit composition. What's the Unit Composition of a Venerable Dreadnaught? (Hint: It's on page 137)

rigeld2 wrote:

According to their Unit Composition (you know... that pesky thing that determines whether you can embark or not). . .

rigeld2 wrote:

just because venerables have the word venerable before the dreadnaught,
does not suddenly make them non dreads, reading 101

As far as Unit Composition it absolutely does. And guess what matters for embarking in a transport?

rigeld2 wrote:

adding a descriptor to a class does makes you a more specific part of that class, it does not make you into a different class, it simply divides the class further

And Venerable is not a descriptor, it's a different Unit Composition.

rigeld2 wrote:


What is the Unit Composition of a Venerable Dreadnaught unit?
I ask, because according to page 78 that's what is used to determine if a model can embark - not the name of the unit or anything else.

Would you like me to go on?

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

And he's saying that all Ven Dreads are Dreadnoughts, but not all Dreadnoughts are Ven Dreads.

Just like all VMBs are bolters, but not all bolters are VMBs.

Yes!
Now - how do you know which one you're talking about?

Context. Like you said:

rigeld2 wrote:

Context is important to keep in mind. You're ignoring it.

So for my two cents, as this thread has gotten silly. It seems that some people believe that.

1: Dreadnoughts are not the same as the Venerable/Ironclad Dreadnoughts.

2: Heavy Flamers are heavy weapons.

3: That Assault Cannons, are Assault Weapons.


Okay with that said. GK's have Both Venerable Dreads and regular Dreads and there has never been an issue with which you can transport in a Stormraven.

If BA's, can transport DC Dreads in a SRGS, and GK's can transport VEN/RER Dreads, all while using the same rule why is there even an issue here?

BLADERIKER wrote:
So for my two cents, as this thread has gotten silly. It seems that some people believe that.

1: Dreadnoughts are not the same as the Venerable/Ironclad Dreadnoughts.

2: Heavy Flamers are heavy weapons.

3: That Assault Cannons, are Assault Weapons.


Okay with that said. GK's have Both Venerable Dreads and regular Dreads and there has never been an issue with which you can transport in a Stormraven.

If BA's, can transport DC Dreads in a SRGS, and GK's can transport VEN/RER Dreads, all while using the same rule why is there even an issue here?

The silly thing about it all is there actually is no issue. Everyone has agreed on the RAI. Now, for some reason, everyone is trying to convince everyone else of the RAW, as if it mattered.

BLADERIKER wrote:
So for my two cents, as this thread has gotten silly. It seems that some people believe that.

1: Dreadnoughts are not the same as the Venerable/Ironclad Dreadnoughts.

2: Heavy Flamers are heavy weapons.

3: That Assault Cannons, are Assault Weapons.


Okay with that said. GK's have Both Venerable Dreads and regular Dreads and there has never been an issue with which you can transport in a Stormraven.

If BA's, can transport DC Dreads in a SRGS, and GK's can transport VEN/RER Dreads, all while using the same rule why is there even an issue here?

First, nobody (I hope) actually believe that Heavy Flamers and Assault Cannons are heavy and assault weapons respectively. It was put forth as to why you should not arbitrarily choose to use part of the name of something to define the thing.

This is the first time (not within the thread, but since the new GK codex came out) that it was even mentioned that the GK codex and BA codex were different in that regards. Once this thread came out people actually went "Huh, technically that is a Venerable Dreadnought and is not allowed to embark". Everybody has agreed that the way they play (and most likely what the RAI are) is that Dreadnought refers to the broad class of Dreadnought which would include Venerable Dreads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 puma713 wrote:
The silly thing about it all is there actually is no issue. Everyone has agreed on the RAI. Now, for some reason, everyone is trying to convince everyone else of the RAW, as if it mattered.

Sometimes it does matter. I enjoy knowing what the actual RAW say as it helps to determine how to make rulings mid-game. I've only played one strict RAW player and due to a slightly better knowledge of the rules (from hanging out here when not working or playing) I was able to quickly turn the game against him.

 Happyjew wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
only says "Dreadnought" which is a proper noun

It's not a proper noun. Happy Jew is a proper noun. Bjorn is a proper noun.

So what is the name (by which I mean proper noun) for the walker-type vehicle in Codex Space Marines that is not an Ironclad Dreadnought or Venerable Dreadnought?

Nope still not a proper noun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun

People usually say things like "Regular Dreadnought"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Just as an aside to the back and forth don't GW sometimes capitalise classes too?
So the group might again be the one being referred to?

They capitalize darn near everything, probably for trademarking purposes. That's why Dreadnought is always capitalized, as well as Space Marine and Ork. Ork is not a proper noun any more then Bike. But Bike is capitalized all the same.

Except for bolters, which led to the whole are heavy bolters and bolt pistols affected by that one DA Banner that makes bolters Salvo 2/4 weapons.

Nope, heavy bolters aren't affected by the DA bolters, and whether they do or no has nothing to do with whether it is capitalized. WTF are you even talking about?

 Happyjew wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
The silly thing about it all is there actually is no issue. Everyone has agreed on the RAI. Now, for some reason, everyone is trying to convince everyone else of the RAW, as if it mattered.

Sometimes it does matter. I enjoy knowing what the actual RAW say as it helps to determine how to make rulings mid-game. I've only played one strict RAW player and due to a slightly better knowledge of the rules (from hanging out here when not working or playing) I was able to quickly turn the game against him.

I was specifically referring to this thread, Happyjew. I am like you, I need the rules to make perfect sense, or it sends alarms going off. If I understand the RAW, I can better understand the RAI, or why it is considered the RAI. But, when all the dust settles, if everyone has agreed on the RAI, I'm not going to continue to argue the RAW to get some inane point across.

 puma713 wrote:

The silly thing about it all is there actually is no issue. Everyone has agreed on the RAI. Now, for some reason, everyone is trying to convince everyone else of the RAW, as if it mattered.

I still haven't figured out how anyone comes to the conlusion that a Ironclad Dreanought isn't a Dreadnought. I'm unable to wrap my head around it.

It reminds me of a Gravchute insertion question, before the 2nd errata update. Some people were arguing that the company intended for the rules to be so badly broken, then when they issued the correction as an error, the same people still insisted that they had been correct and that it was intentional.

You see it all the time.

I do enjoy seeing the mental contortions involved in trying to prove the case however. I keep it up because, I've had to have conversations like this in the real world (Gravchute, among others) and it keeps me sharp.

We are arguing the rules as written so it's still viable. (Plus I think the Mods are enjoying the back and forth a little, as well)

 puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:


Sure they are. You are basing an argument on the fact that the unit composition defines the unit. If that is true, then there are no orks in the ork codex aside from boyz. That is just as silly as the bolters being vulcan mega-bolters.

So the line of reasoning should be dropped because it creates issues across the board.

And.., that's a lie. That is not how I'm basing my argument. You've made the same mistake Idolator did.

It's a lie? Hm, that's funny:

I snipped it all because you're not proving what you think you're proving. Unit Composition does not define the unit for everything. I never - ever - said it did. My argument is not based on the fact that it does, regardless of what you and Idolator want to pretend. If you read my posts in context instead of just filter, ctrl+f, multi quote, you'd see that.

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

And he's saying that all Ven Dreads are Dreadnoughts, but not all Dreadnoughts are Ven Dreads.

Just like all VMBs are bolters, but not all bolters are VMBs.

Yes!
Now - how do you know which one you're talking about?

Context. Like you said:

rigeld2 wrote:

Context is important to keep in mind. You're ignoring it.

Yes! We agree so far! Excellent!
For comparisons sake, Idolator refused to agree that there are two definitions of the word Dreadnought - one fluff based and one the unit Dreadnought. Do you agree that these are the two definitions of the word, with respect to 40k (and the SM, GK, and maybe BT codexes)?

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Just as an aside to the back and forth don't GW sometimes capitalise classes too?
So the group might again be the one being referred to?

They capitalize darn near everything, probably for trademarking purposes. That's why Dreadnought is always capitalized, as well as Space Marine and Ork. Ork is not a proper noun any more then Bike. But Bike is capitalized all the same.

Except for bolters, which led to the whole are heavy bolters and bolt pistols affected by that one DA Banner that makes bolters Salvo 2/4 weapons.

Nope, heavy bolters aren't affected by the DA bolters, and whether they do or no has nothing to do with whether it is capitalized. WTF are you even talking about?

One of the DA banners makes all bolters within X" a Salvo 2/4 weapon. a thread started asking if this applied to all bolters (by which was meant hurricane bolters, twin-linked bolters on bikes, the bolter portion of combi-weapons) or only that which is commonly referred to as a boltgun with the 24" range, Strength 4, AP 5 Rapid Fire. One of the arguments was since a heavy bolter is a type of bolter it would be affected as well. If they used capitalization, and said all Boltguns, it would refer to the specific weapon known as Boltguns.

It was put forth as to why you should not arbitrarily choose to use part of the name of something to define the thing.

Except for the part where that makes no damn sense as a comparison. It's you said, "by that logic, a missile cruiser must be a missile, right?" Well, no. But it is a cruiser.

It's like you don't even know what words mean. Or proper nouns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Just as an aside to the back and forth don't GW sometimes capitalise classes too?
So the group might again be the one being referred to?

They capitalize darn near everything, probably for trademarking purposes. That's why Dreadnought is always capitalized, as well as Space Marine and Ork. Ork is not a proper noun any more then Bike. But Bike is capitalized all the same.

Except for bolters, which led to the whole are heavy bolters and bolt pistols affected by that one DA Banner that makes bolters Salvo 2/4 weapons.

Nope, heavy bolters aren't affected by the DA bolters, and whether they do or no has nothing to do with whether it is capitalized. WTF are you even talking about?

One of the DA banners makes all bolters within X" a Salvo 2/4 weapon. a thread started asking if this applied to all bolters (by which was meant hurricane bolters, twin-linked bolters on bikes, the bolter portion of combi-weapons) or only that which is commonly referred to as a boltgun with the 24" range, Strength 4, AP 5 Rapid Fire. One of the arguments was since a heavy bolter is a type of bolter it would be affected as well. If they used capitalization, and said all Boltguns, it would refer to the specific weapon known as Boltguns.

OK? It doesn't affect heavy bolters. It doesn't matter whether it is captilaized or not. I don't know why you'd think it does.

rigeld2 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:


Sure they are. You are basing an argument on the fact that the unit composition defines the unit. If that is true, then there are no orks in the ork codex aside from boyz. That is just as silly as the bolters being vulcan mega-bolters.

So the line of reasoning should be dropped because it creates issues across the board.

And.., that's a lie. That is not how I'm basing my argument. You've made the same mistake Idolator did.

It's a lie? Hm, that's funny:

I snipped it all because you're not proving what you think you're proving. Unit Composition does not define the unit for everything. I never - ever - said it did. My argument is not based on the fact that it does, regardless of what you and Idolator want to pretend. If you read my posts in context instead of just filter, ctrl+f, multi quote, you'd see that.

And in your RAW-galvanized brain, when you read 'define' you see only one meaning. Define can mean a lot of things, including describe. So, when I say that your argument is using Unit Composition to define a unit, I am saying that it is doing so in the context of the discussion. Your argument is very much based on the fact that the unit composition defines whether or not it may embark, which is where this whole conversation started. And if I hadn't read your posts, I wouldn't have known where to go to get the quotes.

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

And he's saying that all Ven Dreads are Dreadnoughts, but not all Dreadnoughts are Ven Dreads.

Just like all VMBs are bolters, but not all bolters are VMBs.

Yes!
Now - how do you know which one you're talking about?

Context. Like you said:

rigeld2 wrote:

Context is important to keep in mind. You're ignoring it.

Yes! We agree so far! Excellent!

Why are you acting like we've been discussing this the entire time? I really haven't ever disagreed with you. I disagree with some of your points, but I see the validity of your argument. The reason I am arguing with you is because you don't extend the same courtesy to the other side of the debate. There is no way, in your mind, that you could be wrong. In a muddied discussion, that is a precarious perch to stand on.

rigeld2 wrote:
Do you agree that these are the two definitions of the word, with respect to 40k (and the SM, GK, and maybe BT codexes)?

Sure, it doesn't change any of the rules wording in my mind, so there could be twelve definitions of it for all I care. In the context of Drop Pods, 'a single dreadnought' means any Dreadnought. In the context of the Seismic Hammer, a Venerable Dreadnought is not only a Dreadnought, but is also a Venerable Dreadnought.

 puma713 wrote:
And in your RAW-galvanized brain, when you read 'define' you see only one meaning. Define can mean a lot of things, including describe. So, when I say that your argument is using Unit Composition to define a unit, I am saying that it is doing so in the context of the discussion. Your argument is very much based on the fact that the unit composition defines whether or not it may embark, which is where this whole conversation started. And if I hadn't read your posts, I wouldn't have known where to go to get the quotes.

And yet you throw out the straw man that my argument means that there are no orks in the ork codex aside from boyz? How does that follow?
If you know that's not my argument, why say that it is?

Why are you acting like we've been discussing this the entire time? I really haven't ever disagreed with you. I disagree with some of your points, but I see the validity of your argument. The reason I am arguing with you is because you don't extend the same courtesy to the other side of the debate. There is no way, in your mind, that you could be wrong. In a muddied discussion, that is a precarious perch to stand on.

I do extend the same courtesy - when I see evidence. Trying to use fluff as rules (which is exactly what he was doing), setting equalities that not only don't make sense, but can't make sense... That's not evidence.

rigeld2 wrote:
Do you agree that these are the two definitions of the word, with respect to 40k (and the SM, GK, and maybe BT codexes)?

Sure, it doesn't change any of the rules wording in my mind, so there could be twelve definitions of it for all I care. In the context of Drop Pods, 'a single dreadnought' means any Dreadnought. In the context of the Seismic Hammer, a Venerable Dreadnought is not only a Dreadnought, but is also a Venerable Dreadnought.

Aside from Intent, do you have a basis for the bolded comment?

Aside from Intent, do you have a basis for the bolded comment?

\

Because you can put any dreadnought in a drop pod, I imagine.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

Aside from Intent, do you have a basis for the bolded comment?

\

Because you can put any dreadnought in a drop pod, I imagine.

So, just intent then.

rigeld2 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
And in your RAW-galvanized brain, when you read 'define' you see only one meaning. Define can mean a lot of things, including describe. So, when I say that your argument is using Unit Composition to define a unit, I am saying that it is doing so in the context of the discussion. Your argument is very much based on the fact that the unit composition defines whether or not it may embark, which is where this whole conversation started. And if I hadn't read your posts, I wouldn't have known where to go to get the quotes.

And yet you throw out the straw man that my argument means that there are no orks in the ork codex aside from boyz? How does that follow?
If you know that's not my argument, why say that it is?

Man, you guys like to throw around "strawman" a lot. For me to reframe your argument with a different unit is not a strawman. Your argument is that Unit Composition defines a unit insofar that rules that reference the unit must reference it directly, or are useless - ie., a Stormraven does not reference a Venerable Dreadnought, so it may not embark. If you replace Venerable Dreadnought with Loota in this argument, it causes the Ork Codex to break down - ie., Ork Mob Rule does not reference Lootas, so they may not benefit from it.

I wasn't saying that wasn't your argument. I'm saying you're misunderstanding what I mean by "unit composition defines the unit", for some reason.

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Do you agree that these are the two definitions of the word, with respect to 40k (and the SM, GK, and maybe BT codexes)?

Sure, it doesn't change any of the rules wording in my mind, so there could be twelve definitions of it for all I care. In the context of Drop Pods, 'a single dreadnought' means any Dreadnought. In the context of the Seismic Hammer, a Venerable Dreadnought is not only a Dreadnought, but is also a Venerable Dreadnought.

Aside from Intent, do you have a basis for the bolded comment?

No, not aside from intent. I applied logic to the RAW. That's the thing about RAW: it doesn't exist in a vaccuum. It cannot. GW would have to write consistent rules, with keywords and definitions to even consider reading the rules in a vaccuum. So, where you are left with a RAW interpretation that doesn't make sense or creates questions, you must apply logic to it. Would the Ironclad be able to take a drop pod it cannot use? Probably not. Is the fact that the Drop Pod only mentions 'a single Dreadnought' strong enough evidence that they cannot take Ironclad Dreadnoughts? I would say definitely not. Therefore, is it reasonable to conclude that 'a single Dreadnought', in the context of the Drop Pod, means any dreadnought in the codex? Yes.

Is it reasonable to conclude that any marine carries a vulcan mega-bolter? No, it is not.

rigeld2 wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

Aside from Intent, do you have a basis for the bolded comment?

\

Because you can put any dreadnought in a drop pod, I imagine.

So, just intent then.

Not just intent, words to that effect, too.

rigeld2 wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

Aside from Intent, do you have a basis for the bolded comment?

\

Because you can put any dreadnought in a drop pod, I imagine.

So, just intent then.

man, no, that's the rule. I haven't bothered to deconstruct exactly how that's the rule, because I've never seen anybody have the balls to argue that's it not. I kinda don't care to.

You and HappyJew apparently want to pretend that words mean things other than what they do.

Well, look a venerable dreadnought is a dreanought. A Blue Dreadnought is a dreadnought, as is Red Dreanought. Silver Dreadnoughts are also dreadnoughts.

Guess what? Bjorn is a dreadnought, too. There's a fluff as rules bit for ya. Same as how The swarmlord is a hive tyrant.

GW doesn't use keywords. They don't write rules in the manner in which you are trying to interpret them. It's not a RAW vs RAI issue....it's you being obstinate and misunderstanding things on purpose.

Dreadnought is a Dreadnought Unit that contains one Dreadnought.
An Ironclad is a Dreadnought Unit that contains one Ironclad Dreadnought
A Venerable Dreadnought is a Dreadnought unit that contains one Venerable Dreadnought.

How about that?

This is a rewording of Someones response on a different thread, but it holds up here as well. It's a very cogent response.

 puma713 wrote:
Your argument is that Unit Composition defines a unit insofar that rules that reference the unit must reference it directly, or are useless - ie., a Stormraven does not reference a Venerable Dreadnought, so it may not embark.

No, that's not my argument. Like I said.
The Stormraven references a Dreadnought. There are 2 definitions of Dreadnought. The unit and the fluff. We know we can't use fluff without a rule telling us to (because fluff is not a rule).
If the Unit Composition of a Ven Dread was "1 Dreadnought" it would be a Dreadnought - by definition.

No, not aside from intent. I applied logic to the RAW. That's the thing about RAW: it doesn't exist in a vaccuum. It cannot. GW would have to write consistent rules, with keywords and definitions to even consider reading the rules in a vaccuum. So, where you are left with a RAW interpretation that doesn't make sense or creates questions, you must apply logic to it. Would the Ironclad be able to take a drop pod it cannot use? Probably not. Is the fact that the Drop Pod only mentions 'a single Dreadnought' strong enough evidence that they cannot take Ironclad Dreadnoughts? I would say definitely not. Therefore, is it reasonable to conclude that 'a single Dreadnought', in the context of the Drop Pod, means any dreadnought in the codex? Yes.

Sure, the Intent is obvious. That was agreed to like 8 pages ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
Same as how The swarmlord is a hive tyrant.

Hmmm... Do you know if they issued an FAQ about that?

GW doesn't use keywords. They don't write rules in the manner in which you are trying to interpret them. It's not a RAW vs RAI issue....it's you being obstinate and misunderstanding things on purpose.

They do use keywords - "unit", "target", and a few other ones are key words.

rigeld2 wrote:

Sure, the Intent is obvious. That was agreed to like 8 pages ago.

Okay. . .so what is the point you're trying to make with all of the posts you've made since?

 puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Sure, the Intent is obvious. That was agreed to like 8 pages ago.

Okay. . .so what is the point you're trying to make with all of the posts you've made since?

Someone made a statement that it was RAW and not RAI.
I disagreed. You said you read the posts - so surely you saw that.
Edit: And after my second post in the thread I was insulted (told I couldn't read) so I felt the need to defend my statements.

I made a boo boo and hit ignore on someone, how do you undo that?

I meant to hit friend and screwed up.

I know it's unrelated but you guys know a bit more of this stuff than I do.

rigeld2 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Sure, the Intent is obvious. That was agreed to like 8 pages ago.

Okay. . .so what is the point you're trying to make with all of the posts you've made since?

Someone made a statement that it was RAW and not RAI.
I disagreed. You said you read the posts - so surely you saw that.

Okay? Who cares what the RAW is (on this particular subject)? RAW could say that all Ironclad Dreadnoughts were all purple balloons too. Point is, the intent is clear, both sides have shown what they feel to be the truth in the matter. And neither side is budging.

But, at the end of the day, both you and I are going to let our opponent's embark a venerable dreadnought on their stormraven, whether we agree why or not.

rigeld2 wrote:
Edit: And after my second post in the thread I was insulted (told I couldn't read) so I felt the need to defend my statements.

Well obviously you can read. I'm sure that 12 pages of debate puts that to rest.

rigeld2 wrote:

GW doesn't use keywords. They don't write rules in the manner in which you are trying to interpret them. It's not a RAW vs RAI issue....it's you being obstinate and misunderstanding things on purpose.

They do use keywords - "unit", "target", and a few other ones are key words.

They do, sometimes, but hilariously inconsistently. Like how the avatar had the "demon" rule on it but the CSM Great Demon didn't. Its really that GW said, "Durr, it has demon in the name, we don't have to give a rule to be a demon, don't be a jackass". Well, do you really want to be that guy?

Or here's a good one: How GW reffers to "die", removed form the board, removed as a casualty, etc like 6 different ways.

It would be easier, in some ways, if they just stopped trying to use keywords at all, instead of just using them sometimes.

No, it really wouldn't. It'd make rules discussion infinitely harder.

If GW didn't do things like spell out that the Avatar was demon, dumb people wouldn't get to thinking that a greater demon had to be labeled "demon" in order to be a demon.

Alterantively, they could be like MtG, use keywords evry single time, and then you could say yeah, if the card doesn't have Type: demon, then well, it's not a demon. But they don't do that either.

That's why I say the in-between is worse.

Hotshot Lasguns are not Lasguns.
They have a different profile, so are not "Lasguns" for FRFSRF, and yet they have lasgun in their name.

Fluff wise pretty much every infantry unit in Codex: Chaos Space Marines is a Chaos Space Marine, but Fabius Bile may only enhance the troop unit specifically named Chaos Space Marine

There is definite precedent in various rules, codecies, and FAQ's.

well if an iron clad dreadnaught, or venerable dreadnaught isnt a dreadnaught for the purpose, I guess they cant ride in the drop-pod your purchased as a dedicated transport. Since that allows 1 squad of space marines, 1 thunderfire cannon, or 1 Dreadnaught

TheUNSCforces wrote:
well if an iron clad dreadnaught, or venerable dreadnaught isnt a dreadnaught for the purpose, I guess they cant ride in the drop-pod your purchased as a dedicated transport. Since that allows 1 squad of space marines, 1 thunderfire cannon, or 1 Dreadnaught

The fact that they can take a drop pod as a dedicated transport implies permission for the dreadnought to embark.
There is no such permission in the SR transport entry..
There is permission for a Dreadnought to embark.
Look through the codex.
How many codex entries are there for "Dreadnought".
Only one.

There are "Venerable Dreadnoughts" and "Ironclad Dreadnoughts", but only one "Dreadnought"
As I've mentioned before, there is precedent through several codecies and FAQ's for the difference..

 marv335 wrote:


Hotshot Lasguns are not Lasguns.

Actually, they are. I feel like you're not paying attention.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 marv335 wrote:


Hotshot Lasguns are not Lasguns.

Actually, they are. I feel like you're not paying attention.

Then why can't they use FRFSRF?

They can't because they're not Lasguns, they're Hotshot Lasguns

There is the difference.

They can't because the FAQ said so. FAQs make up new rules all the time.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 marv335 wrote:


Hotshot Lasguns are not Lasguns.

Actually, they are. I feel like you're not paying attention.

Incorrect,which is why they are excluded from the FRFSRF rule saying all *lasguns* fire additional shots when this order is given

If, as you posit, you can simply separate a composite noun into a class and subclass, then by definition they ARE lasguns and so FRFSRF! applies. Except we know it doesnt.

Almost like we've been saying all along - you dont just get to split into class and subclass, as the rules dont work that way

RAW? I don't care. RAI? Of course. Dreadnaughts are dreadnaughts.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 marv335 wrote:


Hotshot Lasguns are not Lasguns.

Actually, they are. I feel like you're not paying attention.

Incorrect,which is why they are excluded from the FRFSRF rule saying all *lasguns* fire additional shots when this order is given

If, as you posit, you can simply separate a composite noun into a class and subclass, then by definition they ARE lasguns and so FRFSRF! applies. Except we know it doesnt.

Almost like we've been saying all along - you dont just get to split into class and subclass, as the rules dont work that way

Incorrect, because the ONLY reason it doesn't work with that rule is because a FAQ says so. Otherwise it would.

A hot shot lasgun is most definitely a lasgun.

Cute. Proof of our point suddenly isnt proof.

So a Storm Bolter can use SI ammo? Oh, no, wait, it cant...another FAQ confirming that this rule is the correct way of looking at things

"Venerable Dreadnought" is a compound. Prove it is subset:set by using 40k rules. Page and para

If Venerable or Ironclad Dreadnoughts were a subset of Dreadnought, they'd be upgrades from the Dreadnought entry in the codex.
But they're not.

 marv335 wrote:
If Venerable or Ironclad Dreadnoughts were a subset of Dreadnought, they'd be upgrades from the Dreadnought entry in the codex.
But they're not.

Tacticle marines and assault marines are Space Marines, by your logic they must be upgrades from "space marine".

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 marv335 wrote:
If Venerable or Ironclad Dreadnoughts were a subset of Dreadnought, they'd be upgrades from the Dreadnought entry in the codex.
But they're not.

Tacticle marines and assault marines are Space Marines, by your logic they must be upgrades from "space marine".

I think you've missed my point.

My point is that the three different types of Dreadnought are separate discrete units.
If they were a subset of "Dreadnought" then there would be one entry with upgrades for Ironclad/Venerable.

 marv335 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 marv335 wrote:
If Venerable or Ironclad Dreadnoughts were a subset of Dreadnought, they'd be upgrades from the Dreadnought entry in the codex.
But they're not.

Tacticle marines and assault marines are Space Marines, by your logic they must be upgrades from "space marine".

I think you've missed my point.

My point is that the three different types of Dreadnought are separate discrete units.
If they were a subset of "Dreadnought" then there would be one entry with upgrades for Ironclad/Venerable.

I didn't miss your point I think it's wrong.
Inserting false burdens of proof into the debate isn't a winning strategy.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 marv335 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 marv335 wrote:
If Venerable or Ironclad Dreadnoughts were a subset of Dreadnought, they'd be upgrades from the Dreadnought entry in the codex.
But they're not.

Tacticle marines and assault marines are Space Marines, by your logic they must be upgrades from "space marine".

I think you've missed my point.

My point is that the three different types of Dreadnought are separate discrete units.
If they were a subset of "Dreadnought" then there would be one entry with upgrades for Ironclad/Venerable.

I didn't miss your point I think it's wrong.
Inserting false burdens of proof into the debate isn't a winning strategy.

This.

How am I inserting "false burdens of proof"?

My whole point follows Occam's Razor.

The rules of the SR states it can carry a Dreadnought.

There is a unit in the Codex called "Dreanought"
The SR rules do not say Venerable Dreadnought or Ironclad Dreadnought, which are different units.
If they were all a subset of Dreadnought, they would be upgrades from the Dreadnought entry, not different units (which they are)

That is my reasoning. There is no false premise.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 marv335 wrote:
If Venerable or Ironclad Dreadnoughts were a subset of Dreadnought, they'd be upgrades from the Dreadnought entry in the codex.
But they're not.

Tacticle marines and assault marines are Space Marines, by your logic they must be upgrades from "space marine".

Would be a valid point if there was a transport that could carry "one Space Marine" or anything else that refered to it in the rules in this manner.
There isn't and the point isn't valid.

The fact that it's debatable whether it's all kinds of dreadnought or not (which it has proven to be) is enough to justify the question and to need house rules or a FAQ to determine it.
The question is on the fence, and no amount of back and forth here will determine it for anyone.
Most people will, as we have seen in the poll, house rule it to be all kinds of dread.

It's not a house rule.

 marv335 wrote:
How am I inserting "false burdens of proof"?

My whole point follows Occam's Razor.

The rules of the SR states it can carry a Dreadnought.

There is a unit in the Codex called "Dreanought"
The SR rules do not say Venerable Dreadnought or Ironclad Dreadnought, which are different units.
If they were all a subset of Dreadnought, they would be upgrades from the Dreadnought entry, not different units (which they are)

That is my reasoning. There is no false premise.

The question is only this. Is the SR entry refering to the term Dreadnought, the group noun or is it to the specific unit entry. There is no other question. It is as others say completely up in the air and the only way we'll know is when we see the new rules for the generic marines SR.
Asking for proof that an Ironclad is an upgrade from the standard is adding in more proof.
You can throw occam's razor in there all you want but that has no standing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also you're quoting rules from a different pair of codices, both of which define all their walkers as dreadnoughts.
This debate can only be held once we read the new SR rules.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
It's not a house rule.

Please follow the tenets of this forum

it has been proven, over and over in this thread, that currently it is a housrule, just one people unconcsciously play.

Im all for pointless (no offence to either side) argument and the disasembling of our hobbys for the presuit of knowlege, but I do have a question reguarding it:
Would anyone actually stop someone from playing the RWI of the SR can float any dread? Im not yet sold on the SR myself but I do float two dreads in my salamanders list, so I just wanted to see where peoples honest (actual RAW withstanding) thoughts were.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
It's not a house rule.

Please follow the tenets of this forum

Disagreeing with you is a tenet of this forum?

it has been proven, over and over in this thread, that currently it is a housrule, just one people unconcsciously play.

No, that's what you claimed. Big difference. PLease follow the tenets of this forum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blacksheep8Delta wrote:
Im all for pointless (no offence to either side) argument and the disasembling of our hobbys for the presuit of knowlege, but I do have a question reguarding it:
Would anyone actually stop someone from playing the RWI of the SR can float any dread? Im not yet sold on the SR myself but I do float two dreads in my salamanders list, so I just wanted to see where peoples honest (actual RAW withstanding) thoughts were.

No, no one would actually try to say you can't put whatever dread you want in the SR. WHich makes this entire thread all the sillier.

 marv335 wrote:


Hotshot Lasguns are not Lasguns.
They have a different profile, so are not "Lasguns" for FRFSRF, and yet they have lasgun in their name.

Fluff wise pretty much every infantry unit in Codex: Chaos Space Marines is a Chaos Space Marine, but Fabius Bile may only enhance the troop unit specifically named Chaos Space Marine

There is definite precedent in various rules, codecies, and FAQ's.

The precedent, The Tyranid FAQ, Addresses models/units. It doesn't adress weapons designations. I don't have Chaos space marine codex, what does his rule specificaly say? Is it like Lysander's Bolter Drill rule, where it spells out which bolters are covered?

Using the fact that the word Dreadnought is capitalized as proof that it only covers one particular model, doesn't work as I there is no instance where the word Dreanought is not capitalized. Strange GW capitalization policy.

Being able to take a type of transport does not grant the ability to ride in said transport. A seven man squad of space marines can take a Razorback, but cannot ride in it.

An Ironclad Dreadnought is a Dreadnought. It's in the nam and they share a unit entry. A commisar and a Lord Commissar are both commisars, they share a unit entry. A Valkyrie and a Vendetta are both Valkyries, the weapons loadout changes the name. Scout sentinels and Armoured Sentinels are both Sentinels.

plenty of rules, that are are on venerable, and regular dreads alike

liek the aegis, or reinforced aegis, refer to the unit they are on as a "dreadnaught" even for venerable dreads,

GW has therefore referered to venerable dreads as simply "Dreadnaught"

Sir_P - disagreeing and failing to provide any backed up argument does violate the tenets

You have ignored evidnce to the contrary showing your argument to be false.

You should probably report me, then, rather going on about "proven this" and "proven that" and generally yelling at me for disagreeing with you.

If it has dreadnought in the title, it's a dreadnought, and it really is that simple. Most people seem quite agreed on that.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
You should probably report me, then, rather going on about "proven this" and "proven that" and generally yelling at me for disagreeing with you.

If it has dreadnought in the title, it's a dreadnought, and it really is that simple. Most people seem quite agreed on that.

I guess they have ignored me. They don't respond to my points anymore. Which are cogent.

When someone "rage quits" I consider that as having won.

 Idolator wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
You should probably report me, then, rather going on about "proven this" and "proven that" and generally yelling at me for disagreeing with you.

If it has dreadnought in the title, it's a dreadnought, and it really is that simple. Most people seem quite agreed on that.

I guess they have ignored me. They don't respond to my points anymore. Which are cogent.

When someone "rage quits" I consider that as having won.

Then you're just a troll.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
You should probably report me, then, rather going on about "proven this" and "proven that" and generally yelling at me for disagreeing with you.

If it has dreadnought in the title, it's a dreadnought, and it really is that simple. Most people seem quite agreed on that.

I guess they have ignored me. They don't respond to my points anymore. Which are cogent.

When someone "rage quits" I consider that as having won.

Then you're just a troll.

No, I'm making cogent arguments, based on the RAW. When someone(real world or on a forum) finds themselves on the losing side of an argument and cannot support their position storms off. You have to consider that your points were valid and couldn't be adequately countered.

All of my points have been RAW, and have followed the same line of reasoning from the get go. My positions and point of view hasn't changed. If sticking to your guns and reamining true to your points, while pointing out inconsistencies of anothers argument is being a troll, then I guess I fit the bill.

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong or conceding when someone's argument prevails. You can check.

No that means that arguments become a marathon event rather than a cogent analysis of what is written. This thread is a great example of that.

Nobody has proved that the SR transport rule refers to all dreadnoughts, the BA codex is written differently to the SM codex.
There is an argument to be made that dreadnought is refering to the class but that is not a solid stance.

That's why I stress, "everyone is agreed". GW rules really do often require some common sense interpretation. It really shouldn't be that way, nut they write non-technical ruleset, and that is what it is.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
No that means that arguments become a marathon event rather than a cogent analysis of what is written. This thread is a great example of that.

Nobody has proved that the SR transport rule refers to all dreadnoughts, the BA codex is written differently to the SM codex.
There is an argument to be made that dreadnought is refering to the class but that is not a solid stance.

The argument is and has been greater than that. As the same ruling applies to Drop Pods. I know that the terminology is a relic from past editions, we all do. I've given example after example of why an Ironclad Dreadnought is a Dreadnought.

My arguments were countered, by the same guy!!!! , with grammar arguments, Fluff is not rules, Fluff is rules, a single word is a deffinition, the unit composition in thte unit profile is the only thing that matters, unit composition in the unit profile is irrelevant, the unit entry on page 65 is irrelevant, the unit entry on page 65 is all that matters, FAQ's Change rules, What GW writes is the final word, what GW writes is false, and ,my favorite, the word "context" is at the same time an answer to my question and a specific request for more information.

The points that I have made. All classifications of Dreadnoughts are Dreadnoughts. 1) It in the name. 2) They all fall under the unit entry of "Dreadnought" much like Commisars, Sentinels, Valk/vendettas 3)The FAQ from GW points out that models of a subtype are considered to be models of the general type.

I did get sucked into the FAQ not changing the rules tangent. Which I countered by pointing out how the only two examples that I was given did not change any rules.

When challenged, I rose to the challenge. I don't see trolling there, but hey, maybe I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

Firstly nobody responded to my examples from the FAQ's. They were ignored.

That is a "class" of units called Dreadnoughts and there is a unit Dreadnought. Which is it referring to? Is it clear that it is either?
In the BA codex each flavour of Dread is called a dread in it's unit composition. In SM this is not true.

No matter how you slice it there is proof that it refers to one or the other in the SM codex. The arguement is no more than that. You can drag it out to more than that but this argument comes down to what is a Dreadnought?

What's a truck?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What's a truck?

Depends on what the definition of "is" is......

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
What's a truck?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What's a truck?

Depends on what the definition of "is" is......

Well you can be like that or accept that words have more than one meaning.

Idolater - you ignored that the SitW FAQ literally swapped sides during 5th. It was a literal change to the rules, not presented as an errata. This is literally 100% indisputable.

"Heavy" is a type of weapon, so "Heavy Flamer" by the "logic" presented here would be a Heavy weapon. But they arent.

Hot shot lasguns could be used by FRFSRF!. But they cant
Storm Bolters could use Special Issue ammo. But they cant

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Storm Bolters could use Special Issue ammo. But they cant

Nos not to nitpic but is the bolter example great? As it is special ammo goes to some while Lysander's thing goes to most of the rest.

Its just another example where you cant just go "well it has the word "X" in it so it must be of type "X"

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Idolater - you ignored that the SitW FAQ literally swapped sides during 5th. It was a literal change to the rules, not presented as an errata. This is literally 100% indisputable.

"Heavy" is a type of weapon, so "Heavy Flamer" by the "logic" presented here would be a Heavy weapon. But they arent.

Hot shot lasguns could be used by FRFSRF!. But they cant
Storm Bolters could use Special Issue ammo. But they cant

I had a much longer response but got a 404 error when I tried to post. I will get back to it after this.

I didn't ignore the SitW point. I was informed that the current FAQ for 6th ed doesn't jibe with the FAQ for 5th a year ago. That makes sense. No one informed me when their position changed. I have to assume it was when the actual rules changed. Since there are many factors involved that have to be answered to give a cogent response it's hard to answer.

Those questions would be. When was it changed? Was there an errata change that corresponds with the change in their position? Was there an amendments change that corresponds with the change in their position?

The second part of your post: The FAQ answer regards models not weapons considered to be carried by models. Expanding it to other elements doesn't hold up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Firstly nobody responded to my examples from the FAQ's. They were ignored.

That is a "class" of units called Dreadnoughts and there is a unit Dreadnought. Which is it referring to? Is it clear that it is either?
In the BA codex each flavour of Dread is called a dread in it's unit composition. In SM this is not true.

No matter how you slice it there is proof that it refers to one or the other in the SM codex. The arguement is no more than that. You can drag it out to more than that but this argument comes down to what is a Dreadnought?

What were your Examples of FAQ changing rules? I will be glad to address them. I only saw the two and did address those.

A Dreadnought is any model listed on pg 65 of the C:SM codex under the heading Dreadnought.

I believe when the SitW question was brought first mentioned (by rigeld), he stated when the change was. He was then challenged on it and stated again when the change was.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

"Heavy" is a type of weapon, so "Heavy Flamer" by the "logic" presented here would be a Heavy weapon. But they arent.

We already covered why comparison that fails. That's like saying a Missile Cruiser is a missile....it's not, but it most definitely a Cruiser.

Are you familiar with the idea of adjectives? Usually come before nouns?

 Idolator wrote:
What were your Examples of FAQ changing rules? I will be glad to address them. I only saw the two and did address those.

This FaQ chaned the rules.

The normal RAW let you move a flyer with a Magna-grapple, but this FaQ says you can not. Rules changed.


Q: If a Magna-grapple hits a zooming flyer, does the Grapple special rule work as normal? (p61)
A: No. (Page 5 BA FaQ).

FaQ's sometimes do change rules.

 Happyjew wrote:
I believe when the SitW question was brought first mentioned (by rigeld), he stated when the change was. He was then challenged on it and stated again when the change was.

He stated that the current FAQ was different that it was in February 2012. That was all. He never pointed out when it was changed. It's quite possible that they didn't change it until after the 6th came out as, until recently, GW would let long periods of time lapse between updates.

Without the entire Errata, Amendments and FAQ document, when the change was made, it would be impossible to make a case either way. As an Errata or ammendment change would cause a position change.

To be clear, FAQs change the rules all the time. I don't know whose side that favors, but it's just true.

The recent weapon range wound allocation FAQ is a good example.

My example was in 5th edition.

The sw faq changed how modifiers worked in 5th edition.
SW TW Lords were toughness 5 so couldn't be ID'ed by s8 weapons. This was a change of the rules.

The changes to the shooting in 6th edition changed how shooting happens. That is a change of the rules as no such rules were included in the brb.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
What were your Examples of FAQ changing rules? I will be glad to address them. I only saw the two and did address those.

This FaQ chaned the rules.

The normal RAW let you move a flyer with a Magna-grapple, but this FaQ says you can not. Rules changed.


Q: If a Magna-grapple hits a zooming flyer, does the Grapple special rule work as normal? (p61)
A: No. (Page 5 BA FaQ).

FaQ's sometimes do change rules.

What are the rules for magna grapple?

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
To be clear, FAQs change the rules all the time. I don't know whose side that favors, but it's just true.

The recent weapon range wound allocation FAQ is a good example.

I said this was a non-issue within this debate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
What were your Examples of FAQ changing rules? I will be glad to address them. I only saw the two and did address those.

This FaQ chaned the rules.

The normal RAW let you move a flyer with a Magna-grapple, but this FaQ says you can not. Rules changed.


Q: If a Magna-grapple hits a zooming flyer, does the Grapple special rule work as normal? (p61)
A: No. (Page 5 BA FaQ).

FaQ's sometimes do change rules.

What are the rules for magna grapple?

It's called the grapple special rule. It's in the BA codex on the same page as dreadnoughts.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

What are the rules for magna grapple?

It's called the grapple special rule. It's in the BA codex on the same page as dreadnoughts.

 Idolator wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I believe when the SitW question was brought first mentioned (by rigeld), he stated when the change was. He was then challenged on it and stated again when the change was.

He stated that the current FAQ was different that it was in February 2012. That was all. He never pointed out when it was changed. It's quite possible that they didn't change it until after the 6th came out as, until recently, GW would let long periods of time lapse between updates.

Without the entire Errata, Amendments and FAQ document, when the change was made, it would be impossible to make a case either way. As an Errata or ammendment change would cause a position change.

He said prior to Feb 2012 the FAQ said one thing, then it changed. You made the exact same claim about the change not being until 6th edition. Here was his reply to that:

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
but RAW is that FAQ's only clarify existing rules

Actually no - there is no rule that says that so saying "RAW" is blatantly misrepresenting.

The "What are Amendments, Errata and FAQs?" bit GW puts out there is demonstrably false.

And just because I saw this underneath my post in the "Review Message" window...

Idolator wrote:You mean they changed an answer to a rules question after they came out with a new set of rules?????

Do me a favor and look at a calendar. Find the day 6th edition released. Now go to February 2012 and see if that was before or after 6th edition came out.

Thanks. (hint - 6th edition was released June 30th, 2012. Which is after February. Meaning that they made the original call during 5th Edition and changed it during 5th Edition.)

 liturgies of blood wrote:
My example was in 5th edition.

The sw faq changed how modifiers worked in 5th edition.
SW TW Lords were toughness 5 so couldn't be ID'ed by s8 weapons. This was a change of the rules.

The changes to the shooting in 6th edition changed how shooting happens. That is a change of the rules as no such rules were included in the brb.

I can only answer current FAQ's. Who keeps old FAQ's? It's like keeping an old rulebook as a reference.

its that GW says their FAQ's are not changes to the rules that matters, not what I or any person thinks

we all know GW would never contradict them selves every now and then right?

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

"Heavy" is a type of weapon, so "Heavy Flamer" by the "logic" presented here would be a Heavy weapon. But they arent.

We already covered why comparison that fails. That's like saying a Missile Cruiser is a missile....it's not, but it most definitely a Cruiser.

Are you familiar with the idea of adjectives? Usually come before nouns?

Familiar with the idea of composite nouns?

"Heavy Flamer" refers to a unique item in the 40k world. Try it

Idolator - The FAQ changed its mind in February 2012. 6th edition came out later in 2012. It was a change to a rule within an edition, from "NO" to "YES". Indisputable.

I keep old rulebooks and codices for reference. There have been times when people bring up a rule from an older edition.

 Idolator wrote:
What are the rules for magna grapple?

"*Grapple: If the Magna-grapple shot hits a vehicle and the target is not destroyed, roll a D6 and add 8 to the score. If the result is lower than the targets highest armor valye nothing happens. If the result is equal to or higher than the target's highest armor value Move the vehicle 2D6" directly towards the Dreadnought. The target does not change facing and will stop if it comes within 1" of Difficult terrain, Impassible terrain, another vehicle, or a unit locked in close combat. Treat any non-vehicle unit the target moves over as having been tank shocked. Once the drag has been completed the Dreadnought releases the grapple - if the target survives the ensuing assault phase, it'll be able to move normally next turn." P. 60 BA Codex (I left out some fluff)

With this rule Flyers were able to be moved by the Magna-grapple, but the FaQ changed that for Zooming Flyers.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I believe when the SitW question was brought first mentioned (by rigeld), he stated when the change was. He was then challenged on it and stated again when the change was.

He stated that the current FAQ was different that it was in February 2012. That was all. He never pointed out when it was changed. It's quite possible that they didn't change it until after the 6th came out as, until recently, GW would let long periods of time lapse between updates.

Without the entire Errata, Amendments and FAQ document, when the change was made, it would be impossible to make a case either way. As an Errata or ammendment change would cause a position change.

He said prior to Feb 2012 the FAQ said one thing, then it changed. You made the exact same claim about the change not being until 6th edition. Here was his reply to that:

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
but RAW is that FAQ's only clarify existing rules

Actually no - there is no rule that says that so saying "RAW" is blatantly misrepresenting.

The "What are Amendments, Errata and FAQs?" bit GW puts out there is demonstrably false.

And just because I saw this underneath my post in the "Review Message" window...

Idolator wrote:You mean they changed an answer to a rules question after they came out with a new set of rules?????

Do me a favor and look at a calendar. Find the day 6th edition released. Now go to February 2012 and see if that was before or after 6th edition came out.

Thanks. (hint - 6th edition was released June 30th, 2012. Which is after February. Meaning that they made the original call during 5th Edition and changed it during 5th Edition.)

Now forgive me if I'm wrong, His actual statement was that the current FAQ was now different than the FAQ issued in February 2012? He didn't claim that the answer in the February 2012 FAQ was a change from an earlier answer.

Next, If that was indeed a change in the answer, what other changes, if any were made in the Errata and Amendments?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
What are the rules for magna grapple?

"If the Magna-grapple shot hits a vehicle and the target is not destroyed, roll a D6 and add 8 to the score. If the result is lower than the targets highest armor valye nothing happens. If the result is equal to or higher than the target's highest armor value Move the vehicle 2D6" directly towards the Dreadnought. The target does not change facing and will stop if it comes within 1" of Difficult terrain, Impassible terrain, another vehicle, or a unit locked in close combat. Treat any non-vehicle unit the target moves over as having been tank shocked. Once the drag has been completed the Dreadnought releases the grapple - if the target survives the ensuing assault phase, it'll be able to move normally next turn." P. 60 BA Codex (I left out some fluff)

With this rule Flyers were able to be moved by the Magna-grapple, but the FaQ changed that for Zooming Flyers.

Does it use the models BS to fire? Can it be fired as a snapshot?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

"Heavy" is a type of weapon, so "Heavy Flamer" by the "logic" presented here would be a Heavy weapon. But they arent.

We already covered why comparison that fails. That's like saying a Missile Cruiser is a missile....it's not, but it most definitely a Cruiser.

Are you familiar with the idea of adjectives? Usually come before nouns?

Familiar with the idea of composite nouns?

THat's not actually a thing. Nouns can be more than one word---and the line between a multi-word noun and noun with an adjective can be fuzzy. Regardless, if there's an adjective in there, it's less core to the concept than main noun word.....that's just common sense.

Why do you continue to ignore that Missile Cruiser example? It's perfectly illustrative. I feel you're just being obstinate, now.

 Idolator wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I believe when the SitW question was brought first mentioned (by rigeld), he stated when the change was. He was then challenged on it and stated again when the change was.

He stated that the current FAQ was different that it was in February 2012. That was all. He never pointed out when it was changed. It's quite possible that they didn't change it until after the 6th came out as, until recently, GW would let long periods of time lapse between updates.

Without the entire Errata, Amendments and FAQ document, when the change was made, it would be impossible to make a case either way. As an Errata or ammendment change would cause a position change.

He said prior to Feb 2012 the FAQ said one thing, then it changed. You made the exact same claim about the change not being until 6th edition. Here was his reply to that:

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
but RAW is that FAQ's only clarify existing rules

Actually no - there is no rule that says that so saying "RAW" is blatantly misrepresenting.

The "What are Amendments, Errata and FAQs?" bit GW puts out there is demonstrably false.

And just because I saw this underneath my post in the "Review Message" window...

Idolator wrote:You mean they changed an answer to a rules question after they came out with a new set of rules?????

Do me a favor and look at a calendar. Find the day 6th edition released. Now go to February 2012 and see if that was before or after 6th edition came out.

Thanks. (hint - 6th edition was released June 30th, 2012. Which is after February. Meaning that they made the original call during 5th Edition and changed it during 5th Edition.)

Now forgive me if I'm wrong, His actual statement was that the current FAQ was now different than the FAQ issued in February 2012? He didn't claim that the answer in the February 2012 FAQ was a change from an earlier answer.

Next, If that was indeed a change in the answer, what other changes, if any were made in the Errata and Amendments?

Prior to Feb 2012, SitW did not affect embarked Psykers (per the FAQ), they changed the answer to that question with that FAQ release. There were no changes to SitW in the Errata and Ammendments at that time.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
What are the rules for magna grapple?

"If the Magna-grapple shot hits a vehicle and the target is not destroyed, roll a D6 and add 8 to the score. If the result is lower than the targets highest armor valye nothing happens. If the result is equal to or higher than the target's highest armor value Move the vehicle 2D6" directly towards the Dreadnought. The target does not change facing and will stop if it comes within 1" of Difficult terrain, Impassible terrain, another vehicle, or a unit locked in close combat. Treat any non-vehicle unit the target moves over as having been tank shocked. Once the drag has been completed the Dreadnought releases the grapple - if the target survives the ensuing assault phase, it'll be able to move normally next turn." P. 60 BA Codex (I left out some fluff)

With this rule Flyers were able to be moved by the Magna-grapple, but the FaQ changed that for Zooming Flyers.

Does it use the models BS to fire? Can it be fired as a snapshot?

The Magna-Grapple can fire as a snap shot. the additional thing is a special rule, similar to the extra hits caused by tesla weapons.

Idolator - during 5th edition they initially stated SitW did not affect psykers embarked in a vehicle. Later, during 5th edition they changed this to say they WERE affected. 100% one of those was a change to the rules.

Another 5th edition example is COunter Attack + Furious charge. Initially they said passing CA meant you also got the benefit of FC. They then reversed this.

there are many, many examples where they change the way the rules are read to mean something entirely different, and do this as a FAQ.

The easy way for you to check the SitW one is to search on google, restricting the search to site:dakkadakka.com, and look for SitW

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
What are the rules for magna grapple?

"*Grapple: If the Magna-grapple shot hits a vehicle and the target is not destroyed, roll a D6 and add 8 to the score. If the result is lower than the targets highest armor value nothing happens. If the result is equal to or higher than the target's highest armor value Move the vehicle 2D6" directly towards the Dreadnought. The target does not change facing and will stop if it comes within 1" of Difficult terrain, Impassible terrain, another vehicle, or a unit locked in close combat. Treat any non-vehicle unit the target moves over as having been tank shocked. Once the drag has been completed the Dreadnought releases the grapple - if the target survives the ensuing assault phase, it'll be able to move normally next turn." P. 60 BA Codex (I left out some fluff)

With this rule Flyers were able to be moved by the Magna-grapple, but the FaQ changed that for Zooming Flyers.

Does it use the models BS to fire? Can it be fired as a snapshot?

Yes sorry the profile on the Magna-grapple is Range 12" Str 8 AP2 Heavy 1 Grapple* (Grapple is the quoted rule above).

 Happyjew wrote:

Prior to Feb 2012, SitW did not affect embarked Psykers (per the FAQ), they changed the answer to that question with that FAQ release. There were no changes to SitW in the Errata and Ammendments at that time.

How can I possibly even answer that honestly, without the relevant information in front of me. I mean really. I'm not trying to spike your argument here. But I'm supposed to give my argument based on information that I don't have based on your assurances that the information that you are giving me is true. I would not expect you do do the same. I need to see both the pre 02/12 Errata and post 02/12.

The Magna-Grapple can fire as a snap shot. the additional thing is a special rule, similar to the extra hits caused by tesla weapons.

I see what they did, they consider the "drag" rule to be a form of assault. Since it implies contact from a ground model to a flier as it has the ability to cause the flier to come into contact with the firing model, and this is expressly forbidden. They have the same position on wrecking balls, boarding planks and deff rollas.
Their position is that it creates contact. It didn't change how the rule is worded.

It also seems that the Magna Grapple works like "Ram" which is also expressly forbidden against fliers.

Did the wording of how a Magna Grapple works change in any way? Neither did wrecking ball. They consider it a form of assault. I get it.

 Idolator wrote:
We all agree that the only deffinition of Dreadnought is in the fluff.

The "against" argument has been "Just because it's called a Dreadnought and is listed in the Dreadnought entry and allowed to take a Drop Pod according to Dreadnought rules; that does not make it a Dreadnought."

The "FOR" arguments have been using RAW and following up with established examples of why the RAW show that it is indeed a Dreadnought.

Actually I'm pretty sure there are 2 definitions of a Dreadnought. there is the fluff definition (SM hurt badly put into a walking sarcophagus so he can keep fighting), and the 'rules" definition (aka unit entry).

no where does GW define Dreadnaught as having dreadnaught only, and not XXXX dread in the unit composition,

that is an assumption,

GW refers to venerable dreads as "Dreadnaughts" in the special rules they have writen in as being on venerable dreadnaughts (ie aegis, reinforced aegis)

that GW would write rules onto units for the express purpose of them not having it defies logic

easysauce wrote:
that GW would write rules onto units for the express purpose of them not having it defies logic

They're called mistakes, and there are many examples.
Read The Aegis rule, it doesn't work.
And remember, we're discussing the Rules as Written, not how they should be played.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
We all agree that the only deffinition of Dreadnought is in the fluff.

The "against" argument has been "Just because it's called a Dreadnought and is listed in the Dreadnought entry and allowed to take a Drop Pod according to Dreadnought rules; that does not make it a Dreadnought."

The "FOR" arguments have been using RAW and following up with established examples of why the RAW show that it is indeed a Dreadnought.

Actually I'm pretty sure there are 2 definitions of a Dreadnought. there is the fluff definition (SM hurt badly put into a walking sarcophagus so he can keep fighting), and the 'rules" definition (aka unit entry).

Unit entry is the entirety of page 65.

Are you refereing to the Unit Profile in the back of the book? What is a Space Marine? Is a Loota and Ork? Is a Vendetta a Valkyrie? Is a Lord Commisar a Commisar? A word is not a deffinition.

So, if fluff definitions aren't considered deffinitions and we can all agree that a word is not a definition. The only way to determine what type of model something is would be it's unit entry page. The Unit profiles don't define anything.

 Idolator wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
We all agree that the only deffinition of Dreadnought is in the fluff.

The "against" argument has been "Just because it's called a Dreadnought and is listed in the Dreadnought entry and allowed to take a Drop Pod according to Dreadnought rules; that does not make it a Dreadnought."

The "FOR" arguments have been using RAW and following up with established examples of why the RAW show that it is indeed a Dreadnought.

Actually I'm pretty sure there are 2 definitions of a Dreadnought. there is the fluff definition (SM hurt badly put into a walking sarcophagus so he can keep fighting), and the 'rules" definition (aka unit entry).

Unit entry is the entirety of page 65.

Are you refereing to the Unit Profile in the back of the book? What is a Space Marine? Is a Loota and Ork? Is a Vendetta a Valkyrie? Is a Lord Commisar a Commisar? A word is not a deffinition.

So, if fluff definitions aren't considered deffinitions and we can all agree that a word is not a definition. The only way to determine what type of model something is would be it's unit entry page. The Unit profiles don't define anything.

I'm sorry. I should have said the Army List Entry for Dreadnoughts.

 Happyjew wrote:

I'm sorry. I should have said the Army List Entry for Dreadnoughts.

That's where I went with it. The Definition of Dreadnought is the ENTIRETY of pg 65. Not just a single sentence or word. The unit profiles in the back break down the different types of a specified unit.

One would have, more profound argument that the different types of Land Raider were not to be considered Land Raiders as they have different Unit Entry pages. This is not the case with Dreadnoughts.

Further adding to the case that all Dreadnoughts are Dreadnoughts is the fact that in subsequent Codexs, Dreadnought variants are simply refered to as Dreadnought.

Someone made a specious argument that if that were the case then they could equip a Dreadnought variants with a Seismic hammer. The argument was invalid because you can equip a Dreadnought with Seismic Hammers, the unit profiles denote that if you do, you must also equip them with Ironclad assault launchers. As there are no rules restricting a model so equiped from boarding a Drop Pod, the Dreadnought so equiped may embark.

I was thinking of something related to an earlier post. You no longer require a special rule for Jump Infantry to board a transport. They have the Bulky rule and are no longer forbidden. This is a further example of how the modifier does not change the designation of the model itself, (Damn GW and their weird capitalization policies)

 Idolator wrote:
I was thinking of something related to an earlier post. You no longer require a special rule for Jump Infantry to board a transport. They have the Bulky rule and are no longer forbidden. This is a further example of how the modifier does not change the designation of the model itself, (Damn GW and their weird capitalization policies)

Actually Jump (infantry) are still forbidden from embarking into transports, it's in the transport section.
They have Bulky for those rare cases they are allowed to embark.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
I was thinking of something related to an earlier post. You no longer require a special rule for Jump Infantry to board a transport. They have the Bulky rule and are no longer forbidden. This is a further example of how the modifier does not change the designation of the model itself, (Damn GW and their weird capitalization policies)

Actually Jump (infantry) are still forbidden from embarking into transports, it's in the transport section.
They have Bulky for those rare cases they are allowed to embark.

You are correct sir! it was my bad.

Does the Grey Knight Stormraven allow Jump Infantry to embark?

Yes it does, one of the rare transports that can.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Incorrect, Rigel. Brood Telepathy and Warp Field did in fact work for Ymgarl and Doom, respectively, previous to that FAQ, all the FAQ did was clarify to players that GW intented for those rules to work with those specific units.

While people may think the rules as written were changed, no errata was issued to actually change the wording. All that did change was that a small portion of the player base was given a pointed reminder that if a unit is given a special rule, GW intended for that unit to use that special rule.

That's of course your assumption, as there is nothing anywhere that says that.
And you seem to still be saying that FAQs cannot change rules despite the fact that it has been proven they do.

I've never said FAQ cannot change rules. I have stated that Errata change rules, while FAQ clarify rules. The difference being that Errata changes the wording of the rule, which oddly enough "changes" the rule, while FAQ provide an answer as to the intent behind the rule in question. One actually changes the rule, the other advises on how the design team would interperate the rule they wrote. I have also pointed out at least one FAQ I personally considered to be a bad call as it goes against the actual rules as written. However, that specific FAQ is just like all other FAQ in that it only clarifies what the intent behind the rule was.

As to your example and my disagreement, you have stated that in at least 2 instances GW printed a FAQ that stated a specific named unit is indeed a named version of a generic unit, and as such uses the rules printed in its unit entry just like the generic units it is a named version of. I pointed out that in no way did the rules change, as the rules were not re-worded, amended, or replaced by different text. The FAQ simply pointed out to a portion of the player base that yes indeed, the rest of the player base was playing it correctly.

Back to the "Dreadnought might not be a Dreadnought" discussion, if we apply the exact same logic GW implies for the rulings in your example to Dreadnoughts, then the portion of the player base that allows all variants of dreadnoughts to be treated as "Dreadnoughts" where the rules simply reference "1 Dreadnought" is correct until such time as GW posts an errata, amendment, or FAQ that clarifies their intent to be different. And while I do acknowledge that GW may side with the portion of the player base that states "only the unit named Dreadnought is a Dreadnought", they have not at this time done so. If we as the player base choose to limit our chain of logic to "only the unit named XXX is an XXX for all rules covering XXX", then the rules collapse as entire codices become unplayable.

On another note, I can see way GW rules the way they did on Magna-Grapples and ‘Nids not being able to shoot emplaced weapons. For one, the rules as written state that flyers cannot be physically interacted with while zooming by anything other than another flyer. A ground unit with a grapple does attempt to interact with a zooming flyer if the zooming flyer is hit by the grapple. As the ground unit is not a flyer, the portion of the rules defining how the firer interacts with the target is ignored. GW has supported this in the current FAQ. It does not matter what GW supported in previous Errata or FAQ, as only the most current Errata and FAQ are legal.

On the ‘Nid clarification, ‘Nids by their very own background information (fluff = context), are unable/unwilling to operate technology. Emplaced weapons are technology. GW’s ruling makes sense ever if the rules as written state otherwise. Have the rules been changed? No, because the rules in question were not re-written, modified, or replaced. Has the way ‘Nid players are allowed to follow specific rules changed? Yes, because a declaration of intent has been provided from an official source.

The FAQ I personally disagreed with when it first came out was the GW ruling on Nemesis Force Falchions, where GW states that it was not their intention to allow NFF to provide +2 attacks for being 2 CCW with a special rule that adds an addition attack. However, recent discussions on this forum regarding the stacking of benefits stack as multiple casting of Hammerhand on the same unit brought to light why GW ruled the way they did on NFF. Per the rules as written, like benefits do not stack unless given specific permission to do so. This means that no matter how many +1 to Strength benefits a unit receives, only the benefits with specific permission to stack may stack (such as Hammerhand and Might of Titan). It appears that GW had chosen to apply this rule to their answer regarding NFF, stating that despite being 2 CCW and a special rule noted +1 attack, the NFF can never grant more than +1 attack. I know, just like everyone else, that this ruling flies in the face of decades of 40k rules and GW rulings. Yet, it is internally consistent with the current rule set. This also means we may need to reevaluate other unit with multiple stacking bonuses to see which one truly stack and which ones don’t.

And finally, on the point about YMDC tenets on debating rules, the YMDC tenets do not tell us to only argue why the rules don’t work. The tenets tell us to debate [i[how[/i] the rules as written work, and to support our arguments with citations. The constant circular arguments that the Dakka Debating Society seems to prefer where they neither support their views nor strive to make sense of the rules as written beyond pointing out where everything falls apart does a huge disservice to the community.

My apologies for the wall of text. Pretty sure those that disagree will pick it apart or ignore it, while never actually addressing any of it within the tenets of this forum.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Incorrect, Rigel. Brood Telepathy and Warp Field did in fact work for Ymgarl and Doom, respectively, previous to that FAQ, all the FAQ did was clarify to players that GW intented for those rules to work with those specific units.

While people may think the rules as written were changed, no errata was issued to actually change the wording. All that did change was that a small portion of the player base was given a pointed reminder that if a unit is given a special rule, GW intended for that unit to use that special rule.

That's of course your assumption, as there is nothing anywhere that says that.
And you seem to still be saying that FAQs cannot change rules despite the fact that it has been proven they do.

I've never said FAQ cannot change rules. I have stated that Errata change rules, while FAQ clarify rules. The difference being that Errata changes the wording of the rule, which oddly enough "changes" the rule, while FAQ provide an answer as to the intent behind the rule in question. One actually changes the rule, the other advises on how the design team would interperate the rule they wrote. I have also pointed out at least one FAQ I personally considered to be a bad call as it goes against the actual rules as written. However, that specific FAQ is just like all other FAQ in that it only clarifies what the intent behind the rule was.

So FAQs clarify Intent and never change rules, but FAQs can change rules?

As to your example and my disagreement, you have stated that in at least 2 instances GW printed a FAQ that stated a specific named unit is indeed a named version of a generic unit, and as such uses the rules printed in its unit entry just like the generic units it is a named version of. I pointed out that in no way did the rules change, as the rules were not re-worded, amended, or replaced by different text. The FAQ simply pointed out to a portion of the player base that yes indeed, the rest of the player base was playing it correctly.

So changing how the rule is played does not change the rules?
And you've ignored the SitW rule change.

Back to the "Dreadnought might not be a Dreadnought" discussion, if we apply the exact same logic GW implies for the rulings in your example to Dreadnoughts, then the portion of the player base that allows all variants of dreadnoughts to be treated as "Dreadnoughts" where the rules simply reference "1 Dreadnought" is correct until such time as GW posts an errata, amendment, or FAQ that clarifies their intent to be different. And while I do acknowledge that GW may side with the portion of the player base that states "only the unit named Dreadnought is a Dreadnought", they have not at this time done so. If we as the player base choose to limit our chain of logic to "only the unit named XXX is an XXX for all rules covering XXX", then the rules collapse as entire codices become unplayable.

The rules don't collapse, some codexes do.

On another note, I can see way GW rules the way they did on Magna-Grapples and ‘Nids not being able to shoot emplaced weapons. For one, the rules as written state that flyers cannot be physically interacted with while zooming by anything other than another flyer. A ground unit with a grapple does attempt to interact with a zooming flyer if the zooming flyer is hit by the grapple. As the ground unit is not a flyer, the portion of the rules defining how the firer interacts with the target is ignored. GW has supported this in the current FAQ. It does not matter what GW supported in previous Errata or FAQ, as only the most current Errata and FAQ are legal.

Actually, the bolded is never said anywhere so that's putting your interpretation into the rules.

On the ‘Nid clarification, ‘Nids by their very own background information (fluff = context), are unable/unwilling to operate technology. Emplaced weapons are technology. GW’s ruling makes sense ever if the rules as written state otherwise. Have the rules been changed? No, because the rules in question were not re-written, modified, or replaced. Has the way ‘Nid players are allowed to follow specific rules changed? Yes, because a declaration of intent has been provided from an official source.

So if the rule hasn't changed, I'm allowed to have my Venomthropes fire a Quad Gun? Why or why not? After all, the rules allow it and FAQs don't change rules.

The FAQ I personally disagreed with when it first came out was the GW ruling on Nemesis Force Falchions, where GW states that it was not their intention to allow NFF to provide +2 attacks for being 2 CCW with a special rule that adds an addition attack. However, recent discussions on this forum regarding the stacking of benefits stack as multiple casting of Hammerhand on the same unit brought to light why GW ruled the way they did on NFF. Per the rules as written, like benefits do not stack unless given specific permission to do so. This means that no matter how many +1 to Strength benefits a unit receives, only the benefits with specific permission to stack may stack (such as Hammerhand and Might of Titan). It appears that GW had chosen to apply this rule to their answer regarding NFF, stating that despite being 2 CCW and a special rule noted +1 attack, the NFF can never grant more than +1 attack. I know, just like everyone else, that this ruling flies in the face of decades of 40k rules and GW rulings. Yet, it is internally consistent with the current rule set. This also means we may need to reevaluate other unit with multiple stacking bonuses to see which one truly stack and which ones don’t.

Citation required for the bolded - I think you'll find it doesn't actually exist.

And finally, on the point about YMDC tenets on debating rules, the YMDC tenets do not tell us to only argue why the rules don’t work. The tenets tell us to debate [i[how[/i] the rules as written work, and to support our arguments with citations. The constant circular arguments that the Dakka Debating Society seems to prefer where they neither support their views nor strive to make sense of the rules as written beyond pointing out where everything falls apart does a huge disservice to the community.

Please report me or anyone else that does not support their argument with rules. I'm begging you too.
Instead of sideways insults and snarky comments I'd rather you used actual rules to debate as I have.

I'll be honest, I did not read through all 16 pages of this thread, but I know on page 1 and page 14 the argument that the Blood Angels codex is written in such a way that all dreadnought units use "1 Dreadnought" in the unit composition entry. The argument is being made that a "Dreadnought" and a "Venerable Dreadnought" in the Space Marines codex are not the same because the unit composition is not identical as it is in the Blood Angels codex.

If that line of reasoning is true then a Furioso Dreadnought/ Librarian is WS 4?

"Furioso Dreadnoughts" are WS 6 but my Furioso Dreadnought unit only has 1 "Dreadnought" in it.

 DJGietzen wrote:
I'll be honest, I did not read through all 16 pages of this thread, but I know on page 1 and page 14 the argument that the Blood Angels codex is written in such a way that all dreadnought units use "1 Dreadnought" in the unit composition entry. The argument is being made that a "Dreadnought" and a "Venerable Dreadnought" in the Space Marines codex are not the same because the unit composition is not identical as it is in the Blood Angels codex.

If that line of reasoning is true then a Furioso Dreadnought/ Librarian is WS 4?

"Furioso Dreadnoughts" are WS 6 but my Furioso Dreadnought unit only has 1 "Dreadnought" in it.

I don't follow. Are you for or against an Ironclad and Venerable Dreadnought being a Dreadnought for transportation purposes in a Drop Pod and Storm Raven?

P.S. I don't blame you for not reading all 16 pages. Although, some of it's rather funny and some of it contains the most ridiculous crap you've ever seen!

Personally I'm in favor of transporting SM Venerable or Iron-Clad dreads in a raven. To me the contextual use of the word Dreadnought in the Stormraven's rules is to describe a class of units and not a specific unit. I believe that same contextual use applies to the entries for unit composition in the Blood Angels codex.

If I assume the argument that the unit composition entry is distinguishing between two different model types is true then I am forced to conclude that, in the Blood Angels codex, a Furioso Dreadnought unit contains 0 "Furioso Dreadnought" and 1 "Dreadnought". Since those two models have different characteristic profiles I am forced, under this logic, to conclude that the "Dreadnought" in my FD unit must use the characteristic profile of the "Dreadnought".

Just for my own clarification. At this point this thread is about what now? as it seems the answer to the Op's question was answered about 10 pages ago or so....

BLADERIKER wrote:
Just for my own clarification. At this point this thread is about what now? as it seems the answer to the Op's question was answered about 10 pages ago or so....

It was....and everyone knows it. Unfortunately there are a few people out there that will refuse to concede.

I had a guy, recently, argue that three words of a sentence were to be considered fluff (and therefore not rules) while the rest of the sentence was the gospel truth for playing the game.

This whole thread became a vaudville routine after the Drop Pods were referenced. Heck of a show though, funny.

I don't think we're going to cover anything new now.