1185
Post by: marv335
Here's a question I've been wondering about.
The Stormraven is now available to C:SM armies.
Can a Stormraven transport a Venerable Dreadnought or an Iron clad Dreadnought?
I'm leaning towards no, as there is a discrete Dreadnought entry in the codex.
What is the collective wisdom of Dakka on this matter?
66813
Post by: Snappenthetwig
Yes they can it states "Dreadnought" in the entry so that it does not have to list every type. Also since the BA version can carry all BA dreadnoughts.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
 Snappenthetwig wrote:Yes they can it states "Dreadnought" in the entry so that it does not have to list every type. Also since the BA version can carry all BA dreadnoughts.
Well, RAW it'd only be able to carry Dreadnoughts (the unit), but the same applies to BA Stormravens and I've never seen anyone play it like that.
42985
Post by: liturgies of blood
 AlmightyWalrus wrote: Snappenthetwig wrote:Yes they can it states "Dreadnought" in the entry so that it does not have to list every type. Also since the BA version can carry all BA dreadnoughts.
Well, RAW it'd only be able to carry Dreadnoughts (the unit), but the same applies to BA Stormravens and I've never seen anyone play it like that.
Yes dreadnoughts which in the BA codex is used to describe 3 types of walker in the army fluff and rules section. If I can put a DC dread in a raven I don't see any reason why an ironclad or venerable should be disallowed.
66740
Post by: Mythra
I know it covered it in the tyranid book. A doom is still a zoanthrope and Swarmlord is still a hive tryant.
I am fairly sure the same goes for all types of dreads.
57362
Post by: HarryLeChien
The difference between the BA dreads and those in C:SM is that the former all have "dreadnought " under unit composition, regardless of flavour and unit entry; those in the SM codex however have "Ironclad Dreadnought", "Venerable Dreadnought" and plain old "Dreadnought" under their respective unit composition. And RAW, an Ironclad Dreadnought isn't the same thing as a Dreadnought, so can't be carried by the Stormraven IMHO.
Irrespective of that, I don't think I would try to make that distinction in an actual game; RAI a Dread's a Dread, they all share pretty much the same chassis.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
Pretty sure the only dreadnought that cannot ride on a Stormraven is a FW Contemptor Dreadnought, and that is because FW stated specifically that it can't. All other Dreadnoughts are fine because all other Dreadnoughts are ... Dreadnoughts..
SJ
60662
Post by: Purifier
It could easily be argued that a venerable dreadnought technically isn't a Dreadnought, especially as in the rule for the Stormraven, the D is captalised, implying it's a name.
And the only unit that exactly matches is the Dreadnought.
That said, I've never even thought of this before you brought it up, or even heard anyone else bringing it up. We've always allowed any type of Dreadnought, and until GW says otherwise I will assume we still do.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
 jeffersonian000 wrote:Pretty sure the only dreadnought that cannot ride on a Stormraven is a FW Contemptor Dreadnought, and that is because FW stated specifically that it can't. All other Dreadnoughts are fine because all other Dreadnoughts are ... Dreadnoughts..
SJ
So a Heavy Bolter is a Bolter?
No, they are technically different, because unit composition states so. They are different unit entries so RAW you can only carry vanilla dreadnoughts.
Personally I wouldnt have any issue with people loading any old dreadnought on it.
18690
Post by: Jimsolo
I think the technical wording does support not allowing Venerable and Ironclads aboard, but that in reality you would be hard pressed to find anyone who demands it be played that way. I certainly wouldn't.
37426
Post by: Idolator
They are listed in the back as different entries because they have different points costs and can take different stuff but they are all listed as Dreadnaughts on page 65 earlier in the book.
I vote, let 'em fly!
68355
Post by: easysauce
so some people think venerable dreadnaughts are not dreadnoughts?
main group, vehicles, sub group walkers, army entry has dreadnought in it, ergo dreadnaught.
if ironclads/venerable are not "dreadnoughts" then what are they?
would you aregue that since they are not dreads for transport, that they are not dreads for the deadnaught CCW they have too then?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
easysauce wrote:if ironclads/venerable are not "dreadnoughts" then what are they?
Ironclad Dreadnaughts and Venerable Dreadnaughts. Which are not a "Dreadnaught" unit, which is what the Storm Raven can carry.
would you aregue that since they are not dreads for transport, that they are not dreads for the deadnaught CCW they have too then?
Not that it matters for that... But no, they aren't.
The DCCW is just a x2S AP2 Melee weapon (page 60 BRB). There's no requirement to be a Dreadnaught to use it.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
rigeld2 wrote:easysauce wrote:would you aregue that since they are not dreads for transport, that they are not dreads for the deadnaught CCW they have too then?
Not that it matters for that... But no, they aren't.
The DCCW is just a x2S AP2 Melee weapon (page 60 BRB). There's no requirement to be a Dreadnaught to use it.
Which is why Monstrous Creatures can use them.
42985
Post by: liturgies of blood
 Happyjew wrote:rigeld2 wrote:easysauce wrote:would you aregue that since they are not dreads for transport, that they are not dreads for the deadnaught CCW they have too then?
Not that it matters for that... But no, they aren't.
The DCCW is just a x2S AP2 Melee weapon (page 60 BRB). There's no requirement to be a Dreadnaught to use it.
Which is why Monstrous Creatures can use them.
I know I'm going to regret this but I cannot think of any MCs with a DCC is there any?
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Dreadknights come standard with a Nemesis Doomfist, which follows the rules for DCCW.
BTW, per 5th ed;
5th edition GK FAQ wrote:Q: Does a Dreadknight with a Nemesis doomfist strike
at Strength 6 or Strength 10 in close combat? (p34)
A: Strength 6, as it is not a walker
37426
Post by: Idolator
Happyjew wrote:Dreadknights come standard with a Nemesis Doomfist, which follows the rules for DCCW.
BTW, per 5th ed;
5th edition GK FAQ wrote:Q: Does a Dreadknight with a Nemesis doomfist strike
at Strength 6 or Strength 10 in close combat? (p34)
A: Strength 6, as it is not a walker
That's not a Dreadnaught CCW. It's a Nemesis Doomfist. Where is it ever listed as a Dreadnaught CCW? I don't have that codex.
It has a few cosmetic similarities but not the rules for Dred CCW. Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm feelin' ya.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
 Idolator wrote: Happyjew wrote:Dreadknights come standard with a Nemesis Doomfist, which follows the rules for DCCW.
BTW, per 5th ed;
5th edition GK FAQ wrote:Q: Does a Dreadknight with a Nemesis doomfist strike
at Strength 6 or Strength 10 in close combat? (p34)
A: Strength 6, as it is not a walker
That's not a Dreadnaught CCW. It's a Nemesis Doomfist. Where is it ever listed as a Dreadnaught CCW? I don't have that codex.
Page 54 of the Grey Knight codex.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Happyjew wrote:Dreadknights come standard with a Nemesis Doomfist, which follows the rules for DCCW.
BTW, per 5th ed;
5th edition GK FAQ wrote:Q: Does a Dreadknight with a Nemesis doomfist strike
at Strength 6 or Strength 10 in close combat? (p34)
A: Strength 6, as it is not a walker
No idea why you posted that FAQ since 6th edition changed that...
In 5th, DCCWs doubled the strength of a Walker equipped with one. In 6th that's no longer the case and that FAQ was updated.
65285
Post by: rossatdi
I might be under-thinking this but in *my* space marine codex:
p63 - Dreadnoughts.
Includes the info for all three. They're only listed separately in the army list section, same as for the blood angels one.
Ergo - they fly!
68355
Post by: easysauce
so assault terminators are not terminators, they are asault terminators?
there are more then one type of dreadnought,
and they are all listed under the dreadnought army entry, even though the list has them as elites/heavy choices
this is a case of learn to read
main class:
vehicle
sub class
walker
unit type
dreadnought
variation's on unit type include different weapons, special rules ect
just because venerables have the word venerable before the dreadnaught,
does not suddenly make them non dreads, reading 101
a ______ cup of coffee, is still a cup of coffee, weather it is a good, bad, or magic cup of coffee, it is still a cup of coffee
you have monstrous creatures, and jump monstrous creatures,
are jump monstrous creatures no long MC?
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
47462
Post by: rigeld2
rossatdi wrote:I might be under-thinking this but in *my* space marine codex:
p63 - Dreadnoughts.
Includes the info for all three. They're only listed separately in the army list section, same as for the blood angels one.
Ergo - they fly!
Guess what's relevant for embarking? Unit composition. What's the Unit Composition of a Venerable Dreadnaught? (Hint: It's on page 137) easysauce wrote:so assault terminators are not terminators, they are asault terminators?
According to their Unit Composition (you know... that pesky thing that determines whether you can embark or not) they're terminators (with a terminator sergeant) this is a case of learn to read
Pretty quick with the insults, eh? main class:
vehicle
sub class
walker
unit type
dreadnought
Citation required. 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? you have monstrous creatures, and jump monstrous creatures,
are jump monstrous creatures no long MC?
Jump is a subclass of MC, so it's actually Monstrous Creature (Jump) just like it's Infantry (Jump). 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.
68355
Post by: easysauce
yes, it is a venerable dreadnought,
which is a type of dreadnought
RAI is pretty clear, they go in storm ravens,
RAW is also clear,
unless you torture the language, and think that:
a ball is a ball
a red ball is not a ball
that is incorrect
the english language works this way:
a ball is a ball
a red bal is a ball that is red
hence
a dread nought is a dreadnought
a venerable dreadnaught is a dreadnaught that is venerable
37426
Post by: Idolator
 DeathReaper wrote: Idolator wrote: Happyjew wrote:Dreadknights come standard with a Nemesis Doomfist, which follows the rules for DCCW.
BTW, per 5th ed;
5th edition GK FAQ wrote:Q: Does a Dreadknight with a Nemesis doomfist strike
at Strength 6 or Strength 10 in close combat? (p34)
A: Strength 6, as it is not a walker
That's not a Dreadnaught CCW. It's a Nemesis Doomfist. Where is it ever listed as a Dreadnaught CCW? I don't have that codex.
Page 54 of the Grey Knight codex.
What does the entry say? I don't have that codex. Does it call it a DCCW? A DCCW doubles strength, the Doom fist doesn't.
68355
Post by: easysauce
yes codex GK nemisis doomfist says to refere to 40k rule book on DCCW,
and it does 2x the str in this edition now,
also in previous editions, venerable dreads were not gimped at str 6, because suprise suprise, they are deadnoughts
37426
Post by: Idolator
easysauce wrote:yes codex GK nemisis doomfist says to refere to 40k rule book on DCCW,
and it does 2x the str in this edition now,
but in previous editions, venerable dreads were not gimped at str 6, because suprise suprise, they are deadnoughts
Well then, There ya' go. I learned something new. It was off topic, but good to know.
65285
Post by: rossatdi
rigeld2 wrote:rossatdi wrote:I might be under-thinking this but in *my* space marine codex:
p63 - Dreadnoughts.
Includes the info for all three. They're only listed separately in the army list section, same as for the blood angels one.
Ergo - they fly!
Guess what's relevant for embarking? Unit composition. What's the Unit Composition of a Venerable Dreadnaught? (Hint: It's on page 137)
Sorry, where does it say this? I've got all the relevant books in front of me, there's no mention in the rulebook about additions to the normal transport capacity rules requiring only army list descriptions. It says that "this will be specified in the unit's entry" (p78) not the unit composition. So where's the unit entry?
The unit entry, and therefore rules saying what a BA stormraven can carry, is in the "Angelic Host" section (p38) and in the same section (p29) is the entry for Dreadnoughts. If I go to the army list, each Dreadnought type is listed with the same page reference (p29) that lists them all as Dreadnoughts.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
A Dreadnaught is a unit with the Unit Composition of 1 Dreadnaught.
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.
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote:rossatdi wrote:I easysauce wrote:so assault terminators are not terminators, they are asault terminators?
According to their Unit Composition (you know... that pesky thing that determines whether you can embark or not) they're terminators (with a terminator sergeant)
This type of reasoning wouldn't hold up to scrutiny. Scout squads and Legion of the Damned wouldn't contain any Space Marines. The Master of the Forge would also not be a Space marine, nor would any of the named characters. Veteran squads would only include one Space Marine Sergeant with the rest being veterans.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
rossatdi wrote:Sorry, where does it say this? I've got all the relevant books in front of me, there's no mention in the rulebook about additions to the normal transport capacity rules requiring only army list descriptions. It says that "this will be specified in the unit's entry" (p78) not the unit composition.
The Transport Capacity rules dictate only Infantry and Independent Characters (that are Infantry) can embark.
Exceptions are listed in the Transport's entry.
The Storm Raven has an exception for, in the BA Codex, "a single Dreadnaught".
Since Transport Capacity is measured in numbers of a unit type (which is what Infantry and Independent Character must be referencing) we can only conclude that the word "Dreadnaught" refers to Unit Type.
Please answer the question - what is the Unit Type of a Venerable Dreadnaught?
68355
Post by: easysauce
there is a ball
there is a red ball
to interpret that as "a red ball is NOT a ball" makes no sense
and the unit composition is not the cou de gras you think it is,
the unit is composed of a venerable dread, which is in fact a dread,
the rules say nothing about excluding other types of dreads, and the fact that forgeworld specifically lists that contemptor dreadnaughts cannot be transported sets the precident that if they had not banned contemptors from it, that they could be in storm ravens too
you would need to prove that venerable dreads are not dreads, despite being in the army list for dreads, following the rules for them, being walkers ect
42985
Post by: liturgies of blood
There is no unit type "dreadnaught"
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote:rossatdi wrote:Sorry, where does it say this? I've got all the relevant books in front of me, there's no mention in the rulebook about additions to the normal transport capacity rules requiring only army list descriptions. It says that "this will be specified in the unit's entry" (p78) not the unit composition.
The Transport Capacity rules dictate only Infantry and Independent Characters (that are Infantry) can embark.
Exceptions are listed in the Transport's entry.
The Storm Raven has an exception for, in the BA Codex, "a single Dreadnaught".
Since Transport Capacity is measured in numbers of a unit type (which is what Infantry and Independent Character must be referencing) we can only conclude that the word "Dreadnaught" refers to Unit Type.
Please answer the question - what is the Unit Type of a Venerable Dreadnaught?
This still doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Here's another example: MOB RULE for Orks. It states that "Ork mobs may substitute the number of Orks in their mob for their normal leadership value" No unit type includes the word "Ork" anywhere in unit type. They use other terms. (boy, nob, etc) The unit composition for one or two does state "Ork Boys" but this is not the same as "Ork" according to what you're saying.
65285
Post by: rossatdi
rigeld2 wrote:rossatdi wrote:Sorry, where does it say this? I've got all the relevant books in front of me, there's no mention in the rulebook about additions to the normal transport capacity rules requiring only army list descriptions. It says that "this will be specified in the unit's entry" (p78) not the unit composition.
The Transport Capacity rules dictate only Infantry and Independent Characters (that are Infantry) can embark.
Exceptions are listed in the Transport's entry.
The Storm Raven has an exception for, in the BA Codex, "a single Dreadnaught".
Since Transport Capacity is measured in numbers of a unit type (which is what Infantry and Independent Character must be referencing) we can only conclude that the word "Dreadnaught" refers to Unit Type.
Please answer the question - what is the Unit Type of a Venerable Dreadnaught?
Again, to reiterate.
Rulebook: Exceptions listed in the UNIT ENTRY. That's literally the words written in the rulebook. It does not say unit composition.
BA Codex: Unit Entries in the Angelic Host section.
Stormraven Unit Entry: Dreadnoughts are carried.
Dreadnought Unit Entry: Dreadnought = Furioso/Death Company/Regular Dread
What makes this even clearer is the in the army list, it links back to the Unit Entry on page 38. Every dreadnought in the army list refers back to page 29.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
easysauce wrote:you would need to prove that venerable dreads are not dreads, despite being in the army list for dreads, following the rules for them, being walkers ect
A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is not the same as a Dreadnaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.
A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is not an upgrade of a Drednaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.
A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is a Walker, as is the Dreadnaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.
My Space Marine Codex has separate entries for Venerable, Ironclad, and normal Dreadnaughts. So we know they are not the same unit as far as the army list is concerned.
If you take page 65 of C: SM as the determination for all Dreadnaughts, then they all have the Venerable rule and all share Seismic Hammers and Ironclad Assault Launchers. I assume we agree that's not true.
The only similarities between them is the fact that they're both Walkers and they have one word in the name of the unit that is the same. I assume we agree that's true.
65285
Post by: rossatdi
rigeld2 wrote:
Please answer the question - what is the Unit Type of a Venerable Dreadnaught?
It is unit type walker.
Please answer the question - where in the rulebook does it mention unit composition or unit type in what exceptions to normal capacity?
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote:easysauce wrote:you would need to prove that venerable dreads are not dreads, despite being in the army list for dreads, following the rules for them, being walkers ect
A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is not the same as a Dreadnaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.
A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is not an upgrade of a Drednaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.
A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is a Walker, as is the Dreadnaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.
My Space Marine Codex has separate entries for Venerable, Ironclad, and normal Dreadnaughts. So we know they are not the same unit as far as the army list is concerned.
If you take page 65 of C: SM as the determination for all Dreadnaughts, then they all have the Venerable rule and all share Seismic Hammers and Ironclad Assault Launchers. I assume we agree that's not true.
The only similarities between them is the fact that they're both Walkers and they have one word in the name of the unit that is the same. I assume we agree that's true.
Is a Loota an Ork? Is a Scout Sergeant a Space Marine?
65285
Post by: rossatdi
rigeld2 wrote:easysauce wrote:you would need to prove that venerable dreads are not dreads, despite being in the army list for dreads, following the rules for them, being walkers ect
A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is not the same as a Dreadnaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.
A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is not an upgrade of a Drednaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.
A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is a Walker, as is the Dreadnaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.
My Space Marine Codex has separate entries for Venerable, Ironclad, and normal Dreadnaughts. So we know they are not the same unit as far as the army list is concerned.
If you take page 65 of C: SM as the determination for all Dreadnaughts, then they all have the Venerable rule and all share Seismic Hammers and Ironclad Assault Launchers. I assume we agree that's not true.
The only similarities between them is the fact that they're both Walkers and they have one word in the name of the unit that is the same. I assume we agree that's true.
Space Marine Codex page 137: Each Dreadnought type refers back to page 65. This is the unit entry for (drum roll please) dreadnoughts.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
rossatdi wrote:Again, to reiterate.
Rulebook: Exceptions listed in the UNIT ENTRY. That's literally the words written in the rulebook. It does not say unit composition.
BA Codex: Unit Entries in the Angelic Host section.
Stormraven Unit Entry: Dreadnoughts are carried.
Dreadnought Unit Entry: Dreadnought = Furioso/Death Company/Regular Dread
What makes this even clearer is the in the army list, it links back to the Unit Entry on page 38. Every dreadnought in the army list refers back to page 29.
The literal words in the rulebook are:
BRB Page 78 wrote:Sometimes, there will be constraints on which types of models can embark upon a particular vehicle, and this will be specified in the unit's entry.
That's the only place the words "UNIT ENTRY" are used. In this case, the unit entry being referred to is the transport's unit entry. We know that because of how it references Rhinos and Terminators.
I require a citation for the bolded statement. I'm looking on page 29 of the BA Codex and there is nothing of the sort said. Would you mind telling me where you find it?
Automatically Appended Next Post: rossatdi wrote:rigeld2 wrote:easysauce wrote:you would need to prove that venerable dreads are not dreads, despite being in the army list for dreads, following the rules for them, being walkers ect
A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is not the same as a Dreadnaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.
A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is not an upgrade of a Drednaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.
A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is a Walker, as is the Dreadnaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.
My Space Marine Codex has separate entries for Venerable, Ironclad, and normal Dreadnaughts. So we know they are not the same unit as far as the army list is concerned.
If you take page 65 of C:SM as the determination for all Dreadnaughts, then they all have the Venerable rule and all share Seismic Hammers and Ironclad Assault Launchers. I assume we agree that's not true.
The only similarities between them is the fact that they're both Walkers and they have one word in the name of the unit that is the same. I assume we agree that's true.
Space Marine Codex page 137: Each Dreadnought type refers back to page 65. This is the unit entry for (drum roll please) dreadnoughts.
Oh, look. I addressed that. I've bolded it for easier reading. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Context is important to keep in mind. You're ignoring it.
68355
Post by: easysauce
the "type" for dreads is walker
all dreads are walkers,
and are listed undder the dreadnaught section of the codex, all units in the "dreadnaught" section are, suprise, dreadnaughts,
just like knights of the flame are still purifiers even though composition
says they are a "knight of the flame"
they are under the "purifiers" entry, so are still purifiers
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Page 137 of the Space Marine Codex disagrees with you.
Please answer the question - where in the rulebook does it mention unit composition or unit type in what exceptions to normal capacity?
Page 78, as I've explained. Automatically Appended Next Post: easysauce wrote:and are listed undder the dreadnaught section of the codex, all units in the "dreadnaught" section are, suprise, dreadnaughts,
rigeld2 wrote:If you take page 65 of C:SM as the determination for all Dreadnaughts, then they all have the Venerable rule and all share Seismic Hammers and Ironclad Assault Launchers. I assume we agree that's not true.
So you disagree - IE you believe that statement is true?
just like knights of the flame are still purifiers even though composition
says they are a "knight of the flame"
they are under the "purifiers" entry, so are still purifiers
Um. Citation required. That's not correct.
42985
Post by: liturgies of blood
Page 78 refers to the transport, just clarifying you agree with that Rigeld?
The entry in the BA codex could be either the general term Dreadnaught or the the specific Dreadnaught(ie the vanilla one with no bells or whistles)
47462
Post by: rigeld2
It refers to the transport in one area and the embarking unit in another. Clarification required.
The entry in the BA codex could be either the general term Dreadnaught or the the specific Dreadnaught(ie the vanilla one with no bells or whistles)
In the context of an embarking unit, there is no "general term Dreadnaught" defined in the rules.
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote:[ Automatically Appended Next Post:
Context is important to keep in mind. You're ignoring it.
Context is important. Rhinos and Razorback have in their entry "It cannot carry Models in Terminator armor" Therefore all other models would be eligible unless that unit type prevents it from being transported.
Here's the the definetive proof that they can be transported by Stormraven: The unit entry for Drop Pods. "The Drop Pod has a transport capacity of 12 models. It can transport a single Dreadnaught or Thunderfire Cannon."
No mention to the specific type of Dread there!
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote:rigeld2 wrote:[ Automatically Appended Next Post:
Context is important to keep in mind. You're ignoring it.
Context is important. Rhinos and Razorback have in their entry "It cannot carry Models in Terminator armor" Therefore all other models would be eligible unless that unit type prevents it from being transported.
Here's the the definetive proof that they can be transported by Stormraven: The unit entry for Drop Pods. "The Drop Pod has a transport capacity of 12 models. It can transport a single Dreadnaught or Thunderfire Cannon."
No mention to the specific type of Dread there!
How is that proof? It's literally the exact same situation.
I don't think that's their intent and I would never play that way, but there's no rules basis supporting your argument.
65285
Post by: rossatdi
rigeld2 wrote:
That's the only place the words "UNIT ENTRY" are used. In this case, the unit entry being referred to is the transport's unit entry. We know that because of how it references Rhinos and Terminators.
I require a citation for the bolded statement. I'm looking on page 29 of the BA Codex and there is nothing of the sort said. Would you mind telling me where you find it?
Look at army list. Top right of every entry there's a mysterious page number. All the units with Dreadnoughts in the title refer to the same page which cover Dreadnoughts.
You can't read the rules in isolation. Army List + entry in the Angelic Host section = the specific rules covering the unit. It is abundantly clear that all Dreadnoughts are Dreadnoughts.
The special rules for the Stormraven refers to Dreadnoughts. I you want to read the army list and ignore that page reference that's printed in the top right of the box, that's your imperative it doesn't stop it being there.
1
42985
Post by: liturgies of blood
Drop pod is the proof as you have an allowance to buy one for every type of dread. Even though it only says it can carry a dreadnaught.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
rossatdi wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
That's the only place the words "UNIT ENTRY" are used. In this case, the unit entry being referred to is the transport's unit entry. We know that because of how it references Rhinos and Terminators.
I require a citation for the bolded statement. I'm looking on page 29 of the BA Codex and there is nothing of the sort said. Would you mind telling me where you find it?
Look at army list. Top right of every entry there's a mysterious page number. All the units with Dreadnoughts in the title refer to the same page which cover Dreadnoughts.
You can't read the rules in isolation. Army List + entry in the Angelic Host section = the specific rules covering the unit. It is abundantly clear that all Dreadnoughts are Dreadnoughts.
The special rules for the Stormraven refers to Dreadnoughts. I you want to read the army list and ignore that page reference that's printed in the top right of the box, that's your imperative it doesn't stop it being there.
I'll go ahead and re-quote this another time because you continue to ignore it.
rigeld2 wrote:If you take page 65 of C:SM as the determination for all Dreadnaughts, then they all have the Venerable rule and all share Seismic Hammers and Ironclad Assault Launchers. I assume we agree that's not true.
Page 65 of C: SM is very similar to page 29 of C: BA.
And you did not cite the phrase I asked you to - I'll requote it here for reference:
rossatdi wrote:Dreadnought Unit Entry: Dreadnought = Furioso/Death Company/Regular Dread
Please cite the reason for that equality.
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:rigeld2 wrote:[ Automatically Appended Next Post:
Context is important to keep in mind. You're ignoring it.
Context is important. Rhinos and Razorback have in their entry "It cannot carry Models in Terminator armor" Therefore all other models would be eligible unless that unit type prevents it from being transported.
Here's the the definetive proof that they can be transported by Stormraven: The unit entry for Drop Pods. "The Drop Pod has a transport capacity of 12 models. It can transport a single Dreadnaught or Thunderfire Cannon."
No mention to the specific type of Dread there!
How is that proof? It's literally the exact same situation.
I don't think that's their intent and I would never play that way, but there's no rules basis supporting your argument.
So you claim that the RAW prevent Ven Dreads and Ironclad Dread from riding in a Drop Pod as well as the Storm Raven?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
 liturgies of blood wrote:Drop pod is the proof as you have an allowance to buy one for every type of dread. Even though it only says it can carry a dreadnaught.
Realize that RAW and RAI are different things.
Allowance to buy != allowance to embark.
I buy a Tac Squad with a Rhino and Lysander. Lysander joins the Tac squad and is therefore a member for all rules purposes. The Tac Squad embarks on the Rhino. Legal or Illegal? Automatically Appended Next Post: Idolator wrote:So you claim that the RAW prevent Ven Dreads and Ironclad Dread from riding in a Drop Pod as well as the Storm Raven?
Absolutely.
42985
Post by: liturgies of blood
There is a specific restriction on Lysander, there is no clear restriction on any dread hopping aboard a drop pod.
There is a general allowance for dreadnaughts which are described on one page no matter the flavour in the BA codex.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
liturgies of blood wrote:There is a specific restriction on Lysander, there is no clear restriction on any dread hopping aboard a drop pod.
So you agree that purchasing a transport does not guarantee permission to embark on the transport.
There is a general allowance for dreadnaughts which are described on one page no matter the flavour in the BA codex.
How many times do I need to address this argument?
rigeld2 wrote:If you take page 65 of C:SM as the determination for all Dreadnaughts, then they all have the Venerable rule and all share Seismic Hammers and Ironclad Assault Launchers. I assume we agree that's not true.
Page 65 of C: SM is very similar to page 29 of C: BA.
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote:rossatdi wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
I'll go ahead and re-quote this another time because you continue to ignore it.
rigeld2 wrote:If you take page 65 of C:SM as the determination for all Dreadnaughts, then they all have the Venerable rule and all share Seismic Hammers and Ironclad Assault Launchers. I assume we agree that's not true.
Page 65 of C: SM is very similar to page 29 of C: BA.
The listed special rules in the unit entry are just that Special rules that you can take for a specific model. Some Dreadnaughts can purchase the Venerable special rule, some can purchase a seismic hammer and Ironclad Assault Launcher upgrades. If you do that you call them Venerable and Ironclad respectively. Doesn't change the fact that they are still dreadnaughts.
42985
Post by: liturgies of blood
Nope cos they clarify the equipment to each of the dread flavours. There is a general name and more specific names under the heading.
General vs specific.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Seriously, the quoting function is not that hard. Click quote, click after all the words in the box, start typing.
The Army List disagrees with you. Venerable and Ironclad are not upgrades, they're separate units.
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote: liturgies of blood wrote:There is a specific restriction on Lysander, there is no clear restriction on any dread hopping aboard a drop pod.
So you agree that purchasing a transport does not guarantee permission to embark on the transport.
No, purchasing a transport does guarantee permission to embark, unless it is expressly forbidden to the models in question. Automatically Appended Next Post: rigeld2 wrote:Seriously, the quoting function is not that hard. Click quote, click after all the words in the box, start typing.
The Army List disagrees with you. Venerable and Ironclad are not upgrades, they're separate units.
They have the same unit entry, just like terminators.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
liturgies of blood wrote:Nope cos they clarify the equipment to each of the dread flavours. There is a general name and more specific names under the heading.
General vs specific.
C: SM doesn't do that.
And none of that equates "Furioso" to "Dreadnaught" . Automatically Appended Next Post: Idolator wrote:rigeld2 wrote: liturgies of blood wrote:There is a specific restriction on Lysander, there is no clear restriction on any dread hopping aboard a drop pod.
So you agree that purchasing a transport does not guarantee permission to embark on the transport.
No, purchasing a transport does guarantee permission to embark, unless it is expressly forbidden to the models in question.
All Walkers are experessly forbidden from embarking.
Dreadnaughts are permitted to embark.
Find permission to equate a Furioso or Venerable Dreadnaught to a Dreadnaught.
rigeld2 wrote:Seriously, the quoting function is not that hard. Click quote, click after all the words in the box, start typing.
The Army List disagrees with you. Venerable and Ironclad are not upgrades, they're separate units.
They have the same unit entry, just like terminators.
No, they don't. Page 137 in C: SM says "1 Venerable Dreadnaught".
Looking at C: BA They're allowed to embark - their unit type is "1 Dreadnaught" for a Furioso and DC Dread. C: GK and C: SM are still limited however.
65285
Post by: rossatdi
rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:So you claim that the RAW prevent Ven Dreads and Ironclad Dread from riding in a Drop Pod as well as the Storm Raven?
Absolutely.
Well that is kind check and mate really isn't it. How intentionally hard do you want to misunderstand the rules on purpose? Try pulling that one at a tournament.
In the space marine codex every mention of a dreadnought unit type refers back to the section earlier in the codex that has 1 page listing all three dreadnoughts. Within that section are the individual special rules and wargear that different dreads have. In the army list it lists which specific ones have which. This isn't rocket science.
Can carry a dreadnought, what's a dreadnought, its on that page with 3 different flavours of dreadnoughts. Bam. Done.
If you genuinely believe otherwise, try stopping someone from doing it at a tournament and see how far you get. Okay so tournament judges aren't the all seeing oracles of 40k rules but I'd be amazed if you could find one to agree with at an event.
42985
Post by: liturgies of blood
Nothing equates furioso and dreadnought to be equal.
HOWEVER, furioso dreadnought, dc dreadnought and dreadnoughts are all dreadnoughts.
68355
Post by: easysauce
we are not saying venerable, ironclads are the same as normal dreads stat wise,
they are all under the same unit entry though,
all dreads are walkers/vehicles
all dreadnaughts are listed under a SINGLE unit entry titled "dreadnaught"
all entries under "dreadnaught" are dreadnaughts,
end of story,
find the non dreadnaught unit entry for ironclads or venerables,
you need more proof that venerables/ironclads are NOT dreads then "well they are venerable dreads" since that alone states they are dreads,
if it was simply called a "venerable" instead of a venerable dreadnaught, you might have a leg to stand on, but it isnt
you are making a statement akin to:
the ball is a ball,
but the red ball, is not a ball
and that simply defies logic
Automatically Appended Next Post:
no too mention contemptors specifically state they are NOT allowed in storm ravens,
that alone sets precedent that if that exception was not present, then contemptors would be allowed in storm ravens as well,
it is deliberate obfuscation to deny that a red ball is a ball,
it is the same to deny a venerable dreadnaught is a dreadnaught
56724
Post by: Nivek5150
Some days I enjoy YMDC to engage my brain and help me better understand the rules of a complicated game.
Then there are the days where I find a thread like this.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
rossatdi wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:So you claim that the RAW prevent Ven Dreads and Ironclad Dread from riding in a Drop Pod as well as the Storm Raven?
Absolutely.
Well that is kind check and mate really isn't it. How intentionally hard do you want to misunderstand the rules on purpose? Try pulling that one at a tournament.
Perhaps you should re-read the thread and don't insult me next time.
In the space marine codex every mention of a dreadnought unit type refers back to the section earlier in the codex that has 1 page listing all three dreadnoughts. Within that section are the individual special rules and wargear that different dreads have. In the army list it lists which specific ones have which. This isn't rocket science.
And each Dread has a different unit type, unlike the C: BA.
Can carry a dreadnought, what's a dreadnought, its on that page with 3 different flavours of dreadnoughts. Bam. Done.
Bam. Wrong. Wow, it's easy to say things without proving them, isn't it?
If you genuinely believe otherwise, try stopping someone from doing it at a tournament and see how far you get. Okay so tournament judges aren't the all seeing oracles of 40k rules but I'd be amazed if you could find one to agree with at an event.
Straw man. Please read my posts. Automatically Appended Next Post: liturgies of blood wrote:Nothing equates furioso and dreadnought to be equal.
HOWEVER, furioso dreadnought, dc dreadnought and dreadnoughts are all dreadnoughts.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/508636.page#5304899
Read the last sentences in that post please.
68355
Post by: easysauce
rigel,
you need to prove there are not different types of deads still,
and you have not,
you have yet to provide any evidence to prove a venerable dreadnaught is not a dreadnaught,
the rules state there are various types of dreads many times,
lucious drop pods rules have then mention that there are various types of dreads in the various codexes,
the rule specifically banning contemptors from storm ravens also is an actual rule that identifies that there are in fact different types of dreads.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
easysauce wrote:we are not saying venerable, ironclads are the same as normal dreads stat wise,
they are all under the same unit entry though,
Unit Entry doesn't help you. Because if you're trying to use that to show they're all the same base then they all have access to the same upgrades...
all dreads are walkers/vehicles
all dreadnaughts are listed under a SINGLE unit entry titled "dreadnaught"
Indisputable fact - not like I've ever argued against it.
all entries under "dreadnaught" are dreadnaughts,
The Army List disagrees.
find the non dreadnaught unit entry for ironclads or venerables,
If unit entry mattered one iota I'd care.
no too mention contemptors specifically state they are NOT allowed in storm ravens,
FW != GW when it comes to rules writing. What they allow or deny has no precedent.
it is deliberate obfuscation to deny that a red ball is a ball,
it is the same to deny a venerable dreadnaught is a dreadnaught
No, it's not.
You have balls. You have red balls. You have red and blue balls. Red balls can be used to enter the playground.
If you have a red and blue ball can you enter the playground? It may still be a ball, but its completely different from the allowed one. Automatically Appended Next Post: easysauce wrote:rigel,
you need to prove there are not different types of deads still,
The Army List entries do that for me.
you have yet to provide any evidence to prove a venerable dreadnaught is not a dreadnaught,
That's a lie.
the rules state there are various types of dreads many times,
lucious drop pods rules have then mention that there are various types of dreads in the various codexes,
the rule specifically banning contemptors from storm ravens also is an actual rule that identifies that there are in fact different types of dreads
Lucious pods and Contemptor rules have zero bearing on non- IA rules. And really, all that does is enforce the obvious intent.
42985
Post by: liturgies of blood
Well I missed that part of your post. I cannot keep up with your adding to your comments.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
I'm sorry - your post was 5 minutes after my final edit. I can't help it if you need more time than that.
37426
Post by: Idolator
Let's get down to brass tacks here. Why is it, that you say, Ironclad and Venerable Dreadnaughts are not allowed to be placed on a Stormraven? Things were truly convoluted and there was more than a bit of snark.
Seriously, What are the specifics of the argument?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote:Let's get down to brass tacks here. Why is it, that you say, Ironclad and Venerable Dreadnaughts are not allowed to be placed on a Stormraven? Things were truly convoluted and there was more than a bit of snark.
Seriously, What are the specifics of the argument?
Their Unit Type is not "1 Dreadnaught" which is what it would have to be.
Normally, it is Infantry only. To allow generic Walkers (ie all Dreadnaughts forevermore) it would need to allow Walkers, not Dreadnaughts. Specifying "Dreadnaught" restricts it to a named unit (Reference Thunderfire Cannon) or unit composition. Since a Venerable Dreadnaught fits neither, it's not allowed.
Reference the Blood Angels codex where all the various Dreads have "1 Dreadnaught" as their Unit Composition as more evidence.
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:Let's get down to brass tacks here. Why is it, that you say, Ironclad and Venerable Dreadnaughts are not allowed to be placed on a Stormraven? Things were truly convoluted and there was more than a bit of snark.
Seriously, What are the specifics of the argument?
Their Unit Type is not "1 Dreadnaught" which is what it would have to be.
Normally, it is Infantry only. To allow generic Walkers (ie all Dreadnaughts forevermore) it would need to allow Walkers, not Dreadnaughts. Specifying "Dreadnaught" restricts it to a named unit (Reference Thunderfire Cannon) or unit composition. Since a Venerable Dreadnaught fits neither, it's not allowed.
Reference the Blood Angels codex where all the various Dreads have "1 Dreadnaught" as their Unit Composition as more evidence.
Ok, we know that sub types of unit are considered to be of that unit. Both subtypes of Dreadnaught are still Dreadnaughts. Just like Commisar Yarrick is a commisar.
The entry for Drop Pods and Storm Ravens only reference Dreadnaught, not the specific type of Dreadnaught. The Rules for each provide an exception for Dreadnaughts to embark, taking precedence. meaning all dreadnaughts fall within this category.
The rules for transports only allow unit type: infantry to embark upon a transport. Two notable exceptions are Storm Raven and Drop Pod. Both allow Dreadnaughts to embark. It's been established that a transport does indeed guarantee models can embark unless forbiden to do so.
Using the logic, that a Venerable Dreadnaught is not a Dreadnaught will cause almost all codexes to begin to unravel. I'll point out that MOB RULE again. It states that you use the number of ORKS in the mob to determine the units leadership. According to the list in the back, Lootas, Burnas, Nobz and many others do not contain any ORKS. The listing for Lootas is thus.
Heading. LOOTAS
Terms used in the little box: Lootas, Mek
Unit Composition 5-15 Lootas
No orks in that unit at all. By your reasoning they wouldn't benefit from the MOB RULE. Once you begin placing restrictions that don't technicaly exist, it begins to shoot holes in the remaining rules.
Any rule in the Space Marine codex that uses the word Space Marine would no longer apply to scouts, Legion of the Damned, or any named character.
Plus, the Rhino and Razorback unit entries list that they can carry 10 models and 6 models respectively. The rules for transports allow infantry models to embark on transports. Which unit has the unit type "MODEL". I haven't found one.
Seriously, It can only transport models. Has anyone out there has seen this unit type,unit compsition or anywhere in a unit profile that lists them as "MODELS". Anyone, anyone......Bueller?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote:find the non dreadnaught unit entry for ironclads or venerables,
If unit entry mattered one iota I'd care.
HUH? You've been arguing the point that a Unit entry is all that matters!
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:Let's get down to brass tacks here. Why is it, that you say, Ironclad and Venerable Dreadnaughts are not allowed to be placed on a Stormraven? Things were truly convoluted and there was more than a bit of snark.
Seriously, What are the specifics of the argument?
Their Unit Type is not "1 Dreadnaught" which is what it would have to be.
Normally, it is Infantry only. To allow generic Walkers (ie all Dreadnaughts forevermore) it would need to allow Walkers, not Dreadnaughts. Specifying "Dreadnaught" restricts it to a named unit (Reference Thunderfire Cannon) or unit composition. Since a Venerable Dreadnaught fits neither, it's not allowed.
Reference the Blood Angels codex where all the various Dreads have "1 Dreadnaught" as their Unit Composition as more evidence.
Ok, we know that sub types of unit are considered to be of that unit. Both subtypes of Dreadnaught are still Dreadnaughts. Just like Commisar Yarrick is a commisar.
I don't own the IG codex. Does it state that?
The entry for Drop Pods and Storm Ravens only reference Dreadnaught, not the specific type of Dreadnaught. The Rules for each provide an exception for Dreadnaughts to embark, taking precedence. meaning all dreadnaughts fall within this category.
Rules citation please. What is a Dreadnaught?
The rules for transports only allow unit type: infantry to embark upon a transport. Two notable exceptions are Storm Raven and Drop Pod. Both allow Dreadnaughts to embark. It's been established that a transport does indeed guarantee models can embark unless forbiden to do so.
Um, no. All models are forbidden to embark (the very basis of a permissive rules set). Infantry and IC (infantry) are allowed to embark in the BRB.
Using the logic, that a Venerable Dreadnaught is not a Dreadnaught will cause almost all codexes to begin to unravel. I'll point out that MOB RULE again. It states that you use the number of ORKS in the mob to determine the units leadership. According to the list in the back, Lootas, Burnas, Nobz and many others do not contain any ORKS. The listing for Lootas is thus.
Irrelevant because they aren't similar issues.
Once you begin placing restrictions that don't technicaly exist, it begins to shoot holes in the remaining rules.
You're assuming the restrictions don't technically exist.
Any rule in the Space Marine codex that uses the word Space Marine would no longer apply to scouts, Legion of the Damned, or any named character.
... And?
Plus, the Rhino and Razorback unit entries list that they can carry 10 models and 6 models respectively. The rules for transports allow infantry models to embark on transports. Which unit has the unit type "MODEL". I haven't found one.
Fortunately "model" is defined in the BRB. Ill leave it to you to find it.
rigeld2 wrote:find the non dreadnaught unit entry for ironclads or venerables,
If unit entry mattered one iota I'd care.
HUH? You've been arguing the point that a Unit entry is all that matters!
No, I haven't. Unit Entry and Unit Compisition are not the same thing. The latter is what matters.
68355
Post by: easysauce
when 95%+ people can put 1+1 that the so named dreadnoughts are all in fact dreadnaughts, how can GW make different kinds of dreadnought without them being called XXXX dreadnought?
lets say for the sake of argument, that only dreadnoughts with the unit composition specifically worded as simply "dreadnought" (it varies codex to codex, some named dreads are composed of simply a "dreadnought") are actually dreadnoughts and the other ones are not,
so anything is broken in the codex's where they refer to XXXXX dreadnought as being composed of 1 "dreadnought" instead of "xxxx dreadnought". Now all these named dreads that happen to are composed of one "dreadnought" are now the same by your interpretation of the unit composition being referenced as opposed to the units name, or taking the context of the rule into account.
this also means inquisitor karamazov, and the lady special inquisitor, who are unit composition 1(unique) cannot allow you to field a unit of henchmen, they also cannot control servitors because only an unit composition: inquisitor can do that (the ordos ones are specifically listed as unit composition inquisitor)
since by your reading they are not inquisitors,
because special rules references compositions, as opposed to unit names in your interpretation of the rules
then there are also no orks in shoota boyz squads to cause waagh, and other examples of where this way of reading falls apart.
rigeld2 wrote:easysauce wrote:we are not saying venerable, ironclads are the same as normal dreads stat wise,
they are all under the same unit entry though,
Unit Entry doesn't help you. Because if you're trying to use that to show they're all the same base then they all have access to the same upgrades... again, i am not saying they are the same base, or that they have access to the same things, thats a lie stop saying I am. I am simply saying both are dreadnoughts, just as variants of the lemen russ are still lemen russ' despite different stat lines, ect
dreadnought is not a unit type, despite there being many different types of dreadnought, the only thing that makes it a dreadnought is that it has dreadnought in its name,
all dreads are walkers/vehicles
all dreadnaughts are listed under a SINGLE unit entry titled "dreadnaught"
Indisputable fact - not like I've ever argued against it.
all entries under "dreadnaught" are dreadnaughts,
The Army List disagrees.
find the non dreadnaught unit entry for ironclads or venerables,
If unit entry mattered one iota I'd care.
no too mention contemptors specifically state they are NOT allowed in storm ravens,
FW != GW when it comes to rules writing. What they allow or deny has no precedent.
it is deliberate obfuscation to deny that a red ball is a ball,
it is the same to deny a venerable dreadnaught is a dreadnaught
No, it's not.
You have balls. You have red balls. You have red and blue balls. Red balls can be used to enter the playground.
If you have a red and blue ball can you enter the playground? It may still be a ball, but its completely different from the allowed one. this makes no sense, and you are misrepresenting my allegory. you seem to not understand hierarchies, red ball, is a subset of ball, if the set ball is allowed then so are its subsets unless prohibited by name. you seem to think that putting another word in front of ball, like red, blue, ect stops it from being one. just like dreads, just because it is a different type of dread, does not stop it from being a dreadnought, or from sticking to its own unit entries options
.
37426
Post by: Idolator
Ok, we know that sub types of unit are considered to be of that unit. Both subtypes of Dreadnaught are still Dreadnaughts. Just like Commisar Yarrick is a commisar.
I don't own the IG codex. Does it state that? Yes, in the title Commisar.
The entry for Drop Pods and Storm Ravens only reference Dreadnaught, not the specific type of Dreadnaught. The Rules for each provide an exception for Dreadnaughts to embark, taking precedence. meaning all dreadnaughts fall within this category.
Rules citation please. What is a Dreadnaught?
The description of a dreadnaught can be found in the second paragraph on the Dreadnaught page. Wanna say that's fluff? Fine, I've caught on to your game a few days ago.
[ quote]The rules for transports only allow unit type: infantry to embark upon a transport. Two notable exceptions are Storm Raven and Drop Pod. Both allow Dreadnaughts to embark. It's been established that a transport does indeed guarantee models can embark unless forbiden to do so.
Um, no. All models are forbidden to embark (the very basis of a permissive rules set). Infantry and IC (infantry) are allowed to embark in the BRB.
So you're saying that all models can embark unless they're forbidden to do so. That's the same thing that I posted, just backward.
Using the logic, that a Venerable Dreadnaught is not a Dreadnaught will cause almost all codexes to begin to unravel. I'll point out that MOB RULE again. It states that you use the number of ORKS in the mob to determine the units leadership. According to the list in the back, Lootas, Burnas, Nobz and many others do not contain any ORKS. The listing for Lootas is thus.
Irrelevant because they aren't similar issues.
Identical. Not just similar, not kinda sorta...identical.
Any rule in the Space Marine codex that uses the word Space Marine would no longer apply to scouts, Legion of the Damned, or any named character.
... And?
Plus, the Rhino and Razorback unit entries list that they can carry 10 models and 6 models respectively. The rules for transports allow infantry models to embark on transports. Which unit has the unit type "MODEL". I haven't found one.
Fortunately "model" is defined in the BRB. Ill leave it to you to find it.
Well, your argument is that the Stormraven allows dreadnaughts to embark. Further you state that Ironclad and Venerable have more words than "Dreadnaught" in their unit composition which prevents them from embarking. The rules for the Rhino and Razorback allow "models" to embark, since none of the units listed even have the word "model" in their entry they would be invalid to embark, according to you interpretaion.
rigeld2 wrote:find the non dreadnaught unit entry for ironclads or venerables,
If unit entry mattered one iota I'd care.
HUH? You've been arguing the point that a Unit entry is all that matters!
No, I haven't. Unit Entry and Unit Compisition are not the same thing. The latter is what matters.
Are you refering to the unit PROFILE? The transport capacity of a Stormraven isn't listed in the unit composition.
I know what's going on here, I really do, so does everyone else.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
The Unit Entry of a Storm Raven says it can carry Dreadnaughts.
The Unit Composition of a Dreadnaught is 1 Dreadnaught. The Unit Composition of a Venerable Dreadnaught is 1 Venerable Dreadnaught.
Since I can't read light blue on white and I refuse to navigate that mess of misquotes, I don't see much else to respond to.
68355
Post by: easysauce
so you admit you dont consider any GK inquisitors special characters to be inquisitors because their composition is (unique), so an army with inquisitor karamazov cannot take henchmen because it has no inquisitor
very good arguement
"I wont even read what you wrote, im just going to repeat that a ball is a ball, and a red ball is a red ball, but not a ball"
I brought up several issues with using the unit composition as the object of special rules reference, breaking special character inquisitors, and ork mobs,
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
Bravo. The Dakka Debate Society strikes again! One more thread sidelined by inane rule interpretations where the detractors demand proof while at the same time denying said proof each time its presented. Bravo!
I love the bit about "a Dreadnought is a Dreadnought, but a Venerable Dreadnought is not!" Almost poetic.
Oh! And yes, a Heavy Bolter is a Bolter, per BRB pg. 56, where Heavy Bolter is listed under the "Boltguns" entry. And I'll even quote: "The Boltgun, or bolter, fires small missiles known as 'bolts'." "There are many variations of boltguns, from the short-barreled bolt pistol to the Vulcan mega-bolter often mounted on Titans and other super-heavy vehicles." All boltguns are bolters, as are all weapons that fire ‘bolts’.
Per GW, a Heavy Bolter is a Bolter. Oddly enough, per GW, Venerable Dreadnoughts, Ironclad Dreadnoughts, Furioso Dreadnoughts, Furioso Librarians, and Death Company Dreadnoughts are all "Dreadnoughts" as seen in their specific codex entries (as has been stated, cited, and quoted above). Which you will continue to deny.
So, bravo! Another thread dies at the hands of the Dakka Debate Society.
SJ
37426
Post by: Idolator
jeffersonian000 wrote:Bravo. The Dakka Debate Society strikes again! One more thread sidelined by inane rule interpretations where the detractors demand proof while at the same time denying said proof each time its presented. Bravo!
I love the bit about "a Dreadnought is a Dreadnought, but a Venerable Dreadnought is not!" Almost poetic.
Oh! And yes, a Heavy Bolter is a Bolter, per BRB pg. 56, where Heavy Bolter is listed under the "Boltguns" entry. And I'll even quote: "The Boltgun, or bolter, fires small missiles known as 'bolts'." "There are many variations of boltguns, from the short-barreled bolt pistol to the Vulcan mega-bolter often mounted on Titans and other super-heavy vehicles." All boltguns are bolters, as are all weapons that fire ‘bolts’.
Per GW, a Heavy Bolter is a Bolter. Oddly enough, per GW, Venerable Dreadnoughts, Ironclad Dreadnoughts, Furioso Dreadnoughts, Furioso Librarians, and Death Company Dreadnoughts are all "Dreadnoughts" as seen in their specific codex entries (as has been stated, cited, and quoted above). Which you will continue to deny.
So, bravo! Another thread dies at the hands of the Dakka Debate Society.
SJ
You're alright, Dude.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Cool, so all my Tac Marines can have Heavy Bolters since they come with a Bolter standard?
Ok, we know that sub types of unit are considered to be of that unit. Both subtypes of Dreadnaught are still Dreadnaughts. Just like Commisar Yarrick is a commisar.
I don't own the IG codex. Does it state that?
Yes, in the title Commisar.
Yes he is a Commissar, however only for two situations - "Aura of Dicipline" and "It's For Your Own Good".
56724
Post by: Nivek5150
It's almost as if the space marine codex was written during a time where they couldn't take Stormravens.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
easysauce wrote:so you admit you dont consider any GK inquisitors special characters to be inquisitors because their composition is (unique), so an army with inquisitor karamazov cannot take henchmen because it has no inquisitor
Yes. And pre- FAQ Doom of Malantai couldn't use Warp Field, etc.
very good arguement
"I wont even read what you wrote, im just going to repeat that a ball is a ball, and a red ball is a red ball, but not a ball"
Note that there's a difference between "cannot" and "will not". I honestly can't see any text where you wrote so I asked my wife to look, she said there was blue text, that's why I responded the way I did.
I brought up several issues with using the unit composition as the object of special rules reference, breaking special character inquisitors, and ork mobs,
Okay.
And?
Words mean things. Have I said that the intent is unclear? That I play things that way? Automatically Appended Next Post: jeffersonian000 wrote:Bravo. The Dakka Debate Society strikes again! One more thread sidelined by inane rule interpretations where the detractors demand proof while at the same time denying said proof each time its presented. Bravo!
That's a lie. You can take your bias and hurt feelings elsewhere please.
I love the bit about "a Dreadnought is a Dreadnought, but a Venerable Dreadnought is not!" Almost poetic.
Removing it from context makes it sound dumb. It's almost like context is important...
Oh! And yes, a Heavy Bolter is a Bolter, per BRB pg. 56, where Heavy Bolter is listed under the "Boltguns" entry. And I'll even quote: "The Boltgun, or bolter, fires small missiles known as 'bolts'." "There are many variations of boltguns, from the short-barreled bolt pistol to the Vulcan mega-bolter often mounted on Titans and other super-heavy vehicles." All boltguns are bolters, as are all weapons that fire ‘bolts’.
Cool - use fluff for your argument. According to that argument, every space marine is equipped with a Vulcan Mega Bolter. After all, it's a Bolter, is on page 56, and they're all the same thing, right?
Per GW, a Heavy Bolter is a Bolter. Oddly enough, per GW, Venerable Dreadnoughts, Ironclad Dreadnoughts, Furioso Dreadnoughts, Furioso Librarians, and Death Company Dreadnoughts are all "Dreadnoughts" as seen in their specific codex entries (as has been stated, cited, and quoted above). Which you will continue to deny.
I've proven this incorrect (for all but BA Dreads). The Army List entry for all of the "upgraded" Dreads does not say 1 Dreadnaught. Prove otherwise.
So, bravo! Another thread dies at the hands of the Dakka Debate Society.
I'm curious, were you forced to read the thread and reply?
Do you have a rules argument to add, or just wanting to stir up trouble? Automatically Appended Next Post: Nivek5150 wrote:It's almost as if the space marine codex was written during a time where they couldn't take Stormravens.
And the right way to update it is an FAQ/Errata... Not assumptions based on intent.
And the problem also exists with Drop Pods, FYI.
41324
Post by: beigeknight
I voted yes, and decided not to argue it just for the sake of arguing(unlike someone else).
66727
Post by: OIIIIIIO
Here are my thoughts on the matter. A dreadnought (ALL of them) has the unit type of vehicle(walker). On page 137 of C:SM you will find that all three types of Dreads have the same unit type. The unit composition gives you the breakdown of what the unit is comprised of, an explanation of what is in said unit. The common word for all three of these vehicle(walker)'s is Dreadnought.
Please check page 128 for this:
2 Unit Composition: Where applicable, this entry lists the number and type of models that make up the basic unit. For example ... blah blah blah
3 Unit Type: This entry refers to the Warhammer 40,000 Unit Type Rules chapter. For example, a unit may be Infantry, Vehicle or Jump Infantry, and be subject to a number of rules .... blah blah blah.
To my mind this clearly indicates that all three of these Dreads ... Normal, Venerable, or Ironclad are all walkers that are able to be carried via the Thunder Guppy.
99
Post by: insaniak
The problem here isn't with those arguing the point... It's with GW's refusal to use set keywords in their rules. Because unfortunately:
jeffersonian000 wrote:Per GW, a Heavy Bolter is a Bolter. Oddly enough, per GW, Venerable Dreadnoughts, Ironclad Dreadnoughts, Furioso Dreadnoughts, Furioso Librarians, and Death Company Dreadnoughts are all "Dreadnoughts" as seen in their specific codex entries (as has been stated, cited, and quoted above).
...one of these is correct, ruleswise.
GW showed in the Blood Angels codex that they consider all dreadnoughts to be dreadnoughts. But as per the ruling on Special Issue ammo, they don't consider everything with 'bolter' in its name to be a bolter.
Sometimes the class in the name applies, and sometimes it doesn't.
Without the use of hard keywords, technically the RAW crowd is correct: When you have one unit called a 'Dreadnought' and another unit called a 'Venerable Dreadnought' then anything that refers specifically to a 'Dreadnought' should only apply to the former.
In general casual language, though, it's certainly fair enough to assume that any Dreadnought is a Dreadnought. It's just made difficult by the fact that in GW's rules, where casual langauge applies far more often than technical semantics, it only works that way some of the time... and we're generally given no clue ahead of time as to which times that will be.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
If the Storm Raven Unit Entry said "Walkers" I'd agree.
It doesn't.
68355
Post by: easysauce
rigeld2 wrote:
I've proven this incorrect (for all but BA Dreads). The Army List entry for all of the "upgraded" Dreads does not say 1 Dreadnaught. Prove otherwise.
incorrect, the unit composition, does not matter, permission is given to anything called a dreadnought,
the bolter argument is completly off topic
marines are armed with bolt guns, there is no profile for bolter, so right there your trading "bolters" for anything is off, and while fluff wise bolters is a broad term for many weapons, and the slang term bolter can apply to pretty much any bolt weapon, rules wise a Heavy bolter is a Heavy bolter,
there are plasma, melta, bolt, las, weapons of the pistol, gun and heavy ect variant,
there are dreadnaughts of the venerable/ironclad/ect type,
one would think the mere existence of different types of dreadnaughts would be enough proof of their existence.
1185
Post by: marv335
My, this has gotten a bit heated..
Anyway,
My thought on this was guided by chaos.
Specifically, Fabius Bile, and his enhancements.
Khorne Berzerkers, Plaguemarines, and Havoks are all chaos space marines.
FB can only enhance Chaos Space Marines (a named squad type)
So there is precedent for this line of though.
I would point out though, YMDC is all about what the rules say, not how you would play it in reality.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Jeffersonian - yet Bolters are not Storm Bolters, or Heavy Bolters, because SI ammo can only be used in the former, not the latter 2 types of weapon. Making your argument still incorrect.
To those arguing a set or class idea - prove that "Dreadnought" is the set, and not just a proper noun. Because the SM codex treats them all as proper nouns, by stating a Venerable Dreadnought IS of type: Venerable Dreadnought, and not type Dreadnought (Venerable)
When you have capitalised words that often indicates proper nouns, i.e. names. It does not indicate the rules. So Commisar Yarrick is NOT a commisar by virtue of his name "Commisar Yarrick" containing the word "commisar" in it, as you dont have permission to separate the two into title: name - it is all "name"
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
GW does not write their rules based on keywords, much to the average player's frustration as most rules arguments reduce down to which specific words GW chose to use. One side of these arguments states that general term is a general term unless specifically defined in the rulebook. The other side states that all words are specific words except where otherwise defined.
Example: Dreadnought
GW defines Dreadnoughts as a general unit type as well as a specific unit type, and then refers back to dreadnought in an undefined way as to leave people guessing which one GW meant. Do they mean the general "Dreadnought", or the specific "Dreadnought"?
The answer is: whichever one doesn't break the rule set. If we go with the general term, everything seems to run smoothly in the case of "Dreadnoughts". However, if we go with the specific term "Dreadnought", several other instances become unraveled due to the precedence.
Notice how I did not state "general over specific" or "specific over general". I stated "which ever of the options does not break the rule set". There is no hard set method of solving these issues because GW does not write "tight" rules based on keywords and defined terms. They write "loose" rules that nit together to define a method of playing the game, using some keywords some of the time, and definitions to occasionally define a point.
Another example: Bolters
GW defined 'Bolters" as a generic term for any weapon that fires a 'Bolt'. We the players define 'Bolters" as the specific term Boltgun. To confuse issues further, GW uses the term Bolter and Boltgun interchangeably throughout their rule set. So which 'Bolter" do we use the stat line for GW tells us a specific unit has Bolters?
The answer is whichever one doesn't break the rule set. Sternguard can have Bolters, Combi-Bolters, and Stormbolters, as well as specialty ammunition that can be used with their Bolters. Well, thanks to GW, we have three different Bolter weapons all defined as 'Bolters". Does it break the game to allow Stormbolters to use specialty ammunition? The general consensus is: yes, it does. So Stormbolters are right out. Does it break the game for Combi-Bolters to use specialty ammunition? The general consensus is: maybe. So, Combi-Bolters are in for now.
See where I'm going with this? GW has told us that these rules work, yet they did a poor job of demonstrating how these rules work. So, if we use the primary thought that when GW says you can do something, you can in fact do it, much of these rules arguments boil down to which rules as written work for this specific conflict. Nowhere does the question of which keywords are used, or which definition is used come into play, because GW does not have an all-inclusive list of keywords and definitions. They do have a list of common special rules, as well as lists on specific terms being use for specific portions of the rules such as different weapons or different psychic powers.
In the end, you cannot take any of the rules currently in the game in isolation. Each one of the rules as written in the current 6th edition rulebook are presented with a context that they work, that they work with in a frame work of other rules, and without that frame work the game falls apart. So pointing out that a rule causes the game to fall apart is counter to GW's assurance that the rules do indeed work.
So, which interpretation of the rules as written does not break the game? That is the key to debating 6th edition rules conflicts.
SJ
47462
Post by: rigeld2
jeffersonian000 wrote:In the end, you cannot take any of the rules currently in the game in isolation. Each one of the rules as written in the current 6th edition rulebook are presented with a context that they work, that they work with in a frame work of other rules, and without that frame work the game falls apart. So pointing out that a rule causes the game to fall apart is counter to GW's assurance that the rules do indeed work.
Right - that'd be the difference between RAI and RAW. Thank you for pointing that out.
So, which interpretation of the rules as written does not break the game? That is the key to debating 6th edition rules conflicts.
Please explain how my interpretation "breaks the game".
68355
Post by: easysauce
if you go along the thought process of special rules refering to units by their unit composition, instead of refering to things by name,
it breaks half the special characters since they all have special rules that refer to them by name, but they all have the unit composition 1(unique)
it also breaks every unit's rules that say has rules that apply to a type (orks for waagh, there are no "orks" , only boys in the composition, same for many other troop types ect)
I see no precident set for referring to units by their composition, as opposed to by their name.
take for instance, land raiders, in the back of the GK codex, despite haveing three named varients, they are all composed of one "land raider" , yet these "land raiders" have different equiptment, capacity, ect
by your own definition, the unit composition, not the name, or stats, defines what is in the unit, so those "land raider crusaders" must follow the rules for a standard "land raider" since the unit composition says "land raider"
37426
Post by: Idolator
nosferatu1001 wrote:Jeffersonian - yet Bolters are not Storm Bolters, or Heavy Bolters, because SI ammo can only be used in the former, not the latter 2 types of weapon. Making your argument still incorrect.
The SI ammo entry specificaly states "BoltGUN" not bolter.
Lysander's BOLTER drill allows the rules for any gun with BOLTER in the name.
This point holds no water.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
by your own definition, the unit composition, not the name, or stats, defines what is in the unit, so those "land raider crusaders" must follow the rules for a standard "land raider" since the unit composition says "land raider"
By saying this you've proven you don't actually understand my argument at all.
Let's start at the beginning:
What is allowed to embark on a Transport?
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote:
So, which interpretation of the rules as written does not break the game? That is the key to debating 6th edition rules conflicts.
Please explain how my interpretation "breaks the game".
When you apply your rules interpretation to the Ork codex it invalidates Mob rule and Waaagh!
Transports are only listed as "can carry 10 models" no unit has model listed in its unit entry.
If I wanted to I bet that I could dozens more examples. The argument that the Unit Composition terminology determines if a type of model can embark doesn't work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Infantry Models, None of the Unit composition list units as infantry or models.
68355
Post by: easysauce
rigeld2 wrote:by your own definition, the unit composition, not the name, or stats, defines what is in the unit, so those "land raider crusaders" must follow the rules for a standard "land raider" since the unit composition says "land raider"
By saying this you've proven you don't actually understand my argument at all.
Let's start at the beginning:
What is allowed to embark on a Transport?
why are you now jumping around to unit type? you kept insisting unit type had nothing to do with anything, now you are brining it up as the core to your arguement.
obviously infantry types can embark,
special permission is given to dreads for embarking in storm ravens(not a unit type in any respect, dreads are dreads because they are so named, there is no unit type "dread")
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote:Transports are only listed as "can carry 10 models" no unit has model listed in its unit entry.
Is model defined anywhere?
If I wanted to I bet that I could dozens more examples. The argument that the Unit Composition terminology determines if a type of model can embark doesn't work.
Right, so you aren't understanding my argument either.
Infantry Models, None of the Unit composition list units as infantry or models.
Bolded the only relevant portion.
Great - now, Are Infantry and Models defined somewhere?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote:rigeld2 wrote:by your own definition, the unit composition, not the name, or stats, defines what is in the unit, so those "land raider crusaders" must follow the rules for a standard "land raider" since the unit composition says "land raider"
By saying this you've proven you don't actually understand my argument at all.
Let's start at the beginning:
What is allowed to embark on a Transport?
why are you now jumping around to unit type? you kept insisting unit type had nothing to do with anything, now you are brining it up as the core to your arguement.
It'll become clear later (I hope). I'm honestly trying to explain and not being antagonistic at all. I'd appreciate the same respect.
obviously infantry types can embark,
Infantry Models. Are those words defined in the BRB?
special permission is given to dreads for embarking in storm ravens(not a unit type in any respect, dreads are dreads because they are so named, there is no unit type "dread")
Is "Dreadnaught" defined anywhere?
37426
Post by: Idolator
Great - now, Are Infantry and Models defined somewhere?
Yes, they are. However The listing for Stormravens, Does it allow Jump Infantry to embark? Those aren't infantry.
Is Space Marine defined anywhere? The rules for infantry include all types of foot soldier, whether Human or Alien. Unless you can find a definition that lists them as Human or Alien then they wouldn't be allowed to embark on anything. Ratlings and Ogryns are abhumans not humans or aliens. In fact, I can't even find a definition for human or alien. Guardsmen are called human in the fluff, but you won't accept fluff as rules.
A Space Marine Captain on a Bike has his Unit type listed as "Infantry" , So do Biker Nobs. According to you they would be able to embark on a transport.
Your argument, this entire time, has been: the Unit Profile of a Stormraven lists that it can carry a Dreadnaught, since Venerable and Ironclad list their unit compositions as "Venerable Drreadnaught" and "Ironclad Dreadnaught" instead of just "Dreadnaught" they are not permitted to embark.
You have been using the Unit Composition as the only determining factor. The argument that no unit can embark on a transport because they do not have the word "Model" in their unit composition is an even better argument in this regard since, at least, the Ironclad and Venerable use the word Dreadnaught.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote:
Great - now, Are Infantry and Models defined somewhere?
Yes, they are. However The listing for Stormravens, Does it allow Jump Infantry to embark? Those aren't infantry.
So Infantry and Models are defined - so we know what is allowed to embark.
Storm Ravens specifically allow Jump Infantry (It really should be Infantry (Jump) in 6th, but that's just an edition change). We know those are defined in the BRB. So we know Infantry (Jump) can embark.
Storm Ravens specifically allow Dreadnaughts to embark. Are Dreadnaughts defined anywhere?
I snipped the rest of your post because I'm asking these questions for a reason. Please don't bother arguing until I'm done.
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:
Great - now, Are Infantry and Models defined somewhere?
Yes, they are. However The listing for Stormravens, Does it allow Jump Infantry to embark? Those aren't infantry.
So Infantry and Models are defined - so we know what is allowed to embark.
Storm Ravens specifically allow Jump Infantry (It really should be Infantry (Jump) in 6th, but that's just an edition change). We know those are defined in the BRB. So we know Infantry (Jump) can embark.
Storm Ravens specifically allow Dreadnaughts to embark. Are Dreadnaughts defined anywhere?
I snipped the rest of your post because I'm asking these questions for a reason. Please don't bother arguing until I'm done.
Well, It's been 11 minutes, I assume that you're done. I also assume that you snipped the rest because those facts cause your argument to fall apart. I'm not going to answer any of your questions until my points are adressed.
68355
Post by: easysauce
rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:
Great - now, Are Infantry and Models defined somewhere?
Yes, they are. However The listing for Stormravens, Does it allow Jump Infantry to embark? Those aren't infantry.
So Infantry and Models are defined - so we know what is allowed to embark.
Storm Ravens specifically allow Jump Infantry (It really should be Infantry (Jump) in 6th, but that's just an edition change). We know those are defined in the BRB. So we know Infantry (Jump) can embark.
Storm Ravens specifically allow Dreadnaughts to embark. Are Dreadnaughts defined anywhere?
I snipped the rest of your post because I'm asking these questions for a reason. Please don't bother arguing until I'm done.
there is nothing in the rule book to support unit composition (aside from # of models) affects transport eligibility, only unit type
there is no unit type dreadnought, there are only units with the name dreadnaught in them.
dreadnoughts are defined in the same place "space marine" "ork" ect are defined, IE the realm of common sense.
a unit of grey knight terminators, by your definition, does not contain any grey knights, since the unit compositions is simply "terminator" and "terminator justicar"
your definition would aso mean that a "grey knight terminator" is NOT a grey knight either, since only composition "grey knights" are grey knights,
hence justicars, knights of the flame, purifiers, ect are not "grey knights" since their unit composition says something else.
same with orks, same with every single race
GW does not define how we are supposed to roll dice either, does this mean we abandon common sense and argue that one can simply roll a dice over to the next side manually and control the number that comes up?
there is nothing saying we cannot after all, and GW does not define how we roll dice,
answer questions please.
now, where in the rule book does it say that adding a descriptor to something changes what class it is?
just like all power axes are power weapons, but not all power weapons are power axes,
all special dreadnoughts are dreadnaoughts, but not all dreadnaughts are special
where in the rule book does it state unit composition, not type, is the criteria for eligibilty for transport?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:
Great - now, Are Infantry and Models defined somewhere?
Yes, they are. However The listing for Stormravens, Does it allow Jump Infantry to embark? Those aren't infantry.
So Infantry and Models are defined - so we know what is allowed to embark.
Storm Ravens specifically allow Jump Infantry (It really should be Infantry (Jump) in 6th, but that's just an edition change). We know those are defined in the BRB. So we know Infantry (Jump) can embark.
Storm Ravens specifically allow Dreadnaughts to embark. Are Dreadnaughts defined anywhere?
I snipped the rest of your post because I'm asking these questions for a reason. Please don't bother arguing until I'm done.
Well, It's been 11 minutes, I assume that you're done. I also assume that you snipped the rest because those facts cause your argument to fall apart. I'm not going to answer any of your questions until my points are adressed.
Poor assumption. I snipped them because the fact that you're arguing means you don't understand my point.. I'm trying to explain, not be confrontational. Automatically Appended Next Post: easysauce wrote:rigeld2 wrote:there is nothing in the rule book to support unit composition (aside from # of models) affects transport eligibility, only unit type
there is no unit type dreadnought, there are only units with the name dreadnaught in them.
Right, so according to you no Walker can embark.
a unit of grey knight terminators, by your definition, does not contain any grey knights, since the unit compositions is simply "terminator" and "terminator justicar"
Seriously, context is important. You are absolutely not understanding my argument at all. Meaning any time you say "by your definition" and "according to you" you're probably wrong.
37426
Post by: Idolator
Poor assumption. I snipped them because the fact that you're arguing means you don't understand my point.. I'm trying to explain, not be confrontational.
Negative, You have consistently ignored points and questions that make your argument fall to pieces.
If I don't understand your point, then clarify it. Why are Ironclad and Venerable Draednaughts not allowed to be transported in a Stormraven? If your answer is "because they aren't Dreadnaughts, then what precludes them from being Dreadnaughts?
Those are two simple questions.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote:Poor assumption. I snipped them because the fact that you're arguing means you don't understand my point.. I'm trying to explain, not be confrontational.
Negative, You have consistently ignored points and questions that make your argument fall to pieces.
No - those points you keep raising have absolutely nothing to do with my argument.
If I don't understand your point, then clarify it.
Well, that's what I'm trying to do. I've said that a few times now. Those questions I've been asking have been leading up to this.
I'm seriously being non-confrontational. I'd appreciate the same respect.
Why are Ironclad and Venerable Draednaughts not allowed to be transported in a Stormraven?
They are not Infantry models. I assume we agree on that.
They are not Infantry (Jump) models. I assume we agree on that.
The only thing left is "Dreadnaught". We know that cannot be a Unit Type. I assume we agree on that.
Where is "Dreadnaught" defined in C: SM?
68355
Post by: easysauce
rigel you keep ignoring questions, despite having your own answered,
you simply keep asserting that you are right, and we are wrong,
despite you not taking the time to answer our queries, we have answered, and rebuked your points
this is not a debate, you are simply putting earmuffs on and repeating over and over that we are wrong and you are right
answer the question, what stops a XXXX dreadnaought from being a dreadnought?
you keep talking about context, well venerable deadnoughts are talked about in the context of being dreadnaughts,
is there some other context that lead you to think they are not dreads? if so where is it?
because every other contextual definition (ie terminators in the GK codex are in fact grey knights, because in the context of codex grey knights, what else would they be?)
in the same way, XXXX dreads are dreads, because they are always talked about in the same context as dreads
so where is the rule book speaking about XXXX dread in the context that it is not a dread naught?
37426
Post by: Idolator
Yeah, that wasn't an answer. It was more questions.
Why are Ironclad Dreadnaughts and Venerable Dreadnaughts not considered Dreadnaughts? Easy question. It's the whole crux of your argument. Should be simple to answer.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
"Dreadnought" is on Page 65 in the SM codex.
37426
Post by: Idolator
He considers that "fluff" so it's not admissible. It is the second paragraph, and it referes to how a Dreadnaught is made. I consider a definition.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote:
He considers that "fluff" so it's not admissible. It is the second paragraph, and it referes to how a Dreadnaught is made. I consider a definition.
That's a lie - please cite where I've said that.
There are two definitions of "Dreadnaught" on that page - the general one and the specific one. Which one is the Storm Raven referencing?
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote:There are two definitions of "Dreadnaught" on that page - the general one and the specific one. Which one is the Storm Raven referencing?
You still haven't answered. What determines that an Ironclad Dreadnaught isn't a Dreadnaught?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote:That's a lie - please cite where I've said that.
There are two definitions of "Dreadnaught" on that page - the general one and the specific one. Which one is the Storm Raven referencing?
Do you consider fluff as admissible rules? Plus, you had stated that the unit enrty bears no relevance.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote:rigeld2 wrote:There are two definitions of "Dreadnaught" on that page - the general one and the specific one. Which one is the Storm Raven referencing?
You still haven't answered. What determines that an Ironclad Dreadnaught isn't a Dreadnaught?
Context. And I'm getting there.
rigeld2 wrote:That's a lie - please cite where I've said that.
There are two definitions of "Dreadnaught" on that page - the general one and the specific one. Which one is the Storm Raven referencing?
Do you consider fluff as admissible rules?
It can be. It depends.
37426
Post by: Idolator
Do you consider fluff as admissible rules?
It can be. It depends.
People are going to have fun with this answer. When would that be?
Still no answer on "Why is an Ironclad not to be considered a dreadnaught?"
46128
Post by: Happyjew
I'm curious, Idoator, easysauce, et al. Do you consider a Furioso Librarian to be a Librarian? Why or why not?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote:People are going to have fun with this answer. When would that be?
When the rules say they are. For example, Eldar Avatar's immunity to fire weapons, Plasma Siphon...
Still no answer on "Why is an Ironclad not to be considered a dreadnaught?"
Still no answer on There are two definitions of "Dreadnaught" on that page - the general one and the specific one. Which one is the Storm Raven referencing?
Note - my answer to you depends on an answer to that.
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:People are going to have fun with this answer. When would that be?
When the rules say they are. For example, Eldar Avatar's immunity to fire weapons, Plasma Siphon...
That would be a rule, not fluff.
Still no answer on "Why is an Ironclad not to be considered a dreadnaught?"
Still no answer on There are two definitions of "Dreadnaught" on that page - the general one and the specific one. Which one is the Storm Raven referencing?
Note - my answer to you depends on an answer to that.
I only see one definition. So 'll have to go by what you say.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote:I only see one definition. So 'll have to go by what you say.
There's the fluff definition and the unit named "Dreadnaught" as a definition. Do we agree?
37426
Post by: Idolator
Happyjew wrote:I'm curious, Idoator, easysauce, et al. Do you consider a Furioso Librarian to be a Librarian? Why or why not?
I don't have thoe rules and have never encountered one on the table. Any point that I make would be ill informed. It's the one that's also a dreadnaught?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:I only see one definition. So 'll have to go by what you say.
There's the fluff definition and the unit named "Dreadnaught" as a definition. Do we agree?
No, a word in and of itself is not a definition. I can't find the definition of definition in the RAW, but I got this from the dictionary: definition: the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word.
Also, saying that fluff is a rule onlywhen it's in the rules, means that fluff is not rules.
Still awaiting how an Ironclad is not be considered a Dreadnaught.
68355
Post by: easysauce
you need to actually answer the question,
what specifically excludes a XXXX dreadnaught from being a dreadnaught,
answer that one specific question,
37426
Post by: Idolator
easysauce wrote:you need to actually answer the question,
what specifically excludes a XXXX dreadnaught from being a dreadnaught,
answer that one specific question,
I don't think that information will be forthcoming.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
easysauce wrote:you need to actually answer the question,
what specifically excludes a XXXX dreadnaught from being a dreadnaught,
answer that one specific question,
What excludes a Furioso Librarian from being a Librarian?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
easysauce wrote:you need to actually answer the question,
what specifically excludes a XXXX dreadnaught from being a dreadnaught,
answer that one specific question,
I've answered it. Context.
Is a dreadnaught allowed to have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?
65177
Post by: Warp Angels
Happyjew wrote:easysauce wrote:you need to actually answer the question,
what specifically excludes a XXXX dreadnaught from being a dreadnaught,
answer that one specific question,
What excludes a Furioso Librarian from being a Librarian?
Nothing ?
It is also a Dreadnaught you know... and can fly in the Stormraven 
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote:easysauce wrote:you need to actually answer the question,
what specifically excludes a XXXX dreadnaught from being a dreadnaught,
answer that one specific question,
I've answered it. Context.
Is a dreadnaught allowed to have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?
"Context" is not an answer to the question. If that's the case then you've been proven wrong because of words and language.
Still waiting for an explaination.
It's easy here's an example. If A, B and C are letters in the English Alphabet then A,B and C are all letters. 1,2 and 3 are not letters in the alphabet, because they are numbers and therefore they are not letters. Numbers are sybols used to quantify an amount while letters are used to symbolize sounds in the English language.
Really easy.
Coming in and stating that someone is wrong without giving specifics to your reasoning is bad form,Sir! Where do I get that information: Tenets of YMDC. I believe that would be the most important one!
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote:rigeld2 wrote:easysauce wrote:you need to actually answer the question,
what specifically excludes a XXXX dreadnaught from being a dreadnaught,
answer that one specific question,
I've answered it. Context.
Is a dreadnaught allowed to have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?
"Context" is not an answer to the question. If that's the case then you've been proven wrong because of words and language.
Still waiting for an explaination.
It's easy here's an example. If A, B and C are letters in the English Alphabet then A,B and C are all letters. 1,2 and 3 are not letters in the alphabet, because they are numbers and therefore they are not letters. Numbers are sybols used to quantify an amount while letters are used to symbolize sounds in the English language.
Really easy.
If you feel that way, then what is your answer to my question? Since "It depends" cannot be correct according to you, it must be a simple yes or no answer, correct?
37426
Post by: Idolator
If you feel that way, then what is your answer to my question? Since "It depends" cannot be correct according to you, it must be a simple yes or no answer, correct?
Which question is that?
How is it possible that my answer affects the RAW? If the RAW state something, then they state something. My interpretaion has no bearing on what you've read. The only bearing my interpretaion can possibly have is if you can tell me if I'm wrong or not. It in no way shows how your point is correct.
"It depends" is not an answer in and of itself anymore than "sometimes". While they do indeed provide a response, they do not constitute an answer.
So, please, specificaly, answer the question.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Premise 1: A Heavy Bolter is a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Premise 2: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Logical Conclusion: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Heavy Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote:If you feel that way, then what is your answer to my question? Since "It depends" cannot be correct according to you, it must be a simple yes or no answer, correct?
Which question is that?
How is it possible that my answer affects the RAW? If the RAW state something, then they state something. My interpretaion has no bearing on what you've read.
Context is important to take into account when reading the RAW. Could you share where the following is stated?
rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:I only see one definition. So 'll have to go by what you say.
There's the fluff definition and the unit named "Dreadnaught" as a definition. Do we agree?
Also, this is the question I was referring to - if you answered it could you quote the post please? (or link to it since you have issues with quotes)
Is a dreadnaught allowed to have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?
37426
Post by: Idolator
Happyjew wrote:Premise 1: A Heavy Bolter is a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Premise 2: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Logical Conclusion: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Heavy Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
A heavy bolter is a bolter. It is ascribed as such in the Bolter Drill rule as well as it's own listing.
Most space marines are equiped with a bolter. (bolt pistols,bolters, heavy bolters and storm bolters are bolters)
Most Space marines are not equiped with a heavy bolter, it is listed that they are equiped with a bolt gun.
37016
Post by: More Dakka
Semantics Shemantics, if it says Dreadnought in the name a SR will pick it up and take it out to lunch.
This includes all variations and Contemptors as well.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote:Most Space marines are not equiped with a heavy bolter, it is listed that they are equiped with a bolt gun.
Page 100 C: SM. SM Bikes are equipped with a "twin-linked bolter". Since a Vulcan Mega Bolter is a bolter, I'm allowed to use that profile when I fire, right?
37426
Post by: Idolator
quote]
Also, this is the question I was referring to - if you answered it could you quote the post please? (or link to it since you have issues with quotes)
Is a dreadnaught allowed to have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?
i didn't answer the question. I informed you that I wouldn't answer any question until you answered mine. You've spent quite some time trying to confuse the issue. You are waiting to see where I stand to make a retort. SInce I was the one that asked first, it would stand to reason that this would be good form.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
 More Dakka wrote:Semantics Shemantics, if it says Dreadnought in the name a SR will pick it up and take it out to lunch.
This includes all variations and Contemptors as well.
Not according to the people who write the rules for Contemptors. Automatically Appended Next Post: Idolator wrote:
Also, this is the question I was referring to - if you answered it could you quote the post please? (or link to it since you have issues with quotes)
Is a dreadnaught allowed to have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?
i didn't answer the question. I informed you that I wouldn't answer any question until you answered mine. You've spent quite some time trying to confuse the issue. You are waiting to see where I stand to make a retort. SInce I was the one that asked first, it would stand to reason that this would be good form.
I did answer your question. You refused my answer (for no good reason I'll add).
Context determines when an Ironclad Dreadnaught is or is not a Dreadnaught.
65177
Post by: Warp Angels
Is a dreadnaught allowed to have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?
Yes, Venerables can also, Whats your point ?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Wrong, given FW have stated contemptors cannot be carried in a SR.
Again: What permits you to claim a Venerable Dreadnought is a Dreadnought? [in the SM codex, for clarity] The word "Dreadnought" does not do so, as it is part of a composite noun
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:Most Space marines are not equiped with a heavy bolter, it is listed that they are equiped with a bolt gun.
Page 100 C: SM. SM Bikes are equipped with a "twin-linked bolter". Since a Vulcan Mega Bolter is a bolter, I'm allowed to use that profile when I fire, right?
Please answer the question.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
 Warp Angels wrote:Is a dreadnaught allowed to have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?
Yes, Venerables can also, Whats your point ?
So Ironclads can too - since they're Dreadnaughts, right?
And Venerables can grab a Seismic Hammer? Automatically Appended Next Post: Idolator wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:Most Space marines are not equiped with a heavy bolter, it is listed that they are equiped with a bolt gun.
Page 100 C: SM. SM Bikes are equipped with a "twin-linked bolter". Since a Vulcan Mega Bolter is a bolter, I'm allowed to use that profile when I fire, right?
Please answer the question.
Which one? I've answered every question I've been posed I believe.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:Most Space marines are not equiped with a heavy bolter, it is listed that they are equiped with a bolt gun.
Page 100 C: SM. SM Bikes are equipped with a "twin-linked bolter". Since a Vulcan Mega Bolter is a bolter, I'm allowed to use that profile when I fire, right?
Yes, and Heavy Bolters, if you dont fancy a vulcan mega bolter.
After all, the Name isnt actually a name, but a category / set denominator. Oh, and of course Fire Dragons are part of the set (dragons)
65177
Post by: Warp Angels
rigeld2 wrote: Warp Angels wrote:Is a dreadnaught allowed to have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?
Yes, Venerables can also, Whats your point ?
So Ironclads can too - since they're Dreadnaughts, right?
And Venerables can grab a Seismic Hammer?
Wrong because thay have different entrys in the Army list section of C: SM which allows them to buy their own upgrades
BUT, heres the suprising part they all have the same page reference (page 65) Which when you go there is headed up as DREADNOUGHTS and goes to list all 3 of the flavours
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Warp Angels wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Warp Angels wrote:Is a dreadnaught allowed to have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?
Yes, Venerables can also, Whats your point ?
So Ironclads can too - since they're Dreadnaughts, right?
And Venerables can grab a Seismic Hammer?
Wrong because thay have different entrys in the Army list section of C: SM which allows them to buy their own upgrades
Oh - so Dreadnaught doesn't always refer to all 3? Sometimes it refers to just one of them?
BUT, heres the suprising part they all have the same page reference (page 65) Which when you go there is headed up as DREADNOUGHTS and goes to list all 3 of the flavours
And one of the flavors is named Dreadnaught, right?
Can Dreadnaughts take dual Twin Linked Autocannons? You've already said yes. So that must mean that Ironclad Dreadnaughts can take them.
What? You don't agree? But you just said that "Dreadnaught" can refer to all 3! And you answered my question in the positive!
Oh.. So the answer to "Can Dreadnaughts take dual Twin Linked Autocannons?" is "It depends on which Dreadnaught you're talking about." That's a fair statement.
37426
Post by: Idolator
What (specificaly) precludes an Ironclad Dreadnaught and Venerable Dreadnaught from being considered a Dreadnaught?
What terms, where? Please cite pages.
That has been the question for quite a while.
i am refusing from being drug into the weeds here.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
nosferatu1001 wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:Most Space marines are not equiped with a heavy bolter, it is listed that they are equiped with a bolt gun.
Page 100 C: SM. SM Bikes are equipped with a "twin-linked bolter". Since a Vulcan Mega Bolter is a bolter, I'm allowed to use that profile when I fire, right?
Yes, and Heavy Bolters, if you dont fancy a vulcan mega bolter.
Sure, but I'd rather have Str6 AP3 Heavy 15 Twin Linked than a heavy bolter.
Go big or stay home. Automatically Appended Next Post: Idolator wrote:What (specificaly) precludes an Ironclad Dreadnaught and Venerable Dreadnaught from being considered a Dreadnaught?
What terms, where? Please cite pages.
That has been the question for quite a while.
I've answered that. I'll quote the most recent post for you.
rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:
Also, this is the question I was referring to - if you answered it could you quote the post please? (or link to it since you have issues with quotes)
Is a dreadnaught allowed to have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?
i didn't answer the question. I informed you that I wouldn't answer any question until you answered mine. You've spent quite some time trying to confuse the issue. You are waiting to see where I stand to make a retort. SInce I was the one that asked first, it would stand to reason that this would be good form.
I did answer your question. You refused my answer (for no good reason I'll add).
Context determines when an Ironclad Dreadnaught is or is not a Dreadnaught.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Idolator wrote: Happyjew wrote:Premise 1: A Heavy Bolter is a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Premise 2: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Logical Conclusion: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Heavy Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
A heavy bolter is a bolter. It is ascribed as such in the Bolter Drill rule as well as it's own listing.
Most space marines are equiped with a bolter. (bolt pistols,bolters, heavy bolters and storm bolters are bolters)
Most Space marines are not equiped with a heavy bolter, it is listed that they are equiped with a bolt gun.
Let me rephrase that then.
Premise 1. A Vulcan mega-bolter is a bolter. Do you agree?
Premise 2. Black Templars with access to the armoury can take a bolter for X points. Furthermore BT Command Squads, Sword Brethren, Techmarine, Crusader Squads, all Space Marine Bikes, SW iron Priests, Grey Hunters Pack all either have a bolter or is one of their options.
Therefore all of those mentioned in Premise 2 can have a Vulcan mega-bolter.
Do you agree?
37426
Post by: Idolator
Happyjew wrote: Idolator wrote: Happyjew wrote:Premise 1: A Heavy Bolter is a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Premise 2: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Logical Conclusion: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Heavy Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
A heavy bolter is a bolter. It is ascribed as such in the Bolter Drill rule as well as it's own listing.
Most space marines are equiped with a bolter. (bolt pistols,bolters, heavy bolters and storm bolters are bolters)
Most Space marines are not equiped with a heavy bolter, it is listed that they are equiped with a bolt gun.
Let me rephrase that then.
Premise 1. A Vulcan mega-bolter is a bolter. Do you agree?
Premise 2. Black Templars with access to the armoury can take a bolter for X points. Furthermore BT Command Squads, Sword Brethren, Techmarine, Crusader Squads, all Space Marine Bikes, SW iron Priests, Grey Hunters Pack all either have a bolter or is one of their options.
Therefore all of those mentioned in Premise 2 can have a Vulcan mega-bolter.
Do you agree?
I don't have that codex, any opinion that I have would be ill informed.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote: Happyjew wrote: Idolator wrote: Happyjew wrote:Premise 1: A Heavy Bolter is a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Premise 2: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Logical Conclusion: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Heavy Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
A heavy bolter is a bolter. It is ascribed as such in the Bolter Drill rule as well as it's own listing.
Most space marines are equiped with a bolter. (bolt pistols,bolters, heavy bolters and storm bolters are bolters)
Most Space marines are not equiped with a heavy bolter, it is listed that they are equiped with a bolt gun.
Let me rephrase that then.
Premise 1. A Vulcan mega-bolter is a bolter. Do you agree?
Premise 2. Black Templars with access to the armoury can take a bolter for X points. Furthermore BT Command Squads, Sword Brethren, Techmarine, Crusader Squads, all Space Marine Bikes, SW iron Priests, Grey Hunters Pack all either have a bolter or is one of their options.
Therefore all of those mentioned in Premise 2 can have a Vulcan mega-bolter.
Do you agree?
I don't have that codex, any opinion that I have would be ill informed.
You don't have C: BT, C: SM, C: SW? None of those? How about C: GK? In that Codex (page 55) Combi-weapons are defined as bolters + the combi weapon.
So of course anything that can purchase a combi-weapon can use a Vulcan Mega Bolter.
37426
Post by: Idolator
You don't have C:BT, C:SM, C:SW? None of those? How about C:GK? In that Codex (page 55) Combi-weapons are defined as bolters + the combi weapon.
So of course anything that can purchase a combi-weapon can use a Vulcan Mega Bolter.
Please answer the question.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote:You don't have C:BT, C:SM, C:SW? None of those? How about C:GK? In that Codex (page 55) Combi-weapons are defined as bolters + the combi weapon.
So of course anything that can purchase a combi-weapon can use a Vulcan Mega Bolter.
Please answer the question.
rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:What (specificaly) precludes an Ironclad Dreadnaught and Venerable Dreadnaught from being considered a Dreadnaught?
What terms, where? Please cite pages.
That has been the question for quite a while.
I've answered that. I'll quote the most recent post for you.
rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:
Also, this is the question I was referring to - if you answered it could you quote the post please? (or link to it since you have issues with quotes)
Is a dreadnaught allowed to have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?
i didn't answer the question. I informed you that I wouldn't answer any question until you answered mine. You've spent quite some time trying to confuse the issue. You are waiting to see where I stand to make a retort. SInce I was the one that asked first, it would stand to reason that this would be good form.
I did answer your question. You refused my answer (for no good reason I'll add).
Context determines when an Ironclad Dreadnaught is or is not a Dreadnaught.
65177
Post by: Warp Angels
Happyjew wrote:Premise 1: A Heavy Bolter is a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Premise 2: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Logical Conclusion: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Heavy Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Yes a HB is a bolter
No, Space marines are equipped with BOLTGUNS - a specific type of bolter
No, as above, unless they have the option to swap in their army list entry
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Warp Angels wrote: Happyjew wrote:Premise 1: A Heavy Bolter is a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Premise 2: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Logical Conclusion: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Heavy Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Yes a HB is a bolter
No, Space marines are equipped with BOLTGUNS - a specific type of bolter
No, as above, unless they have the option to swap in their army list entry
Happyjew wrote: Idolator wrote: Happyjew wrote:Premise 1: A Heavy Bolter is a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Premise 2: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Logical Conclusion: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Heavy Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
A heavy bolter is a bolter. It is ascribed as such in the Bolter Drill rule as well as it's own listing.
Most space marines are equiped with a bolter. (bolt pistols,bolters, heavy bolters and storm bolters are bolters)
Most Space marines are not equiped with a heavy bolter, it is listed that they are equiped with a bolt gun.
Let me rephrase that then.
Premise 1. A Vulcan mega-bolter is a bolter. Do you agree?
Premise 2. Black Templars with access to the armoury can take a bolter for X points. Furthermore BT Command Squads, Sword Brethren, Techmarine, Crusader Squads, all Space Marine Bikes, SW iron Priests, Grey Hunters Pack all either have a bolter or is one of their options.
Therefore all of those mentioned in Premise 2 can have a Vulcan mega-bolter.
Do you agree?
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Warp Angels wrote: Happyjew wrote:Premise 1: A Heavy Bolter is a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Premise 2: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Logical Conclusion: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Heavy Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Yes a HB is a bolter
No, Space marines are equipped with BOLTGUNS - a specific type of bolter
No, as above, unless they have the option to swap in their army list entry
I already addressed this in an earlier post. BT and certain SW models either can take a bolter or come standard with a bolter. Furthermore, all SM Bikes come with TL-bolters, and all combi-weapons are a bolter + an additional 1 shot weapon (except for ork kombi-weapons).
65177
Post by: Warp Angels
Happyjew wrote: Warp Angels wrote: Happyjew wrote:Premise 1: A Heavy Bolter is a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Premise 2: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Logical Conclusion: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Heavy Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Yes a HB is a bolter
No, Space marines are equipped with BOLTGUNS - a specific type of bolter
No, as above, unless they have the option to swap in their army list entry
I already addressed this in an earlier post. BT and certain SW models either can take a bolter or come standard with a bolter. Furthermore, all SM Bikes come with TL-bolters, and all combi-weapons are a bolter + an additional 1 shot weapon (except for ork kombi-weapons).
Sorry i missed that, so all of those codecies are pre 6th edition when all the bolt weapons were fitted in the same category - Bolters, BT is even a 4th edition codex, but if you look into C: DA it clears all of that up (Probably because it is a 6th Edition codex, Written for 6th Edition - Suprise Suprise)
37426
Post by: Idolator
It has become obvious that there is no answer to the question: What precludes an Ironclad Dreadnaught from being considered a Dreadnaught.
The last answer that i received contained two qoutes from a fellow stating that he had already answered, but failed to contain the answer.
Stating "Context", "Content", "Words" or "Stuff" is not an answer without page citation and relevant rules. If you cannot point to the "context" to which you are refering or the "stuff" that makes a rule work a certain way, then there is no point of reference.
Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
An Ironclad Dreadnought is a dreadnought, but is not a Dreadnought.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote:It has become obvious that there is no answer to the question: What precludes an Ironclad Dreadnaught from being considered a Dreadnaught.
The last answer that i received contained two qoutes from a fellow stating that he had already answered, but failed to contain the answer.
Stating "Context", "Content", "Words" or "Stuff" is not an answer without page citation and relevant rules. If you cannot point to the "context" to which you are refering or the "stuff" that makes a rule work a certain way, then there is no point of reference.
Give context to the question then. Saying "Context" is not an answer is a flat out lie.
"Were you awake yesterday?" Unless you were awake for a 24 hour period, you cannot answer yes or no. Even then, which "yesterday" are they using - what time zone?
Context matters. Pretending otherwise is absolutely and without caveats incorrect.
edit: So now you're accusing me of not meeting the Tenets?
Please, define the word "a" in the BRB please. Cite page number.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
Looks like we are down to "Context determines when a dreadnought is a dreadnought". Excellent!
So, in what context? In the relevant codices, in the unit entries for the different Dreadnought variants, context is provided via the background material (fluff), the characteristic profiles listed (stat line), and further rules associated with the unit (wargear and special rules). Context is provided.
When the Stormraven lists "1 Dreadnought" may be transported, context suggests that the "1 Dreadnought" is the generic term Dreadnought, as the entry does not state "1 standard Dreadnought (no variants)".
Finally, Rigeld2 agrees. It can learn!
SJ
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Happyjew wrote:An Ironclad Dreadnought is a dreadnought, but is not a Dreadnought.
Depends on Context. Page 65 in C: SM uses the capital a few times iirc.
37426
Post by: Idolator
Happyjew wrote:An Ironclad Dreadnought is a dreadnought, but is not a Dreadnought.
While I do see what you did there. I couldn't find any refrences to dreadnaught at all in C: SM. They only have Dreadnaughts. Automatically Appended Next Post: rigeld2 wrote: Happyjew wrote:An Ironclad Dreadnought is a dreadnought, but is not a Dreadnought.
Depends on Context. Page 65 in C: SM uses the capital a few times iirc.
Please answer the question. Automatically Appended Next Post: rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:It has become obvious that there is no answer to the question: What precludes an Ironclad Dreadnaught from being considered a Dreadnaught.
The last answer that i received contained two qoutes from a fellow stating that he had already answered, but failed to contain the answer.
Stating "Context", "Content", "Words" or "Stuff" is not an answer without page citation and relevant rules. If you cannot point to the "context" to which you are refering or the "stuff" that makes a rule work a certain way, then there is no point of reference.
Give context to the question then. Saying "Context" is not an answer is a flat out lie.
"Were you awake yesterday?" Unless you were awake for a 24 hour period, you cannot answer yes or no. Even then, which "yesterday" are they using - what time zone?
Context matters. Pretending otherwise is absolutely and without caveats incorrect.
edit: So now you're accusing me of not meeting the Tenets?
Please, define the word "a" in the BRB please. Cite page number.
Please answer the question.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
jeffersonian000 wrote:When the Stormraven lists "1 Dreadnought" may be transported, context suggests that the "1 Dreadnought" is the generic term Dreadnought, as the entry does not state "1 standard Dreadnought (no variants)".
I disagree. You are inserting the requirement for it to be general.
It doesn't say "Walker from C: BA" or "Walker from C: GK".
It doesn't say "Any Dreadnaught".
Dreadnaught is not a Unit Type (That'd be Vehicle, Walker).
Dreadnaught, as fluff, is generic.
When used in the Transport rules for a Storm Raven are we directed to look at fluff? I don't believe so - please let me know if I missed any indication.
Dreadnaught as defined on page 65 C: SM is a unit with a specific Composition.
What's the Unit Composition of a Venerable Dreadnaught?
Finally, Rigeld2 agrees. It can learn!
Please don't pretend you know what I'll say. Automatically Appended Next Post: Idolator wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:It has become obvious that there is no answer to the question: What precludes an Ironclad Dreadnaught from being considered a Dreadnaught.
The last answer that i received contained two qoutes from a fellow stating that he had already answered, but failed to contain the answer.
Stating "Context", "Content", "Words" or "Stuff" is not an answer without page citation and relevant rules. If you cannot point to the "context" to which you are refering or the "stuff" that makes a rule work a certain way, then there is no point of reference.
Give context to the question then. Saying "Context" is not an answer is a flat out lie.
"Were you awake yesterday?" Unless you were awake for a 24 hour period, you cannot answer yes or no. Even then, which "yesterday" are they using - what time zone?
Context matters. Pretending otherwise is absolutely and without caveats incorrect.
edit: So now you're accusing me of not meeting the Tenets?
Please, define the word "a" in the BRB please. Cite page number.
Please answer the question.
I answered the question in the post you quoted. Please don't ignore that any further. I'm beginning to think you're trolling.
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote:When the Stormraven lists "1 Dreadnought" may be transported, context suggests that the "1 Dreadnought" is the generic term Dreadnought, as the entry does not state "1 standard Dreadnought (no variants)".
I disagree. You are inserting the requirement for it to be general.
It doesn't say "Walker from C: BA" or "Walker from C: GK".
It doesn't say "Any Dreadnaught".
Dreadnaught is not a Unit Type (That'd be Vehicle, Walker).
Dreadnaught, as fluff, is generic.
When used in the Transport rules for a Storm Raven are we directed to look at fluff? I don't believe so - please let me know if I missed any indication.
Dreadnaught as defined on page 65 C: SM is a unit with a specific Composition.
What's the Unit Composition of a Venerable Dreadnaught?
Finally, Rigeld2 agrees. It can learn!
Please don't pretend you know what I'll say.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Idolator wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:It has become obvious that there is no answer to the question: What precludes an Ironclad Dreadnaught from being considered a Dreadnaught.
The last answer that i received contained two qoutes from a fellow stating that he had already answered, but failed to contain the answer.
Stating "Context", "Content", "Words" or "Stuff" is not an answer without page citation and relevant rules. If you cannot point to the "context" to which you are refering or the "stuff" that makes a rule work a certain way, then there is no point of reference.
Give context to the question then. Saying "Context" is not an answer is a flat out lie.
"Were you awake yesterday?" Unless you were awake for a 24 hour period, you cannot answer yes or no. Even then, which "yesterday" are they using - what time zone?
Context matters. Pretending otherwise is absolutely and without caveats incorrect.
edit: So now you're accusing me of not meeting the Tenets?
Please, define the word "a" in the BRB please. Cite page number.
Please answer the question.
I answered the question in the post you quoted. Please don't ignore that any further. I'm beginning to think you're trolling.
Then report me for trolling. But please answer the question first. What precludes and Ironclad Dreadnaught from being considered a Dreadnaught? You could answer this one instead, but it's gonna send us back to the first one: Why can't an Ironclad Dreadnaught be transported by a vehicle that can transport Dreadnaughts?
Continuing to state that you've answered a question does not prove that you did.
Tenets of You Make Da Call ( YMDC):
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.
56724
Post by: Nivek5150
Does anyone on this board actually own "Death From The Skies"? You know, the thing with the rules for C:SM Stormravens? If not, then this entire conversation is irrelevant.
37426
Post by: Idolator
Nivek5150 wrote:Does anyone on this board actually own "Death From The Skies"? You know, the thing with the rules for C: SM Stormravens? If not, then this entire conversation is irrelevant.
I can see that point. However, It was brought up that the rules for Drop Pod also only use the term "Dreadnaught". So if one can carry an Ironclad and Venerable, then it would have an effect on the other.
( I was wrong about the screen shot, it was for something else)
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote:Then report me for trolling. But please answer the question first. What precludes and Ironclad Dreadnaught from being considered a Dreadnaught? You could answer this one instead, but it's gonna send us back to the first one: Why can't an Ironclad Dreadnaught be transported by a vehicle that can transport Dreadnaughts?
Oh look! That second questions gives context to why you're asking! It's like that matters or something! It doesn't say "Walker from C: BA" or "Walker from C: GK". Agreed? It doesn't say "Any Dreadnaught". Agreed? Dreadnaught is not a Unit Type (That'd be Vehicle, Walker). Agreed? Dreadnaught, as fluff, is generic. Agreed? Dreadnaught as defined on page 65 C: SM is a unit with a specific Composition. Agreed? When used in the Transport rules for a Storm Raven are we directed to look at fluff? I don't believe so - please let me know if I missed any indication. Did I miss anything? edit: Unless a rule dictates otherwise we ignore fluff when determining how rules work. Agreed? What's the Unit Composition of a Ironclad Dreadnaught in C: SM? Continuing to state that you've answered a question does not prove that you did.
You're right. Quoting where I answered the question proves that I did. The right way to respond to an answer that you disagree with is to explain why you disagree. Not ignore the answer and repeatedly (at least 3 times) simply reply with "Please answer the question." edit: If you disagree with anything I've mentioned above, please don't quote and rant. Quote the exact thing you disagree with and explain why.
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote:Dreadnaught as defined on page 65 C:SM is a unit with a specific Composition. Agreed?
No, not agreed. A Dreadnaught is defined in the column containing 5 paragraphs on the left of page 65. It includes descriptions of weapons layouts and venerable. That is where you find the definition of Dreadnaught. The column on the right tells the statistics of each of the three types of Dreadnaught as well as the special rules for all three types of Dreadnaught contained in the definition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
You're right. Quoting where I answered the question proves that I did.
The right way to respond to an answer that you disagree with is to explain why you disagree. Not ignore the answer and repeatedly (at least 3 times) simply reply with "Please answer the question."
The answer that you gave was one word. "Context" according to the tenets this is not an appropriate response and you had made a post claiming to have answered the question, citing only the two other times that you had claimed to answer the question.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Dreadnaught as defined on page 65 C: SM is a unit with a specific Composition. Agreed?
No, not agreed. A Dreadnaught is defined in the column containing 5 paragraphs on the left of page 65. It includes descriptions of weapons layouts and venerable. That is where you find the definition of Dreadnaught. The column on the right tells the statistics of each of the three types of Dreadnaught as well as the special rules for all three types of Dreadnaught contained in the definition.
Can you show the rule requiring us to use fluff as rules?
Or can you explain what the following rule means?
Should a Dreadnought fall in battle, his brothers will fight with righteous anger to retrieve the shell so that they may lay its occupant to rest with honour and reclaim the suit to house another dying hero who will become an Old One to future generations.
Also - since you asserted there are two definitions (one being the 5 paragraphs on the right, and the other being the unit named Dreadnought), which one is the Drop Pod entry referring to?
Side note - I've been spelling Dreadnought wrong this entire thread and didn't notice until now. Oops. Automatically Appended Next Post: Idolator wrote:[ You're right. Quoting where I answered the question proves that I did.
The right way to respond to an answer that you disagree with is to explain why you disagree. Not ignore the answer and repeatedly (at least 3 times) simply reply with "Please answer the question."
The answer that you gave was one word. "Context" according to the tenets this is not an appropriate response and you had made a post claiming to have answered the question, citing only the two other times that you had claimed to answer the question.
You should go back and re-read what I quoted at least twice. It included the following sentence:
Context determines when an Ironclad Dreadnaught is or is not a Dreadnaught.
That's more than a single word. It's absolutely an appropriate response to the question you asked.
37426
Post by: Idolator
Also - since you asserted there are two definitions (one being the 5 paragraphs on the right, and the other being the unit named Dreadnought), which one is the Drop Pod entry referring to?
Side note - I've been spelling Dreadnought wrong this entire thread and didn't notice until now. Oops.
I have not asserted that there are two definitions of Dreadnought. There is only one, the five paragraphs on the left of the page titled "Dreadnought". It was you tht asserted that there were two definitions and asked me to rectify that. I informed you that I could only see one.
Please don't attribute things to me that I have not posted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:What (specificaly) precludes an Ironclad Dreadnaught and Venerable Dreadnaught from being considered a Dreadnaught?
What terms, where? Please cite pages.
That has been the question for quite a while.
I've answered that. I'll quote the most recent post for you.
rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:
Also, this is the question I was referring to - if you answered it could you quote the post please? (or link to it since you have issues with quotes)
Is a dreadnaught allowed to have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?
i didn't answer the question. I informed you that I wouldn't answer any question until you answered mine. You've spent quite some time trying to confuse the issue. You are waiting to see where I stand to make a retort. SInce I was the one that asked first, it would stand to reason that this would be good form.
I did answer your question. You refused my answer (for no good reason I'll add).
Context determines when an Ironclad Dreadnaught is or is not a Dreadnaught.
that would be two posts quoting posts that didn't answer the question. Should I put them all on here? You did, however add "Determines when an IronClad Dreadnught is or is not a Dreadnaught" on the last bit. That however didn't answer the question any more that this would: "WORDS determine when an Ironlcane Dreadnaught is or is not a Dreadnaught.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote:Also - since you asserted there are two definitions (one being the 5 paragraphs on the right, and the other being the unit named Dreadnought), which one is the Drop Pod entry referring to?
I have not asserted that there are two definitions of Dreadnought. There is only one, the five paragraphs on the left of the page titled "Dreadnought". It was you tht asserted that there were two definitions and asked me to rectify that. I informed you that I could only see one.
Please don't attribute things to me that I have not posted.
So the Unit named Dreadnought is not a definition of "Dreadnought"?
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:Also - since you asserted there are two definitions (one being the 5 paragraphs on the right, and the other being the unit named Dreadnought), which one is the Drop Pod entry referring to?
I have not asserted that there are two definitions of Dreadnought. There is only one, the five paragraphs on the left of the page titled "Dreadnought". It was you tht asserted that there were two definitions and asked me to rectify that. I informed you that I could only see one.
Please don't attribute things to me that I have not posted.
So the Unit named Dreadnought is not a definition of "Dreadnought"?
No, once again, a word is not a definition. The RAW are unclear on this but the dictionary states: Definition: the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word.
Here's a definition for you. Cat: a small domesticated carnivore. Now granted this is just part of the definition, but you get the idea.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
So when I ask:
Can a Dreadnought have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?
You cannot answer yes or no, even if I point out the codex entry? As you've stated the only possible definition is all Dreadnoughts.
56724
Post by: Nivek5150
rigeld2 wrote:So when I ask:
Can a Dreadnought have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?
You cannot answer yes or no, even if I point out the codex entry? As you've stated the only possible definition is all Dreadnoughts.
Any unit can have anything, as long as the army list entry you are buying it from gives you permission to do so. So when you buy a Dreadnought for your army, which army list entry did you use? Those are the options you can take.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Nivek5150 wrote:rigeld2 wrote:So when I ask:
Can a Dreadnought have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?
You cannot answer yes or no, even if I point out the codex entry? As you've stated the only possible definition is all Dreadnoughts.
Any unit can have anything, as long as the army list entry you are buying it from gives you permission to do so. So when you buy a Dreadnought for your army, which army list entry did you use? Those are the options you can take.
Right, but a Dreadnought is defined as any of 3 unit entries.
Which entry do I use for a Dreadnought?
68355
Post by: easysauce
both dread naught types in codex GK have the special rule pg 35 GK "reinforced aegis:psychic test leadership penalties caused by The Aegis are increased to -4 if the target of the psychic power is within 12" of the Dreadnought (or is the Dreadnought itself)"
so the venerable dread also has a special rule, that refers to it specifically as a Dreadnaught (this is a rule, not fluff)
as for context, all the dreadnaught rules are in the context of each other, you cannot get more contextual then "on the same page, in the same section, listed under the same title.
just like every single rule that applies to "grey knights" would useless on models with the composition "terminator" "purifier" ect?
there are more examples, but like i said your just ignoring all this already for some reason
just the aegis rule alone referring to a venerable dread as a "Dreadnaught" should be enough
now, please show where it says that a venerable dread is NOT a dread?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Happyjew wrote:Premise 1: A Heavy Bolter is a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Premise 2: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Logical Conclusion: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Heavy Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
100% false
there is not weapon entry for "bolter"
only "bolt gun"
37426
Post by: Idolator
easysauce wrote:
both dread naught types in codex GK have the special rule pg 35 GK "reinforced aegis:psychic test leadership penalties caused by The Aegis are increased to -4 if the target of the psychic power is within 12" of the Dreadnought (or is the Dreadnought itself)"
so the venerable dread also has a special rule, that refers to it specifically as a Dreadnaught (this is a rule, not fluff)
as for context, all the dreadnaught rules are in the context of each other, you cannot get more contextual then "on the same page, in the same section, listed under the same title.
just like every single rule that applies to "grey knights" would useless on models with the composition "terminator" "purifier" ect?
there are more examples, but like i said your just ignoring all this already for some reason
just the aegis rule alone referring to a venerable dread as a "Dreadnaught" should be enough
now, please show where it says that a venerable dread is NOT a dread?
There really is no point to keep going on. We know that Ven and Iron are both Dreads. Unless you like seeing someone twist themselves in knots trying to prove a point that can't be made.
It's hard to argue with someone that thinks the definition of CAT is.... cat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote:Give context to the question then. Saying "Context" is not an answer is a flat out lie.
"Were you awake yesterday?" Unless you were awake for a 24 hour period, you cannot answer yes or no. Even then, which "yesterday" are they using - what time zone?
Context matters. Pretending otherwise is absolutely and without caveats incorrect.
edit: So now you're accusing me of not meeting the Tenets?
Please, define the word "a" in the BRB please. Cite page number.
Q: Were you awake yesterday? A: context
No it doesn't work there either.
Are you stating that by simply posting the word "context. you really meant "In what context are you refering?" Even then it wouldn't hold up, as the question stood on it's own.
The Example doesn't even work! For many reasons. If you are awake at all in a given day, then you were awake. Yesterday is the day preceding this day. The time zone wouldn't matter at all.
Now, if I were to ask someone if they were awake yesterday and they asked for context, I would immediately suspect. 1) The person was being puposely obtuse 2) the person shouldn't be allowed out of their house without a protective helmet 3) Both 1 and 2. This is true for other questions as well. CAT
Automatically Appended Next Post: rigeld2 wrote:I answered the question in the post you quoted. Please don't ignore that any further. I'm beginning to think you're trolling.
How could I be trolling you? I posted on this thread before you did. Kinda hard to troll behind someone when you're out in front.
66727
Post by: OIIIIIIO
 Idolator wrote:easysauce wrote:
both dread naught types in codex GK have the special rule pg 35 GK "reinforced aegis:psychic test leadership penalties caused by The Aegis are increased to -4 if the target of the psychic power is within 12" of the Dreadnought (or is the Dreadnought itself)"
so the venerable dread also has a special rule, that refers to it specifically as a Dreadnaught (this is a rule, not fluff)
as for context, all the dreadnaught rules are in the context of each other, you cannot get more contextual then "on the same page, in the same section, listed under the same title.
just like every single rule that applies to "grey knights" would useless on models with the composition "terminator" "purifier" ect?
there are more examples, but like i said your just ignoring all this already for some reason
just the aegis rule alone referring to a venerable dread as a "Dreadnaught" should be enough
now, please show where it says that a venerable dread is NOT a dread?
There really is no point to keep going on. We know that Ven and Iron are both Dreads. Unless you like seeing someone twist themselves in knots trying to prove a point that can't be made.
It's hard to argue with someone that thinks the definition of CAT is.... cat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote:Give context to the question then. Saying "Context" is not an answer is a flat out lie.
"Were you awake yesterday?" Unless you were awake for a 24 hour period, you cannot answer yes or no. Even then, which "yesterday" are they using - what time zone?
Context matters. Pretending otherwise is absolutely and without caveats incorrect.
edit: So now you're accusing me of not meeting the Tenets?
Please, define the word "a" in the BRB please. Cite page number.
Q: Were you awake yesterday? A: context
No it doesn't work there either.
Are you stating that by simply posting the word "context. you really meant "In what context are you refering?" Even then it wouldn't hold up, as the question stood on it's own.
The Example doesn't even work! For many reasons. If you are awake at all in a given day, then you were awake. Yesterday is the day preceding this day. The time zone wouldn't matter at all.
Now, if I were to ask someone if they were awake yesterday and they asked for context, I would immediately suspect. 1) The person was being puposely obtuse 2) the person shouldn't be allowed out of their house without a protective helmet 3) Both 1 and 2. This is true for other questions as well. CAT
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote:I answered the question in the post you quoted. Please don't ignore that any further. I'm beginning to think you're trolling.
How could I be trolling you? I posted on this thread before you did. Kinda hard to troll behind someone when you're out in front.
Thats how we go trolling ... I get in the FRONT of the boat, throw the fishin' line out, turn on the TROLLING motor and ..... troll.
I can not believe that a Dreadnought may or may not be a dreadnought.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
easysauce wrote:
both dread naught types in codex GK have the special rule pg 35 GK "reinforced aegis:psychic test leadership penalties caused by The Aegis are increased to -4 if the target of the psychic power is within 12" of the Dreadnought (or is the Dreadnought itself)"
so the venerable dread also has a special rule, that refers to it specifically as a Dreadnaught (this is a rule, not fluff)
No, Reinforced Aegis just doesn't work on the Venerable. Just like Warp Field had to be FAQed for the Doom of Malantai, and all the other Tyranid Special models with their respective abilities.
as for context, all the dreadnaught rules are in the context of each other, you cannot get more contextual then "on the same page, in the same section, listed under the same title.
Um. "What context is the word "Dreadnought" read in when reading the Storm Raven Transport rule?" Would be the accurate question, not what you're trying to answer.
there are more examples, but like i said your just ignoring all this already for some reason
I'm not. I've responded to that straw man tangent already.
just the aegis rule alone referring to a venerable dread as a "Dreadnaught" should be enough
Given that GW felt the need to FAQ that literal exact same situation for Tyranids, it actually undermines your argument. Thanks for bringing it up!
now, please show where it says that a venerable dread is NOT a dread?
Wrong way around, friend.
there is not weapon entry for "bolter"
only "bolt gun"
I see you only saw fit to respond to his post that contained an error, and not the follow up that was 100% accurate. Automatically Appended Next Post: Idolator wrote:It's hard to argue with someone that thinks the definition of CAT is.... cat.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote:Give context to the question then. Saying "Context" is not an answer is a flat out lie.
"Were you awake yesterday?" Unless you were awake for a 24 hour period, you cannot answer yes or no. Even then, which "yesterday" are they using - what time zone?
Context matters. Pretending otherwise is absolutely and without caveats incorrect.
edit: So now you're accusing me of not meeting the Tenets?
Please, define the word "a" in the BRB please. Cite page number.
Q: Were you awake yesterday? A: context
No it doesn't work there either.
Are you stating that by simply posting the word "context. you really meant "In what context are you refering?" Even then it wouldn't hold up, as the question stood on it's own.
It absolutely does not stand on its own.
The Example doesn't even work! For many reasons. If you are awake at all in a given day, then you were awake. Yesterday is the day preceding this day. The time zone wouldn't matter at all.
If you answer, "Yes." without qualification, you are stating you were awake for all of yesterday. And of course the opposite for answering, "No."
Now, if I were to ask someone if they were awake yesterday and they asked for context, I would immediately suspect. 1) The person was being puposely obtuse 2) the person shouldn't be allowed out of their house without a protective helmet 3) Both 1 and 2. This is true for other questions as well. CAT
So if they said, "What time?" they shouldn't be allowed out of the house and need a special hat?
That's interesting. Mind if I go back through your posts on this board and apply that logic to you?
rigeld2 wrote:I answered the question in the post you quoted. Please don't ignore that any further. I'm beginning to think you're trolling.
How could I be trolling you? I posted on this thread before you did. Kinda hard to troll behind someone when you're out in front.
Yeah, you keep thinking that, friend.
I see you haven't answered my post with my actual argument yet (unless I missed it). Would you mind doing so?
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote: I see you haven't answered my post with my actual argument yet (unless I missed it). Would you mind doing so?
What was your last argument? I've not missed responding to anything that you've posted. You may want to look again.
Was it the unit entry has no bearing on this discussion or your later argument that the the discussion is entirely based on the unit entry? Or was it something else?
Or was it something along the lines of : If you ask someone if they ate dinner yesterday and they said yes, that would mean that they had eaten dinner for a 24 hour period?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
rigeld2 wrote:So when I ask:
Can a Dreadnought have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?
You cannot answer yes or no, even if I point out the codex entry? As you've stated the only possible definition is all Dreadnoughts.
This one.
Edit: And I haven't waffled like you're accusing me. You not being able to follow my argument does not mean I'm waffling.
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote:[ find the non dreadnaught unit entry for ironclads or venerables,
If unit entry mattered one iota I'd care.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote:Dreadnaught is not a Unit Type (That'd be Vehicle, Walker).
Dreadnaught, as fluff, is generic.
When used in the Transport rules for a Storm Raven are we directed to look at fluff? I don't believe so - please let me know if I missed any indication.
Dreadnaught as defined on page 65 C: SM is a unit with a specific Composition.
What's the Unit Composition of a Venerable Dreadnaught?
.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Do you understand the differences between Unit Type, Unit Entry, and Unit Composition?
Edit: I'm not asking to imply anything, I'm asking because what you're quoting isn't showing anything about the unit entry mattering.
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote:Edit: And I haven't waffled like you're accusing me. You not being able to follow my argument does not mean I'm waffling.
If by claiming that you didn't waffle, I assume you mean that you didn't make a flour batter breaskfast food on a special heated iron. Automatically Appended Next Post: rigeld2 wrote:Do you understand the differences between Unit Type, Unit Entry, and Unit Composition?
Edit: I'm not asking to imply anything, I'm asking because what you're quoting isn't showing anything about the unit entry mattering.
I'm not sure that you do, the unit entry, as established earlier in this thread. Is pg 65.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:Do you understand the differences between Unit Type, Unit Entry, and Unit Composition?
Edit: I'm not asking to imply anything, I'm asking because what you're quoting isn't showing anything about the unit entry mattering.
I'm not sure that you do, the unit entry, as established earlier in this thread. Is pg 65.
And I'm curious - what on page 65 actually matters?
You're using it for your argument, and therefore I'm using it in my argument (to prove you wrong) but I don't need it.
So would you mind answering my question?
Can a Dreadnought be equipped with 2 Twin Linked Autocannons?
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:Do you understand the differences between Unit Type, Unit Entry, and Unit Composition?
Edit: I'm not asking to imply anything, I'm asking because what you're quoting isn't showing anything about the unit entry mattering.
I'm not sure that you do, the unit entry, as established earlier in this thread. Is pg 65.
And I'm curious - what on page 65 actually matters?
You're using it for your argument, and therefore I'm using it in my argument (to prove you wrong) but I don't need it.
So would you mind answering my question?
Can a Dreadnought be equipped with 2 Twin Linked Autocannons?
Yes
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Cool, ill make sure and equip my Ironclads like that next game I play. Thanks for clarifying!
Hey, can you tell me how many points that is? My Codex doesn't show that option but you've assured me it'll work.
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote:Cool, ill make sure and equip my Ironclads like that next game I play. Thanks for clarifying!
Hey, can you tell me how many points that is? My Codex doesn't show that option but you've assured me it'll work.
What assurnces did I give? There you go ascribing things that I did not say.
It's not my fault that think that your codex is broken. go out and buy 27 more just to be sure that they concur.
Make sure to equip all of you Space Marines with 2+ armor and a servo harness.
Edit. you've been waiting an entire day to spring that. It wasn't funny the way you expected. It was funny, just not the way that you expected. The truly funny part is... You won't even know what I'm talking about.
I'll give a hint. It's the diference between "at" and "with".
Let's take a poll: Post "at" or "with".
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Idolator wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:Do you understand the differences between Unit Type, Unit Entry, and Unit Composition?
Edit: I'm not asking to imply anything, I'm asking because what you're quoting isn't showing anything about the unit entry mattering.
I'm not sure that you do, the unit entry, as established earlier in this thread. Is pg 65.
And I'm curious - what on page 65 actually matters?
You're using it for your argument, and therefore I'm using it in my argument (to prove you wrong) but I don't need it.
So would you mind answering my question?
Can a Dreadnought be equipped with 2 Twin Linked Autocannons?
Yes
This post assured me I can equip a Dreadnought with 2 Twin Linked Autocannons.
According to you, the definition of "Dreadnought" is one of 3 different units.
Since context is a forbidden word and you asked for no clarification, obviously any Dreadnought can be equipped with 2 Twin Linked Autocannons.
Or perhaps "Dreadnought" is not a single definition?
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote:
So would you mind answering my question?
Can a Dreadnought be equipped with 2 Twin Linked Autocannons?
Yes
This post assured me I can equip a Dreadnought with 2 Twin Linked Autocannons.
According to you, the definition of "Dreadnought" is one of 3 different units.
Since context is a forbidden word and you asked for no clarification, obviously any Dreadnought can be equipped with 2 Twin Linked Autocannons.
Or perhaps "Dreadnought" is not a single definition?
Nope....a=b a=c a=d , b=/=c b=/=d , c=/=d.
nuff said.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Since I'm still missing what you mean, would you please elaborate and honor the rest of us by allowing us to bask in your brilliance? Automatically Appended Next Post: Idolator wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
So would you mind answering my question?
Can a Dreadnought be equipped with 2 Twin Linked Autocannons?
Yes
This post assured me I can equip a Dreadnought with 2 Twin Linked Autocannons.
According to you, the definition of "Dreadnought" is one of 3 different units.
Since context is a forbidden word and you asked for no clarification, obviously any Dreadnought can be equipped with 2 Twin Linked Autocannons.
Or perhaps "Dreadnought" is not a single definition?
Nope....a=/=b, b=/=c, c=a.
nuff said.
Except the word "Dreadnought" can only ever mean "3 different units" according to you.
So "Dreadnought" can always mean "Ironclad Dreadnought" so the army list entry for "Dreadnought" must be allowed to be used for "Ironclad Dreadnought" as well.
And seriously, hitting quote and replying isnt that hard.
37426
Post by: Idolator
Nope....a=/=b, b=/=c, c=a.
nuff said.
Except the word "Dreadnought" can only ever mean "3 different units" according to you.
So "Dreadnought" can always mean "Ironclad Dreadnought" so the army list entry for "Dreadnought" must be allowed to be used for "Ironclad Dreadnought" as well.
And seriously, hitting quote and replying isnt that hard.
Dreadnought means an infinite amount of units with the word Dreadnought in them.
And serioulsy, using good sense and manners isn't that hard.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Idolator wrote:
Nope....a=/=b, b=/=c, c=a.
nuff said.
Except the word "Dreadnought" can only ever mean "3 different units" according to you.
So "Dreadnought" can always mean "Ironclad Dreadnought" so the army list entry for "Dreadnought" must be allowed to be used for "Ironclad Dreadnought" as well.
And seriously, hitting quote and replying isnt that hard.
Dreadnought means an infinite amount of units with the word Dreadnought in them.
And serioulsy, using good sense and manners isn't that hard.
I've used good manners and tried to explain the quoting to you. Multiple times. The mistakes being made now must be purposeful (I can tell because I'm correcting them and you're removing [ quote ] tags to break things).
That's an interesting assertion. If it means all of those, then any option an Ironclad Dreadnought has can be taken on a Dreadnought?
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote:I've used good manners and tried to explain the quoting to you. Multiple times. The mistakes being made now must be purposeful (I can tell because I'm correcting them and you're removing [ quote ] tags to break things).
That's an interesting assertion. If it means all of those, then any option an Ironclad Dreadnought has can be taken on a Dreadnought?
Nah, not purposeful, I really don't get it. I don't post over 9,000 time in 18 months. I didn't even know that I was removing anything. This is not intuitive!
And my assertion is not interesting (it is, but not in the frame of whcih you put it.). I corrected my post and changed it to this.
A=B A=C A=D, B=/=C B=/=D, C=/=D
There.
If you need me to break it down further. number= 1,2,3 1=/=2 1=/=3, 2=/=3.
There is a much more complex algebraic equation that coul dbe put here. But, seriously, why bother, You insist that a single word is a definition.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Right, so Ironclad Dreadnought == Dreadnought.
That means that they're equal.
That means Dreadnought == Ironclad Dreadnought, right?
You're not arguing super/sub sets, you're arguing equalities.
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote:Right, so Ironclad Dreadnought == Dreadnought.
That means that they're equal.
That means Dreadnought == Ironclad Dreadnought, right?
You're not arguing super/sub sets, you're arguing equalities.
Nope, you got it wrong. False attribtions again. Take a math class. And make sure to pick up the remaining 26 codexes that you need.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
If A = B, B must = A.
Which is exactly what I said in my post, and you said that's wrong.
Congrats on quoting correctly btw!
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote:If A = B, B must = A.
Which is exactly what I said in my post, and you said that's wrong.
Congrats on quoting correctly btw!
That is not what you stated.
Breaking it down in an even simpler form.
Dreadnought= Venerable Dreadnought, Dreadnought=Dreadnought, Dreadnought= Ironclad Dreadnought. Venerable Dreadnough=/=Dreadnought , Venerable Dreadnought=/= Ironclad Dreadnought, Dreadnought=/=Ironclad Dreadnought
Here's another case: Space Marine=Techmarine, Space Marine= Scout Sergeant, Space Marine=Space Marine. Techmarine=/=Scout Sergeant, Techmarine =/= Spacemarine, Scout Sergeant =/= Space Marine.
Thanks. And congratulations on showing some semblance of civility.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
You chaps should have a look at set theory, though I'm not sure GW studied it before they designed the rules.
Anyway, please be polite when arguing.
19754
Post by: puma713
FWIW, the new Dark Angels Codex lists both the Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as Unit Composition: 1 Dreadnought.
37426
Post by: Idolator
 Kilkrazy wrote:You chaps should have a look at set theory, though I'm not sure GW studied it before they designed the rules.
Anyway, please be polite when arguing.
Honestly, I've tried. It is for only so long, that one can stand that slings and arrows, before throwing them back. I honestly can't believe that someone who has transgressed the tenets as much as this guy has over the last 3 days, has been active for over 18 months. Heck, I've reported him at least twice for insulting behavior. I assumed that his form of posting was allowed.
I don't post much. When I do, I'm serious about it. I come from how I see it. I don't argue to argue and when I'm wrong or mistaken, I admit it. Automatically Appended Next Post:  puma713 wrote:FWIW, the new Dark Angels Codex lists both the Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as Unit Composition: 1 Dreadnought.
I know...... And he knows.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
puma713 wrote:FWIW, the new Dark Angels Codex lists both the Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as Unit Composition: 1 Dreadnought.
Indicating that there is a difference between Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as far as Codex: SM is concerned
47462
Post by: rigeld2
That is not what you stated.
rigeld2 wrote:Right, so Ironclad Dreadnought == Dreadnought.
That means that they're equal.
That means Dreadnought == Ironclad Dreadnought, right?
You're not arguing super/sub sets, you're arguing equalities.
rigeld2 wrote:If A = B, B must = A.
Which is exactly what I said in my post, and you said that's wrong.
Let A = Ironclad Dreadnought.
Let B = Dreadnought.
I said that A=B and B=A. Literally, that's what I said.
Dreadnought= Ironclad Dreadnought, Dreadnought=/=Ironclad Dreadnought
And with that you cannot be correct.
Thanks. And congratulations on showing some semblance of civility.
Excuse me - which one of us has been patronizing, insisting that anyone with a certain idea is "special" and needs to wear a helmet, and has literally ignored an answer because they chose to? I'm done. Welcome to ignore.
41324
Post by: beigeknight
nosferatu1001 wrote: puma713 wrote:FWIW, the new Dark Angels Codex lists both the Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as Unit Composition: 1 Dreadnought.
Indicating that there is a difference between Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as far as Codex: SM is concerned
Isn't that also indicating that the C: SM is technically outdated? I mean, if a new C: SM came out tomorrow, it would likely be worded like the C  A and there would be no discussion necessary here since it would say that all dreadnoughts are dreadnoughts instead of being mostly obvious save for a select few. Which would be great, since this discussion is pretty pants-on-head....
47462
Post by: rigeld2
 beigeknight wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote: puma713 wrote:FWIW, the new Dark Angels Codex lists both the Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as Unit Composition: 1 Dreadnought.
Indicating that there is a difference between Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as far as Codex: SM is concerned
Isn't that also indicating that the C: SM is technically outdated? I mean, if a new C: SM came out tomorrow, it would likely be worded like the C A and there would be no discussion necessary here since it would say that all dreadnoughts are dreadnoughts instead of being mostly obvious save for a select few. Which would be great, since this discussion is pretty pants-on-head....
Also, C: BA lists them as "1 Dreadnought". C: GK lists them as "1 Venerable Dreadnought" and "1 Dreadnought" respectively. So no, it's not an issue of "outdatedness".
This exact (literally) same situation existed in the Codex: Tyranids - Doom of Malantai and Warp Field (specifies Zoanthropes), Ymgarl Genestealers and Brood Telepathy (specifies Genestealers), the Swarmlord and Hive Tyrant Psychic Powers, Old One Eye and Living Battering Ram (Specifies Carnifexes), Deathleaper and Chameleonic Skin/Pheormone Trail (specify Lictor).
Those units had to have an FAQ. Pretending that this situation is any different is just that - pretending.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
As above.
It isnt pants on head, it is trying to determine what the rules actually say, as opposed to what people think they say.
68355
Post by: easysauce
nosferatu1001 wrote: puma713 wrote:FWIW, the new Dark Angels Codex lists both the Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as Unit Composition: 1 Dreadnought.
Indicating that there is a difference between Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as far as Codex: SM is concerned
again, you completly ignore the FACT, on purpose I assume
that special rules for the reinforced Aegis, in both the venerable dreads description and Dreadnaughts,
refer to the unit they are on as specifically "Dreadnaught"
thats a "rule" not fluff, to break it is to break the rule.,
/thread
47462
Post by: rigeld2
easysauce wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote: puma713 wrote:FWIW, the new Dark Angels Codex lists both the Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as Unit Composition: 1 Dreadnought.
Indicating that there is a difference between Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as far as Codex: SM is concerned
again, you completly ignore the FACT, on purpose I assume
that special rules for the reinforced Aegis, in both the venerable dreads description and Dreadnaughts,
refer to the unit they are on as specifically "Dreadnaught"
thats a "rule" not fluff, to break it is to break the rule.,
/thread
This exact (literally) same situation existed in the Codex: Tyranids - Doom of Malantai and Warp Field (specifies Zoanthropes), Ymgarl Genestealers and Brood Telepathy (specifies Genestealers), the Swarmlord and Hive Tyrant Psychic Powers, Old One Eye and Living Battering Ram (Specifies Carnifexes), Deathleaper and Chameleonic Skin/Pheormone Trail (specify Lictor).
No, actually - that example is one I'm referring to when I say "exact (literally) same situation". Or perhaps you'd like to ignore the FAQ or explain how the situation is different?
41324
Post by: beigeknight
rigeld2 wrote: beigeknight wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote: puma713 wrote:FWIW, the new Dark Angels Codex lists both the Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as Unit Composition: 1 Dreadnought.
Indicating that there is a difference between Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as far as Codex: SM is concerned
Isn't that also indicating that the C: SM is technically outdated? I mean, if a new C: SM came out tomorrow, it would likely be worded like the C A and there would be no discussion necessary here since it would say that all dreadnoughts are dreadnoughts instead of being mostly obvious save for a select few. Which would be great, since this discussion is pretty pants-on-head....
Also, C: BA lists them as "1 Dreadnought". C: GK lists them as "1 Venerable Dreadnought" and "1 Dreadnought" respectively. So no, it's not an issue of "outdatedness".
This exact (literally) same situation existed in the Codex: Tyranids - Doom of Malantai and Warp Field (specifies Zoanthropes), Ymgarl Genestealers and Brood Telepathy (specifies Genestealers), the Swarmlord and Hive Tyrant Psychic Powers, Old One Eye and Living Battering Ram (Specifies Carnifexes), Deathleaper and Chameleonic Skin/Pheormone Trail (specify Lictor).
Those units had to have an FAQ. Pretending that this situation is any different is just that - pretending.
Would that mean that in a C: GK army list one could not use a Stormraven to transport a "Venerable Dreadnought"?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
beigeknight wrote:Would that mean that in a C: GK army list one could not use a Stormraven to transport a "Venerable Dreadnought"?
As written, yes.
As Intended it's obviously not correct and I don't know of anyone that would try to enforce RAW in this situation.
19754
Post by: puma713
rigeld2 wrote: beigeknight wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote: puma713 wrote:FWIW, the new Dark Angels Codex lists both the Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as Unit Composition: 1 Dreadnought.
Indicating that there is a difference between Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as far as Codex: SM is concerned
Isn't that also indicating that the C: SM is technically outdated? I mean, if a new C: SM came out tomorrow, it would likely be worded like the C A and there would be no discussion necessary here since it would say that all dreadnoughts are dreadnoughts instead of being mostly obvious save for a select few. Which would be great, since this discussion is pretty pants-on-head....
Also, C: BA lists them as "1 Dreadnought". C: GK lists them as "1 Venerable Dreadnought" and "1 Dreadnought" respectively. So no, it's not an issue of "outdatedness".
This exact (literally) same situation existed in the Codex: Tyranids - Doom of Malantai and Warp Field (specifies Zoanthropes), Ymgarl Genestealers and Brood Telepathy (specifies Genestealers), the Swarmlord and Hive Tyrant Psychic Powers, Old One Eye and Living Battering Ram (Specifies Carnifexes), Deathleaper and Chameleonic Skin/Pheormone Trail (specify Lictor).
Those units had to have an FAQ. Pretending that this situation is any different is just that - pretending.
The reason that Codex: BA and Codex: GK had to have them defined as 1 Dreadnought is because of the Stormraven, I would say. Codex: SM didn't have a Stormraven. So, their 5th Edition codex was plunged into a 6th Edition Compendium and we're expected to simply make it work.
Pure RAW, I agree with nosferatu and rigeld2. But the Dark Angel Codex clearly shows the intent of 6th Edition rules moving forward. And if we are to extrapolate what we know about the dreadnoughts from there and apply it to a codex that was written for 5th, given a new unit and updated for 6th, I think we can all see what the correct ruling would be.
rigeld2/ nos: Are you of the opinion that the new SM codex will be written differently than the new DA codex?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Easysauce - I have you on ignore, so I am ignoring you, not any facts you present, if I do not respond to you. I only know you quoted me because of Rigelds quoting of your response
Also given your "fact" is in "fact" the same issue Rigeld and I agree on, it only "/thread" on the "yay" side of the argument. There IS a difference between COdex Marine Dreadnoughts and Venerable Dreadnoughts, the same as between Doom and a normal Zoanthrope - the later required a FAQ, same as this does
41324
Post by: beigeknight
rigeld2 wrote: beigeknight wrote:Would that mean that in a C: GK army list one could not use a Stormraven to transport a "Venerable Dreadnought"?
As written, yes.
As Intended it's obviously not correct and I don't know of anyone that would try to enforce RAW in this situation.
With that being said we can agree that even though strict RAW says no, we all know what's intended and pretty much nobody would have an issue putting an Ironclad Dreadnought in the back of a Stormraven? I know the intention of this board is to viciously dissect RAW but like 7 pages of back and forth despite the fact that almost everyone agrees on the intent is what's pants-on-head here.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
puma713 wrote:rigeld2 wrote: beigeknight wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote: puma713 wrote:FWIW, the new Dark Angels Codex lists both the Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as Unit Composition: 1 Dreadnought.
Indicating that there is a difference between Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as far as Codex: SM is concerned
Isn't that also indicating that the C: SM is technically outdated? I mean, if a new C: SM came out tomorrow, it would likely be worded like the C A and there would be no discussion necessary here since it would say that all dreadnoughts are dreadnoughts instead of being mostly obvious save for a select few. Which would be great, since this discussion is pretty pants-on-head....
Also, C: BA lists them as "1 Dreadnought". C: GK lists them as "1 Venerable Dreadnought" and "1 Dreadnought" respectively. So no, it's not an issue of "outdatedness".
This exact (literally) same situation existed in the Codex: Tyranids - Doom of Malantai and Warp Field (specifies Zoanthropes), Ymgarl Genestealers and Brood Telepathy (specifies Genestealers), the Swarmlord and Hive Tyrant Psychic Powers, Old One Eye and Living Battering Ram (Specifies Carnifexes), Deathleaper and Chameleonic Skin/Pheormone Trail (specify Lictor).
Those units had to have an FAQ. Pretending that this situation is any different is just that - pretending.
The reason that Codex: BA and Codex: GK had to have them defined as 1 Dreadnought is because of the Stormraven, I would say. Codex: SM didn't have a Stormraven. So, their 5th Edition codex was plunged into a 6th Edition Compendium and we're expected to simply make it work.
GK and BA are not the same. BA uses "Dreadnought" as the UC for all the walkers, GK does not.
Pure RAW, I agree with nosferatu and rigeld2. But the Dark Angel Codex clearly shows the intent of 6th Edition rules moving forward. And if we are to extrapolate what we know about the dreadnoughts from there and apply it to a codex that was written for 5th, given a new unit and updated for 6th, I think we can all see what the correct ruling would be.
rigeld2/nos: Are you of the opinion that the new SM codex will be written differently than the new DA codex?
I doubt it. And I never disagreed that the RAI was obvious and said that I would never play that way.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Puma - I would expect something similar to the C A entry, unless they again feel the need to differentiate between the types of dreadnought by giving them a different classification, as they have done in the current book.
19754
Post by: puma713
rigeld2 wrote:puma713 wrote:
rigeld2/nos: Are you of the opinion that the new SM codex will be written differently than the new DA codex?
I doubt it. And I never disagreed that the RAI was obvious and said that I would never play that way.
I feel that this entire thread, then, is breaking Tenet 4 of YMDC. One side is arguing RAW while the other is arguing RAI. On this issue, those two planes shall never meet.
The OP has the answer: Stormravens in Codex: SM technically cannot carry any other dreadnought other than the vanilla Dreadnought, but other 5th Edition codices that contain Stormravens and the 6th Edition Dark Angels codex lend themselves to explain why they can moving forward. And applying a 6th Edition Compendium to a book written without knowledge of the Stormraven or 6th Edition forces us to make decisions about how to read the old material.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Well, only one half of the thread is breaking the tenet, as they are stating their position as "RAW" when no rules back their position up, and are not saying they are arguing RAI at any point
686
Post by: aka_mythos
rigeld2 wrote:If A = B, B must = A.
Which is exactly what I said in my post, and you said that's wrong.
Let A = Ironclad Dreadnought.
Let B = Dreadnought.
I said that A=B and B=A. Literally, that's what I said.
Dreadnought= Ironclad Dreadnought, Dreadnought=/=Ironclad Dreadnought
And with that you cannot be correct.
The failure of this analysis is that a venerable dreadnought is simply a dreadnought and more.
That is to say A=B+C. Where as long as A is a function of B and C, on occaision that C = 0, A=B, but not always.
The definition of a Dreadnought is broader than the definition of a Venerable dreadnought. To look at it another way, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square, and thus the statement that a rectangle is simply a four sided figure comprised of right angles holds true to both, even though they aren't equal. In that same way a Venerable Dreadnought can be a Dreadnought without being only a "Dreadnought."
47462
Post by: rigeld2
 aka_mythos wrote:rigeld2 wrote:rigeld2 wrote:If A = B, B must = A.
Which is exactly what I said in my post, and you said that's wrong.
Let A = Ironclad Dreadnought.
Let B = Dreadnought.
I said that A=B and B=A. Literally, that's what I said.
Dreadnought= Ironclad Dreadnought, Dreadnought=/=Ironclad Dreadnought
And with that you cannot be correct.
The failure of this analysis is that a venerable dreadnought is simply a dreadnought and more.
That is to say A=B+C. Where as long as A is a function of B and C, on occaision that C = 0, A=B, but not always.
The definition of a Dreadnought is broader than the definition of a Venerable dreadnought. To look at it another way, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square, and thus the statement that a rectangle is simply a four sided figure comprised of right angles holds true to both, even though they aren't equal. In that same way a Venerable Dreadnought can be a Dreadnought without being only a "Dreadnought."
And that's great.
That is explicitly not what he said. He stated equality. I understand what a super/subset is. He wasn't using that. Automatically Appended Next Post: puma713 wrote:rigeld2 wrote:puma713 wrote:
rigeld2/nos: Are you of the opinion that the new SM codex will be written differently than the new DA codex?
I doubt it. And I never disagreed that the RAI was obvious and said that I would never play that way.
I feel that this entire thread, then, is breaking Tenet 4 of YMDC. One side is arguing RAW while the other is arguing RAI. On this issue, those two planes shall never meet.
I agree. Except I was arguing RAW and he was asserting his point as RAW.
The OP has the answer: Stormravens in Codex: SM technically cannot carry any other dreadnought other than the vanilla Dreadnought, but other 5th Edition codices that contain Stormravens and the 6th Edition Dark Angels codex lend themselves to explain why they can moving forward. And applying a 6th Edition Compendium to a book written without knowledge of the Stormraven or 6th Edition forces us to make decisions about how to read the old material.
Well, this also breaks Drop Pods, and C: GK also breaks. So it's not an edition or codex issue - it's a wording issue.
68355
Post by: easysauce
nosferatu1001 wrote:Well, only one half of the thread is breaking the tenet, as they are stating their position as " RAW" when no rules back their position up, and are not saying they are arguing RAI at any point
That is a lie,
I have quoted several actual rules (re commisars vs lord commissars, orks ect)
and quoted the rules for Aegis, where it specifically refers to a venerable dreadnaught as a "Dreadnaught"
no rule has been quoted that proves a XXX dread is not a type of Dreadnaught
47462
Post by: rigeld2
easysauce wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:Well, only one half of the thread is breaking the tenet, as they are stating their position as " RAW" when no rules back their position up, and are not saying they are arguing RAI at any point
That is a lie,
I have quoted several actual rules (re commisars vs lord commissars, orks ect)
and quoted the rules for Aegis, where it specifically refers to a venerable dreadnaught as a "Dreadnaught"
no rule has been quoted that proves a XXX dread is not a type of Dreadnaught
The Reinforced Aegis rule does not refer to the Ven. Dread. as a "Dreadnought".
Just like the Brood Telepathy rule does not refer to Ymgarl Genestealers as "Genestealers".
You keep ignoring the fact that this literal exact situation required an FAQ for one book, and pretending that Dreadnoughts are special snowflakes with no rules support.
68355
Post by: easysauce
yes it does, venerable dread has the aegis rule,
the ageis rule refers to a Dreadnaught
46128
Post by: Happyjew
easysauce wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:Well, only one half of the thread is breaking the tenet, as they are stating their position as " RAW" when no rules back their position up, and are not saying they are arguing RAI at any point
That is a lie,
I have quoted several actual rules (re commisars vs lord commissars, orks ect)
and quoted the rules for Aegis, where it specifically refers to a venerable dreadnaught as a "Dreadnaught"
no rule has been quoted that proves a XXX dread is not a type of Dreadnaught
And from a strict RAW standpoint, Reinforced Aegis does nothing for Venerable Dreadnoughts. The same way that Warp Field did nothing for the Doom of Malan'tai, pre- FAQ. Automatically Appended Next Post: easysauce wrote:yes it does, venerable dread has the aegis rule,
the ageis rule refers to a Dreadnaught
The Doom of Malan'tai has the Warp Field special rule. The Warp Field special rule refers to Zoanthropes. A FAQ was required to clarify that the Doom was a Zoanthrope for that purpose. Where is the FAQ clarifying that a Venerable Dreadnought is a Dreadnought for the purposes of Transports and Reinforced Aegis?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
easysauce wrote:yes it does, venerable dread has the aegis rule,
the ageis rule refers to a Dreadnaught
I understand that.
Why are you ignoring an exact duplicate situation? The fact that the rule refers to Dreadnought means the rule does not function for anything that is not "Dreadnought". Exactly like Warp Field, Living Battering Ram, Brood Telepathy, and Hive Tyrant Psychic Powers.
37426
Post by: Idolator
Happyjew wrote:
And from a strict RAW standpoint, Reinforced Aegis does nothing for Venerable Dreadnoughts. The same way that Warp Field did nothing for the Doom of Malan'tai, pre- FAQ.
If this is the point of reasoning, then Codex:Orks only contains one unit of Orks, and the entire Codex is unplayable.
Nob Bikers and Space Marine HQ units on bikes are allowed to embark on transports. Their unit type is listed as infantry.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Idolator wrote: Happyjew wrote:
And from a strict RAW standpoint, Reinforced Aegis does nothing for Venerable Dreadnoughts. The same way that Warp Field did nothing for the Doom of Malan'tai, pre- FAQ.
If this is the point of reasoning, then Codex:Orks only contains one unit of Orks, and the entire Codex is unplayable.
Nob Bikers and Space Marine HQ units on bikes are allowed to embark on transports. Their unit type is listed as infantry.
Except for the rules for Warbike specifically says to change troop type to Bike.
65120
Post by: ace101
Happyjew wrote: easysauce wrote:yes it does, venerable dread has the aegis rule, the ageis rule refers to a Dreadnaught
The Doom of Malan'tai has the Warp Field special rule. The Warp Field special rule refers to Zoanthropes. A FAQ was required to clarify that the Doom was a Zoanthrope for that purpose. Where is the FAQ clarifying that a Venerable Dreadnought is a Dreadnought for the purposes of Transports and Reinforced Aegis?
Would it be common sense to assume the Doom is a Zoanthrope? What in the fluff for it made you assume its a different thing other than a zoanthrope. By the description of it in the fluff, i can very safely assume it is a zoanthrope. Besides, if it has a special rule that refers to a unit, didn't GW intend to make the Doom the unit the rule refers to? Since it was not expressly printed in the description that it was zoanthrope do you automatically assume that it needs an FAQ to define what it is; JUST READ THE FREAKING SPECIAL RULE, IT SAYS FOR ZOANTHROPES!!!!!! All of that saying if the Venerable dread has a rule that pertains to dreads about transports, then yes it is a dread that can be transported.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
 ace101 wrote: Happyjew wrote:
easysauce wrote:yes it does, venerable dread has the aegis rule,
the ageis rule refers to a Dreadnaught
The Doom of Malan'tai has the Warp Field special rule. The Warp Field special rule refers to Zoanthropes. A FAQ was required to clarify that the Doom was a Zoanthrope for that purpose. Where is the FAQ clarifying that a Venerable Dreadnought is a Dreadnought for the purposes of Transports and Reinforced Aegis?
Would it be common sense to assume the Doom is a Zoanthrope? What in the fluff for it made you assume its a different thing other than a zoanthrope. By the description of it in the fluff, i can very safely assume it is a zoanthrope. Besides, if it has a special rule that refers to a unit, didn't GW intend to make the Doom the unit the rule refers to? Since it was not expressly printed in the description that it was zoanthrope do you automatically assume that it needs an FAQ to define what it is; JUST READ THE FREAKING SPECIAL RULE, IT SAYS FOR ZOANTHROPES!!!!!!
All of that saying if the Venerable dread has a rule that pertains to dreads about transports, then yes it is a dread that can be transported.
A special rule saying that it works on Zoanthropes does not mean that anything that has that special rule is a Zoanthrope.
And yes - common sense tells me what the Intended rule is. Does that change what's Written?
edit: Also, the Ven. Dread. has no rule that pertains to dreads about transports.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
ace101 wrote: Happyjew wrote:
easysauce wrote:yes it does, venerable dread has the aegis rule,
the ageis rule refers to a Dreadnaught
The Doom of Malan'tai has the Warp Field special rule. The Warp Field special rule refers to Zoanthropes. A FAQ was required to clarify that the Doom was a Zoanthrope for that purpose. Where is the FAQ clarifying that a Venerable Dreadnought is a Dreadnought for the purposes of Transports and Reinforced Aegis?
Would it be common sense to assume the Doom is a Zoanthrope? What in the fluff for it made you assume its a different thing other than a zoanthrope. By the description of it in the fluff, i can very safely assume it is a zoanthrope. Besides, if it has a special rule that refers to a unit, didn't GW intend to make the Doom the unit the rule refers to? Since it was not expressly printed in the description that it was zoanthrope do you automatically assume that it needs an FAQ to define what it is; JUST READ THE FREAKING SPECIAL RULE, IT SAYS FOR ZOANTHROPES!!!!!!
Who said anything about common sense or fluff? Everybody who has read the codex knows that the Doom is a Zoanthrope for fluff reason, however, except in certain specific cases, fluff =/= rules.
37426
Post by: Idolator
Happyjew wrote: Idolator wrote: Happyjew wrote:
And from a strict RAW standpoint, Reinforced Aegis does nothing for Venerable Dreadnoughts. The same way that Warp Field did nothing for the Doom of Malan'tai, pre- FAQ.
If this is the point of reasoning, then Codex:Orks only contains one unit of Orks, and the entire Codex is unplayable.
Nob Bikers and Space Marine HQ units on bikes are allowed to embark on transports. Their unit type is listed as infantry.
Except for the rules for Warbike specifically says to change troop type to Bike.
One could argue that rule is listed for a diferent unit, I wont though. The SpaceMarine commanders still holds.
Plus, the Imperial Guard Codex doesn't contain any Sentinels. There is a unit entry for Sentinels but no unit in the Unit Profiles listed as Sentinel. And Codex: Orks still only contains one unit with Orks in it. That Ork issue completely breaks the entire codex.
The Heavybolter/bolter argument holds no water, as the precedent is for subsets of MODELS/UNITS of a certain type (genestealers and what ever) not weapons.
68355
Post by: easysauce
the FAQ on zoanthropes does not change the rules,
it simply clairfies, for people who are not reading them properly,
the proper reading of the rules,
it was not unclear about zoanthropes, nor is it unclear about dreads,
at least to those who are reading properly,
The FAQ changed nothing, FAQ's are not changes to rules, they are just frequently asked questions, and their answers are not changes to the rules, they are just spelling out the correct interpretation for those who are unable to properly interpret said rules
otherwise GW has to FAQ every single codex, guard, orks, SM, GK, ect
and state that the "terminators" in a GK term squad are grey knights, so they benifit from aegis ect
state that boys are orks, so they benifit from waaaagh
47462
Post by: rigeld2
easysauce wrote:FAQ's are not changes to rules, they are just frequently asked questions, and their answers are not changes to the rules, they are just spelling out the correct interpretation for those who are unable to properly interprest said rules
And that's absolutely and demonstrably false.
68355
Post by: easysauce
rigeld2 wrote:easysauce wrote:FAQ's are not changes to rules, they are just frequently asked questions, and their answers are not changes to the rules, they are just spelling out the correct interpretation for those who are unable to properly interprest said rules
And that's absolutely and demonstrably false.
you deny that FAQ's are frequently asked querstions as well?
only amendmants to the rules actually change them,
FAQ's simply answer questions officially, spelling out what an EXISTING rule means, they do not change the rule, they simply prevent the wrong interpretaion of the rule from being used
from GW
"What Are Amendments, Errata and FAQs?
It's helpful to people's understanding of these documents that we provide a clear distinction between Errata and FAQs.
Errata provide corrections to the errors that sometimes creep into our books. It is important to note that Errata carry the same 'authority' as the main rules and permanently modify published material; where one of our books says one thing and the errata changes this to something else, the errata takes precedence as the 'correct' version of that material.
Amendments are changes made to our rules in order to make them work within a new context; the most common example would be when a new core rulebook is released which then has a knock-on effect of invalidating existing material. They are not designed to fix newly created weaknesses or shortfalls, but simply to ensure that no rule, unit, item of equipment or whatever else is left incompatible with the current edition of the game.
FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation."
47462
Post by: rigeld2
easysauce wrote:rigeld2 wrote:easysauce wrote:FAQ's are not changes to rules, they are just frequently asked questions, and their answers are not changes to the rules, they are just spelling out the correct interpretation for those who are unable to properly interprest said rules
And that's absolutely and demonstrably false.
you deny that FAQ's are frequently asked querstions as well?
only amendmants to the rules actually change them,
FAQ's simple answer questions officially
The Shadows in the Warp FAQ proves that they can change rules.
The recent Out of Range question proves that they can change rules.
There's more, but those are trivial to prove.
68355
Post by: easysauce
except plenty of people played that way before the FAQ's on range ect because they can properly interpret the rules,
GW simply officially stated that was the official interpretation of the rule, they did not change the rule, or it would be an errata/amendmant
you are contradicting GW,
GW is the authority here, not you
47462
Post by: rigeld2
easysauce wrote:except plenty of people played that way before the FAQ's on range ect because they can properly interpret the rules,
The current ruling is not an "interpretation" of the rules. It directly contradicts them. There were multiple threads out when that FAQ came down.
GW simply officially stated that was the official interpretation of the rule, they did not change the rule, or it would be an errata/amendmant
Again, demonstrably false.
Shadow in the Warp. GW FAQed it to not have any effect on Psykers inside vehicles. They then reversed this ruling and said it does work on Psykers inside vehicles.
One of those cannot be an "interpretation" and must be a rule change.
GW is the authority here, not you
I've never claimed to be. I'm simply stating facts.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
The Shadows in the Warp ERRATA proves that they can change rules.
The recent Out of Range question CLARIFIES the existing rule, it in no way changes the rule (although the "clarification" on Nemesis Force Falchions could be considered a change, as it goes against the rules as written).
SJ
68355
Post by: easysauce
no you are not,
you are falsey claiming that FAQ's change rules, they do NOT as GW states
they are only the correct interpretation of existing rules (again as GW says, you state FAQ's change rules in direct contradition to what GW says about FAQ's)
erratas and amendmants change rules, As GW states
shadow in the warp was an ERRATA, not an FAQ, those terms are not interchangable as you presume,
GW specifically defines errata amendmant and FAQ as I have posted above, and specifically states that FAQ's do not change rules, only provide the official interpretaion of existing ones
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Awesome, so you ignored the reference I'm making. For reference, I'm not talking about the change from rolling 3d6 to adding a d6.
I'm talking about this question:
Tyranid FAQ wrote:Q: Does Shadow in the Warp affect psykers who are taking a Psychic
test whilst embarked within a transport vehicle? (p33)
A: Yes.
Prior to February of last year, that read "A: No."
The recent Out of Range question CLARIFIES the existing rule, it in no way changes the rule (although the "clarification" on Nemesis Force Falchions could be considered a change, as it goes against the rules as written).
No, it absolutely does change a rule. And seriously - you're going to pretend that something that goes against the RAW "could be considered" a change? How is directly contradicting the rules not a change?
68355
Post by: easysauce
again rigel, you are stating that your opinion is more correct then what GW wrote on their FAQ section about what an FAQ is
that may be ok for RAI or HIWPI
but RAW is that FAQ's only clarify existing rules
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote:easysauce wrote:FAQ's are not changes to rules, they are just frequently asked questions, and their answers are not changes to the rules, they are just spelling out the correct interpretation for those who are unable to properly interprest said rules
And that's absolutely and demonstrably false.
How is this demostrably false. Here's the GW website disclaimer.
What Are Amendments, Errata and FAQs?
It's helpful to people's understanding of these documents that we provide a clear distinction between Errata and FAQs.
Errata provide corrections to the errors that sometimes creep into our books. It is important to note that Errata carry the same 'authority' as the main rules and permanently modify published material; where one of our books says one thing and the errata changes this to something else, the errata takes precedence as the 'correct' version of that material.
Amendments are changes made to our rules in order to make them work within a new context; the most common example would be when a new core rulebook is released which then has a knock-on effect of invalidating existing material. They are not designed to fix newly created weaknesses or shortfalls, but simply to ensure that no rule, unit, item of equipment or whatever else is left incompatible with the current edition of the game.
FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation.
Errata are changes to a rules wording. FAQ's are not, they are clarifications on how a rule, as read, should be read. Automatically Appended Next Post: rigeld2 wrote:
Awesome, so you ignored the reference I'm making. For reference, I'm not talking about the change from rolling 3d6 to adding a d6.
I'm talking about this question:
Tyranid FAQ wrote:Q: Does Shadow in the Warp affect psykers who are taking a Psychic
test whilst embarked within a transport vehicle? (p33)
A: Yes.
Prior to February of last year, that read "A: No."
You mean they changed an answer to a rules question after they came out with a new set of rules?????
47462
Post by: rigeld2
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.)
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
The point is FaQ's sometimes do change rules.
Look at the Blood Angels FaQ it states "Page 60, 96 - Demolisher Cannon. The demolisher cannon should have the type “Ordnance 1, Large Blast.”" (Page 1 of the FaQ)
This is a change from the Codex that states the demolisher cannon is "24 inch range Str 10 AP 1, Ordnance 1." Page 96 BA codex.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
To be fair, that's under Errata, not FAQ.
37426
Post by: Idolator
rigeld2 wrote:
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.)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but stating that a answer is now diferent from what it said in February of 2012 doesn't tell the reader when the answer was changed. I would require proof of when it was changed.
So now the argument has turned to "What GW states has no bearing on what GW states" This confuses me to no end. If we can't trust the official statements of GW that they post online then the entire Shrine of Knowledge must be discounted.
68355
Post by: easysauce
DeathReaper wrote:The point is FaQ's sometimes do change rules.
Look at the Blood Angels FaQ it states "Page 60, 96 - Demolisher Cannon. The demolisher cannon should have the type “Ordnance 1, Large Blast.”" (Page 1 of the FaQ)
This is a change from the Codex that states the demolisher cannon is "24 inch range Str 10 AP 1, Ordnance 1." Page 96 BA codex.
while it is easy to mistake the first page of the pdf with the FAQ on it for the FAQ, there are errata, then amendmants then FAQ in the PDF
in actuality DR, the Page 60, 96 – Demolisher Cannon.
The demolisher cannon should have the type “Ordnance 1,
Large Blast.”
is under the errata part, not the FAQ part
further backing up what I, and GW have stated, that FAQ's do not change rules, only provitde the official interpretation of them
again rigel,
while you may say that the FAQ changes rules,
GW says they do not,
guess who is the authority?
37426
Post by: Idolator
DeathReaper wrote:The point is FaQ's sometimes do change rules.
Look at the Blood Angels FaQ it states "Page 60, 96 - Demolisher Cannon. The demolisher cannon should have the type “Ordnance 1, Large Blast.”" (Page 1 of the FaQ)
This is a change from the Codex that states the demolisher cannon is "24 inch range Str 10 AP 1, Ordnance 1." Page 96 BA codex.
This is not a FAQ, That is under the heading Errata. I recently learned that errata means "errors". I was curious.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Well that's true, bad example, but: Q: If a Magna-grapple hits a zooming flyer, does the Grapple special rule work as normal? (p61) A: No. (Page 5 BA FaQ). That one is under FaQ and a change to the rules. Therefore FaQ's sometimes do change rules.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Official Interpretations are rules, correct?
It has been demonstrated that they change Official Interpretations in FAQs. Correct?
68355
Post by: easysauce
your arguement makes no sense,
you are just, falsely, stating again that FAQ's are rules, or changes to the rules
rigeld2 wrote:Official Interpretations are rules, correct? (incorrect, FAQ's are FAQ's using your logic that the definition of CAT is cat, or Dreadnaught is dreadnaught, GW states the FAQ's are official interpretations of the rules, not changes to them, chagnes are coverd in amendmants and errata)
It has been demonstrated that they change Official Interpretations in FAQs. Correct? (they also change the whole rule book every so often, like changin unit compositions to reflect changes in rules (as in codex BA, ect where all dreads are unit composition "dreadnaught" the fact that GW changes things at times, does not matter, what GW says, is. End of story)
37426
Post by: Idolator
DeathReaper wrote:
Well that's true, bad example, but:
Q: If a Magna-grapple hits a zooming flyer, does the Grapple special rule work as normal? (p61)
A: No. (Page 5 BA FaQ).
That one is under FaQ and a change to the rules. Therefore FaQ's sometimes do change rules.
That is only the companies official position. It doesn't actualy change the wording of the rule. They are conveying that the magnagraple was not intended to work in this fashion. But yes, to somewhat paraphrasse your point, FAQ's do change how the game is played. Because players accept FAQ answers as cannon. They are essentialy GW house rules.
That being said. If a FAQ is considered cannon. It would also be cannon that Ironclad Dreads are Dreadnoughts.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Right, That is only the companies official position, and a change to how the rules are written. easysauce wrote:you are just, falsely, stating again that FAQ's are rules, or changes to the rules
Did you miss my post: Q: If a Magna-grapple hits a zooming flyer, does the Grapple special rule work as normal? (p61) A: No. (Page 5 BA FaQ). That one is under FaQ and a change to the rules. Therefore FaQ's sometimes do change rules.
42985
Post by: liturgies of blood
In 5th they changed how a TWC modifies toughness so that a S8 weapon couldn't ID a TW lord.
That was a complete break with modifiers in 5th and changed a rule.
37426
Post by: Idolator
DeathReaper wrote:Right, That is only the companies official position, and a change to how the rules are written.
No, it doesn't change how a rule is written. Only Errata and amendments change how a rule is written. The FAQ is an official position on how they should be considered. The wording of rules remain the same.
You don't have to accept FAQ's as rules. The fact that most people do, does not require that you have to. Errata and Amendments are official changes.
45521
Post by: Sir_Prometheus
I was a little strcuk by this. The poll reads, atm, 93-7. That to me, means there is no argument, it is about as unanimous as an opinion ever gets on the internet.
Sooooooo.......why 9 pages?
37426
Post by: Idolator
Was that an Errata, Amendment or a FAQ? The placement of the statement makes all the difference.
42985
Post by: liturgies of blood
Idolator wrote:
Was that an Errata, Amendment or a FAQ? The placement of the statement makes all the difference.
This was a question. It fundamentally changed how a TW Lord's stats were written. It was 5 instead of 4(5) or whatever, that was a change to the rules.
Sometimes a question changes the rules. Like the scout move and smoke launchers questions in 5th, other times it just clarifies how the rules should have been read. It is not always clear but there are some times when it is.
68355
Post by: easysauce
DR, except the rule before did not say they were affected, it was simply INTERPRETED as they did (by some anyways, I never played that the grapple affected flyers)
it did not change any rule, it simply clarified an existing one
a question was asked, an answer given, it did not change any rule,
even though it may have changed how you play the game, since now you have an official intepretation of that rule,
it did not change how I played it, I was able to figure that out without a FAQ, just as I was able to figure out force weapons re FNP without a FAQ
this is in a thread where its being argued that the definition of dreadnaught is dreadnaguht,
at the same time it is being argued that GW's definition of what an FAQ is, is wrong,
that the definition is FAQ is not FAQ, it is rules sometimes, FAQ others...
which is contrary to the line of thinking "the definition of a dreadnaught is dreadnaught"
cant have it both ways,
GW says what an FAQ is very clearly, they say it does not change the rules, that means it doesnt. (even if common sense says that since the FAQ may change how YOU play the game, the rules in your intepretation have "changed" from the wrong interpretation to the (current) official interpretation.)
cant say to throw out common sense for one half of the arguement, then estol having to use it for the other half...
37426
Post by: Idolator
liturgies of blood wrote: Idolator wrote:
Was that an Errata, Amendment or a FAQ? The placement of the statement makes all the difference.
This was a question. It fundamentally changed how a TW Lord's stats were written. It was 5 instead of 4(5) or whatever, that was a change to the rules.
Sometimes a question changes the rules. Like the scout move and smoke launchers questions in 5th, other times it just clarifies how the rules should have been read. It is not always clear but there are some times when it is.
Where was the change made? in the Rulebook, an errata, an amendment, or a FAQ?
We were discussing the FAQ portion only. FAQ's are not changes in wording of rules, ever.
If you accept them as cannon, then fine. You don't have to. I do.
Besides all that, if you do accept them as rules changes. Then an Ironclad Dreadnought is indeed a Dreadnought.
42985
Post by: liturgies of blood
Idolator wrote: liturgies of blood wrote: Idolator wrote:
Was that an Errata, Amendment or a FAQ? The placement of the statement makes all the difference.
This was a question. It fundamentally changed how a TW Lord's stats were written. It was 5 instead of 4(5) or whatever, that was a change to the rules.
Sometimes a question changes the rules. Like the scout move and smoke launchers questions in 5th, other times it just clarifies how the rules should have been read. It is not always clear but there are some times when it is.
Where was the change made? in the Rulebook, an errata, an amendment, or a FAQ?
We were discussing the FAQ portion only. FAQ's are not changes in wording of rules, ever.
If you accept them as cannon, then fine. You don't have to. I do.
Besides all that, if you do accept them as rules changes. Then an Ironclad Dreadnought is indeed a Dreadnought.
Faq's changed the wording and working of rules. FAQ's have nothing to do with this argument. I agree that dreadnought in SR rules is any dread but you're pulling in a poor argument to justify that stance.
An Faq changed how shooting works in 6th. When you change how the rules work you change rules.
When you create an exception to the standard process for modifications that wasn't said in the codex you change rules.
The idea that FAQ's NEVER change rules is bunk.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
easysauce wrote:DR, except the rule before did not say they were affected, it was simply INTERPRETED as they did (by some anyways, I never played that the grapple affected flyers)
it did not change any rule, it simply clarified an existing one
a question was asked, an answer given, it did not change any rule,
even though it may have changed how you play the game, since now you have an official intepretation of that rule,
it did not change how I played it, I was able to figure that out without a FAQ, just as I was able to figure out force weapons re FNP without a FAQ
Because it did change the rule by not allowing the Magna-grapple to move a flyer.
We had permission to snap shot the Magna-grapple, then the magna grapple had its effects.
Pre- FaQ there were no rules to rescind the permission.
The FaQ changed the rule by stating that it can not move a flyer, even though there are no rules to the contrary.
Idolator wrote: DeathReaper wrote:Right, That is only the companies official position, and a change to how the rules are written.
No, it doesn't change how a rule is written. Only Errata and amendments change how a rule is written. The FAQ is an official position on how they should be considered. The wording of rules remain the same.
You don't have to accept FAQ's as rules. The fact that most people do, does not require that you have to. Errata and Amendments are official changes.
The tenets of the forum say:
2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.
The FaQ's are changes to the rules.
68355
Post by: easysauce
Dakka dakka forum rules do not overide what GW says
by that interpretation, we ignore errata and amendmants since those are not FAq's or BRB
GW says FAQ's are not rules changes, end of story,
you say they are, and you are welcome to play that way,
however, GW officially has stated FAQ's are not rules, errata and amendments are,
the dakka forum rules do not override what GW says
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
easysauce wrote:Dakka dakka forum rules do not overide what GW says
by that interpretation, we ignore errata and amendmants since those are not FAq's or BRB
The forum tenets are talking about the "Warhammer 40k FAQ, Errata and Amendments" page listed here:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=1&aId=3400019&start=2
68355
Post by: easysauce
thats now what GW says
gw " FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation."
and while common sense might say you are right DR, since you are playing the game differently because of some FAQ's (none of the latest FAQ's have changed how I play the game)
GW says you are wrong, and in 40k land GW> common sense
GW's statement that FAQ are NOT rules like errata/amendmants overides anything said about GW rules by any other source, be it me, you, or dakka dakka forum guidlines
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
GW says "these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata" but they still change rules.
The " the 'official' interpretation." can change rules.
68355
Post by: easysauce
DeathReaper wrote:GW says "these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata" but they still change rules.
The " the 'official' interpretation." can change rules.
again, so YOU say,
GW says otherwise
because I said so is not proof
because GW said so is
42985
Post by: liturgies of blood
easysauce wrote: DeathReaper wrote:GW says "these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata" but they still change rules.
The " the 'official' interpretation." can change rules.
again, so YOU say,
GW says otherwise
because I said so is not proof
because GW said so is
He doesn't say so GW say so.
37426
Post by: Idolator
DeathReaper wrote:GW says "these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata" but they still change rules.
The " the 'official' interpretation." can change rules.
It doesn't change the rules. It's their official position on the RAW.
The problem that most people have is that they lump all of the "Errata, Amendments, and FAQs" under the simplified heading of FAQ. Even this website has done it!
It's not the case. It changes how people play, but doesn't change the rules as written.
But, once again, If they are to be accepted as cannon. Then the FAQ answer for the Tyranid codex would apply universally to the other codexes as well. Yay! My lootas are indeed Orks and Ironclad Dreadnoughts are Drednoughts. Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is what GW says about the FAQ.
while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation
They aren't rules.
68355
Post by: easysauce
GW says the above as I and idolater have quoted,
no quote from GW has been presented saying that FAQ's are rules,
so there isnt a leg to stand on when GW specifically exludes FAQ's from being rules as errata/amendmants are,
there is a difference between errata, amendmants and FAQ's despite them all being on one PDF
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
"they should be considered the 'official' interpretation"
The 'official' interpretation of what?
The rules?
Then they are the rules.
68355
Post by: easysauce
yes, they are the INTERPRETATION of the rules, that is what GW says, that is not the same as being/changing the rules
YOU are the one saying it changes the rules, not GW
being the interpretation of the rules is not the same as being the rules, or changing the rules, or they would not make such a distinction between errata, amendmants and FAQ
they are not changing the rules,
they specifically state "these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata"
and you take that to mean "these are hard and fast rules just like in errata"
that is not correct
37426
Post by: Idolator
DeathReaper wrote:"they should be considered the 'official' interpretation"
The 'official' interpretation of what?
The rules?
Then they are the rules.
If that is how you see it, then would you agree that an Ironclad Dreadnought is a Dreadnought?
45521
Post by: Sir_Prometheus
GW is actually kinda famous making "FAQ" questions that really are errata, as if they didn't want to admit they messed up the rules that badly.
In any case, if there was a unit called "crazy ghost dreadnought" guess what, it's a dreadnought. Just like the old Greater demon from CSM was demon, even though no one bothered ot give it a "demon" rule type. (and mandrakes for good measure)
grow up.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
easysauce wrote:yes, they are the INTERPRETATION of the rules, that is what GW says, that is not the same as being/changing the rules
I wound point you to the dictionary definition of interpretation, but that is against the forum rules.
37426
Post by: Idolator
Sir_Prometheus wrote:GW is actually kinda famous making " FAQ" questions that really are errata, as if they didn't want to admit they messed up the rules that badly.
In any case, if there was a unit called "crazy ghost dreadnought" guess what, it's a dreadnought. Just like the old Greater demon from CSM was demon, even though no one bothered ot give it a "demon" rule type. (and mandrakes for good measure)
grow up.
That's been my standing the whole time. That an Ironclad Dread is in fact a Dreadnought. I've been trying to figure out what would cause someone to consider them as anything else!
42985
Post by: liturgies of blood
easysauce wrote:yes, they are the INTERPRETATION of the rules, that is what GW says, that is not the same as being/changing the rules
YOU are the one saying it changes the rules, not GW
being the interpretation of the rules is not the same as being the rules, or changing the rules, or they would not make such a distinction between errata, amendmants and FAQ
they are not changing the rules,
they specifically state "these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata"
and you take that to mean "these are hard and fast rules just like in errata"
that is not correct
Interpretation of the law changes it and changes the application of it.
How is that any different from rules?
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Idolator wrote:Sir_Prometheus wrote:GW is actually kinda famous making " FAQ" questions that really are errata, as if they didn't want to admit they messed up the rules that badly.
In any case, if there was a unit called "crazy ghost dreadnought" guess what, it's a dreadnought. Just like the old Greater demon from CSM was demon, even though no one bothered ot give it a "demon" rule type. (and mandrakes for good measure)
grow up.
That's been my standing the whole time. That an Ironclad Dread is in fact a Dreadnought. I've been trying to figure out what would cause someone to consider them as anything else!
No one is claiming that they are not Dreadnoughts from a fluff standpoint. I'm fairly certain that most of the people who voted No voted No because that is what the RAW is. I voted No, because RAW they cannot. HIWPI is completely different.
Since FAQs do not change the rules, does that mean my Farseers can cast Guide/Fortune/Doom while embarked? Furthermore, since an Ironclad Dreadnought is a Dreadnought (from a fluff standpoint at least) then from a fluff standpoint, Dark Eldar are Eldar and can therefore have Guide and Fortune casted upon them.
19754
Post by: puma713
liturgies of blood wrote:
Interpretation of the law changes it and changes the application of it.
How is that any different from rules?
Not necessarily. It is easy to see how an answer changes a rule when you thought that the rule said something that you misinterpreted. People don't like to read a rule, interpret it, and then be told that they're not interpreting it correctly. Many times, they'll reach for the "well that's a rules change" excuse, when it may simply be a different way to interpret the rule. Instead of looking inward at something they could have read differently (possibly changing their entire stance on how to read the rules as a whole), they quickly look outward at other forces. That says, "I am not wrong. How could I be wrong? It is the rules that are wrong, and the FAQ is changing them!"
Or, it simply means that you read the rules incorrectly, the FAQ is clarifying the intent for you and instead of being a rule change, the actual rule was there all along, waiting to be interpreted correctly.
So, don't be so quick to say that FAQs always change rules. Interpretation of the law doesn't change the law. It takes judges ( GW), juries and trials to interpret the law and then apply the law's meaning. It doesn't actually change the law at all. The law can be changed, but not by simple interpretation. It takes a bill or an amendment (Errata) to actually change a law.
45521
Post by: Sir_Prometheus
Happyjew wrote: Idolator wrote:Sir_Prometheus wrote:GW is actually kinda famous making " FAQ" questions that really are errata, as if they didn't want to admit they messed up the rules that badly.
In any case, if there was a unit called "crazy ghost dreadnought" guess what, it's a dreadnought. Just like the old Greater demon from CSM was demon, even though no one bothered ot give it a "demon" rule type. (and mandrakes for good measure)
grow up.
That's been my standing the whole time. That an Ironclad Dread is in fact a Dreadnought. I've been trying to figure out what would cause someone to consider them as anything else!
No one is claiming that they are not Dreadnoughts from a fluff standpoint. I'm fairly certain that most of the people who voted No voted No because that is what the RAW is. I voted No, because RAW they cannot. HIWPI is completely different.
Since FAQs do not change the rules, does that mean my Farseers can cast Guide/Fortune/Doom while embarked? Furthermore, since an Ironclad Dreadnought is a Dreadnought (from a fluff standpoint at least) then from a fluff standpoint, Dark Eldar are Eldar and can therefore have Guide and Fortune casted upon them.
Being a dreadnought "from a fluff" standpoint would be if it said it was a dreadnought somewhere in the flavor text. Like a Hell brute for instance.
If it has "dreadnought" in damn name of the unit, that's not "in the fluff", that makes it a freaking dreadnought.
Furthermore, Demons are demons. Mandrakes, whose great great grandmaw thought a demon was cute once, are demons. Pulse rifles are plasma weapons as per the PLasma Siphon FAQ. So truly, fluff is rules for GW.
You have literally no leg to stand on here.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Sir_Prometheus wrote: Happyjew wrote: Idolator wrote:Sir_Prometheus wrote:GW is actually kinda famous making " FAQ" questions that really are errata, as if they didn't want to admit they messed up the rules that badly.
In any case, if there was a unit called "crazy ghost dreadnought" guess what, it's a dreadnought. Just like the old Greater demon from CSM was demon, even though no one bothered ot give it a "demon" rule type. (and mandrakes for good measure)
grow up.
That's been my standing the whole time. That an Ironclad Dread is in fact a Dreadnought. I've been trying to figure out what would cause someone to consider them as anything else!
No one is claiming that they are not Dreadnoughts from a fluff standpoint. I'm fairly certain that most of the people who voted No voted No because that is what the RAW is. I voted No, because RAW they cannot. HIWPI is completely different.
Since FAQs do not change the rules, does that mean my Farseers can cast Guide/Fortune/Doom while embarked? Furthermore, since an Ironclad Dreadnought is a Dreadnought (from a fluff standpoint at least) then from a fluff standpoint, Dark Eldar are Eldar and can therefore have Guide and Fortune casted upon them.
Being a dreadnought "from a fluff" standpoint would be if it said it was a dreadnought somewhere in the flavor text. Like a Hell brute for instance.
If it has "dreadnought" in damn name of the unit, that's not "in the fluff", that makes it a freaking dreadnought.
Furthermore, Demons are demons. Mandrakes, whose great great grandmaw thought a demon was cute once, are demons. Pulse rifles are plasma weapons as per the PLasma Siphon FAQ. So truly, fluff is rules for GW.
You have literally no leg to stand on here.
In that case since Dark Eldar has then name Eldar in it they are Eldar for the purposes of Farseer Psychic Powers. It would also mean that Heavy Flamers are Heavy Weapons since they have the word Heavy in it (and Assault Cannons are Assault Weapons for the same reason).
There are only three times (I can think of) when GW has said fluff==rules: The Avatar's "Molten Body", Daemons for the purposes of Grey Knights, and Plasma Siphon. Of course none of this apparently matters since those were all FAQs and not Errata and thus are not actual rules.
45521
Post by: Sir_Prometheus
Happyjew wrote:It would also mean that Heavy Flamers are Heavy Weapons since they have the word Heavy in it (and Assault Cannons are Assault Weapons for the same reason).
No.....it would mean Heavy Flamers were also a flamer, which they are. There are rules which affect flamers as a class, heavy flmaers fall under them. If there were a rule that affected "cannons" assault cannons would fall under it.
I feel like you're being obstinate just to be obstinate. It says "dreadnought" in the name, therefore, it is, by the rules, not fluff, a dreadnought.
93% of people disagree with you. This is done now.
37426
Post by: Idolator
Happyjew wrote:
No one is claiming that they are not Dreadnoughts from a fluff standpoint. I'm fairly certain that most of the people who voted No voted No because that is what the RAW is. I voted No, because RAW they cannot. HIWPI is completely different.
Since FAQs do not change the rules, does that mean my Farseers can cast Guide/Fortune/Doom while embarked? Furthermore, since an Ironclad Dreadnought is a Dreadnought (from a fluff standpoint at least) then from a fluff standpoint, Dark Eldar are Eldar and can therefore have Guide and Fortune casted upon them.
FAQ's do not change a rule, they give a definetive way in which a rule should be read, without actualy changing anything. If someone understood it a different way, then the fault lies with the reader.
Your second point. What do the rules in the codex say? What does the Errata say? What do the Amendments say? What do the FAQ's say. I don't have that codex. I could look up the Errata and FAQ but not the codex. Once again, any answer that I give would be ill informed. I don't have the Dark Eldar codex either.
I've got Guard, Orks, C: SM and Tau. Those questions I can answer.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Sir_Prometheus wrote: Happyjew wrote:It would also mean that Heavy Flamers are Heavy Weapons since they have the word Heavy in it (and Assault Cannons are Assault Weapons for the same reason).
No.....it would mean Heavy Flamers were also a flamer, which they are. There are rules which affect flamers as a class, heavy flmaers fall under them. If there were a rule that affected "cannons" assault cannons would fall under it.
I feel like you're being obstinate just to be obstinate. It says "dreadnought" in the name, therefore, it is, by the rules, not fluff, a dreadnought.
93% of people disagree with you. This is done now.
Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.
19754
Post by: puma713
Happyjew wrote:Sir_Prometheus wrote: Happyjew wrote:It would also mean that Heavy Flamers are Heavy Weapons since they have the word Heavy in it (and Assault Cannons are Assault Weapons for the same reason).
No.....it would mean Heavy Flamers were also a flamer, which they are. There are rules which affect flamers as a class, heavy flmaers fall under them. If there were a rule that affected "cannons" assault cannons would fall under it.
I feel like you're being obstinate just to be obstinate. It says "dreadnought" in the name, therefore, it is, by the rules, not fluff, a dreadnought.
93% of people disagree with you. This is done now.
Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.
And every Ork in the Ork codex hopes you're wrong! 
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Idolator wrote: Happyjew wrote:
No one is claiming that they are not Dreadnoughts from a fluff standpoint. I'm fairly certain that most of the people who voted No voted No because that is what the RAW is. I voted No, because RAW they cannot. HIWPI is completely different.
Since FAQs do not change the rules, does that mean my Farseers can cast Guide/Fortune/Doom while embarked? Furthermore, since an Ironclad Dreadnought is a Dreadnought (from a fluff standpoint at least) then from a fluff standpoint, Dark Eldar are Eldar and can therefore have Guide and Fortune casted upon them.
FAQ's do not change a rule, they give a definetive way in which a rule should be read, without actualy changing anything. If someone understood it a different way, then the fault lies with the reader.
Your second point. What do the rules in the codex say? What does the Errata say? What do the Amendments say? What do the FAQ's say. I don't have that codex. I could look up the Errata and FAQ but not the codex. Once again, any answer that I give would be ill informed. I don't have the Dark Eldar codex either.
I've got Guard, Orks, C: SM and Tau. Those questions I can answer.
C:Eldar; Guide and Fortune - Nominate an Eldar unit within X"...
Eldar FAQ: Errata and Amendments says nothing on this matter. Do Dark Eldar allies count as Eldar for the Farseer psychic powers Fortune and Guide? No.
Furthermore:
Q: The Farseer Psychic Powers rules state that they do not require the
Eldar Psyker to have line of sight to the target. Does this mean that they
can be used by an Eldar psyker embarked on a Transport? (p28)
A: No.
How is that how a rule is supposed to be read, when a psychic power that does require LoS can be used while embarked?
56724
Post by: Nivek5150
Why isn't this thread locked yet? 2 pages talking about what an FAQ is for Throne's sake.
37426
Post by: Idolator
Happyjew wrote:Sir_Prometheus wrote: Happyjew wrote:It would also mean that Heavy Flamers are Heavy Weapons since they have the word Heavy in it (and Assault Cannons are Assault Weapons for the same reason).
No.....it would mean Heavy Flamers were also a flamer, which they are. There are rules which affect flamers as a class, heavy flmaers fall under them. If there were a rule that affected "cannons" assault cannons would fall under it.
I feel like you're being obstinate just to be obstinate. It says "dreadnought" in the name, therefore, it is, by the rules, not fluff, a dreadnought.
93% of people disagree with you. This is done now.
Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.
Seriously, are there any rules prohibiting you from casting beneficial spells onto Dark Eldar? They are battle brothers and I do believe that you can do that. Once again, I don't know. My opinion is ill informed.
45521
Post by: Sir_Prometheus
puma713 wrote: Happyjew wrote:Sir_Prometheus wrote: Happyjew wrote:It would also mean that Heavy Flamers are Heavy Weapons since they have the word Heavy in it (and Assault Cannons are Assault Weapons for the same reason).
No.....it would mean Heavy Flamers were also a flamer, which they are. There are rules which affect flamers as a class, heavy flmaers fall under them. If there were a rule that affected "cannons" assault cannons would fall under it.
I feel like you're being obstinate just to be obstinate. It says "dreadnought" in the name, therefore, it is, by the rules, not fluff, a dreadnought.
93% of people disagree with you. This is done now.
Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.
And every Ork in the Ork codex hopes you're wrong!
Sure, you could transport an ork Dreanought.....if you could get in an ally's transport, which you can't. Automatically Appended Next Post: Happyjew wrote:
Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.
You didn't, actually.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Idolator wrote:Seriously, are there any rules prohibiting you from casting beneficial spells onto Dark Eldar? They are battle brothers and I do believe that you can do that. Once again, I don't know. My opinion is ill informed.
Only the FAQ that says that Dark Eldar are not Eldar for the purposes of Guide and Fortune.
Sir_Prometheus wrote: Happyjew wrote:
Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.
You didn't, actually.
Yes I did. I mentioned Dark Eldar and Heavy Flamers (and Assault Cannons, however I grouped the two weapons together).
19754
Post by: puma713
Sir_Prometheus wrote: puma713 wrote:Happyjew wrote:
Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.
And every Ork in the Ork codex hopes you're wrong!
Sure, you could transport an ork Dreanought.....if you could get in an ally's transport, which you can't.
I was referring to his "the name does not make the thing." statement, as there are no "orks" in the ork codex (save for Boyz) if you're to follow unit composition.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Sir_Prometheus wrote: Happyjew wrote:
Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.
You didn't, actually.
Are all bolters bolters?
If I have a unit equipped with "a twink linked bolter" what weapon profile is that?
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Sir Prometheus in case you missed it (which I'm not sure how, since you quoted part of it, here it is again, with the two mentioned underlined.
Happyjew wrote:In that case since Dark Eldar has then name Eldar in it they are Eldar for the purposes of Farseer Psychic Powers. It would also mean that Heavy Flamers are Heavy Weapons since they have the word Heavy in it (and Assault Cannons are Assault Weapons for the same reason).
There are only three times (I can think of) when GW has said fluff==rules: The Avatar's "Molten Body", Daemons for the purposes of Grey Knights, and Plasma Siphon. Of course none of this apparently matters since those were all FAQs and not Errata and thus are not actual rules.
19754
Post by: puma713
That point is moot, because for every "so a flamer is a heavy flamer and a bolter is a vulcan mega-bolter" argument, there is a counter "so a Loota is not an ork and a Scout Sergeant is not a space marine" argument.
37426
Post by: Idolator
Happyjew wrote:
C:Eldar; Guide and Fortune - Nominate an Eldar unit within X"...
Eldar FAQ: Errata and Amendments says nothing on this matter. Do Dark Eldar allies count as Eldar for the Farseer psychic powers Fortune and Guide? No.
Furthermore:
Q: The Farseer Psychic Powers rules state that they do not require the
Eldar Psyker to have line of sight to the target. Does this mean that they
can be used by an Eldar psyker embarked on a Transport? (p28)
A: No.
How is that how a rule is supposed to be read, when a psychic power that does require LoS can be used while embarked?
I'll completely set aside the fact that you are comparing two different codexes to address your point. It appears that GW and their crack editing team have forgotten to put the amendments in Eldar updates that relegate the special powers to units from within that particular codex.
Secondly, the FAQ, clarifies that you are not to read Dark Eldar as Eldar, because they aren't Eldar and have an entire book dedicated to how they aren't Eldar.
Then.
How do the powers that do not require a line of sight work? Do Eldar transports have firepoints? (I haven't played against them in years and I don't think that they do.)
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Eldar Farseers have 2 PSA, these cannot be used out of transports due to no Fire Points. Doom is more akin to a malediction and Fortune/Guide are akin to Blessings. Per the Psyker rules to use a psychic power you have to pick a target (which must be in LoS unless otherwise specified, which Farseer powers do). If the power requires LoS an embarked psyker can only choose himself, his unit, or the transport. Doom/Guide/Fortune do not require LoS. Per GW's FAQ a Farseer cannot even cast them on a unit he does have LoS to while embarked.
68355
Post by: easysauce
when you have to argue against
GW,
t
90+% of dakka,
and use things like "the definition of dreadnaught is dreadnaught"
and state that basically almost every special rule on every unit, in every codex, does not affect that unit because no unit is composed of "orks" "grey knights" ect
argue against those special rules like aegis, that are on venerable dreads, and refer to them as simple "Dreadnaught"
you are doing it wrong,
thread should have been locked ages ago,
meta is obviously Dreads go in SR's,
90%+ of people on dakka also read the RAW as allowing this
46128
Post by: Happyjew
So the poll (which does not specify RAW or HYWPI) must be referring to RAW? Citation required please. As the people who voted no and spoke up all said that they would play they can, I agree that this thread needs to be locked.
19754
Post by: puma713
So what you're trying to say is. . . . you two agree on something!
46128
Post by: Happyjew
puma713 wrote:So what you're trying to say is. . . . you two agree on something!
Only that this thread is no longer going anywhere and needs to be locked. I believe that at least some of the people who voted voted based on how they would play it, not what the rules actually state.
19754
Post by: puma713
Happyjew wrote: puma713 wrote:So what you're trying to say is. . . . you two agree on something!
Only that this thread is no longer going anywhere and needs to be locked. I believe that at least some of the people who voted voted based on how they would play it, not what the rules actually state.
I would say almost all of them voted that way. Generally, that is the way most people think. They're not here to debate with you what the rules say - but how it applies to them, their army and the tabletop. Once they have that settled, they can then discuss what the rules say, as it no longer really matters, because they have the concensus of what will be expected of them during gameplay.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Yes, we have people bizarrely claiming that rules are not changed in FAQs, when we have literal examples of this occurring all the time (not an interpretation, a literal alteration to the actual written rules, with no way to get from the written rule to the changed rule at all) and people still claiming that the name defines the thing, despite having numerous examples otherwise
Prometheus - What gives you permission to break up a proper noun? Rules citation please, to determine that a proper noun is actually a set and subset. You cannot do this, but please, try.
37426
Post by: Idolator
Happyjew wrote:Eldar Farseers have 2 PSA, these cannot be used out of transports due to no Fire Points. Doom is more akin to a malediction and Fortune/Guide are akin to Blessings. Per the Psyker rules to use a psychic power you have to pick a target (which must be in LoS unless otherwise specified, which Farseer powers do). If the power requires LoS an embarked psyker can only choose himself, his unit, or the transport. Doom/Guide/Fortune do not require LoS. Per GW's FAQ a Farseer cannot even cast them on a unit he does have LoS to while embarked.
Apparently, There seems to be some rule that prevents the use of embarked Psykers from using their powers on units that are not also embarked. With the exception of Witchfire powers. I noticed that this was mentioned in another FAQ in the BRB entry.
I haven't found it yet, because I am a bit unfamilliar (comparitively) with Psyker rules. I don't usualy play them. I only have one Space marine Librarian, a psyker battle squad, and a weird boy. The last two have very limited abilities and rules. I'll update you once I find it.
Update!! found it. page 67 BRB second collumn 1st paragraph. A psyker embarked on a transport must target himself, his vehicle or another unit embarked on the same vehicle as the psyker. That would explain the FAQ answer, it didn't change any rules, it just answered a dumb question.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, we have people bizarrely claiming that rules are not changed in FAQs, when we have literal examples of this occurring all the time (not an interpretation, a literal alteration to the actual written rules, with no way to get from the written rule to the changed rule at all) and people still claiming that the name defines the thing, despite having numerous examples otherwise
Prometheus - What gives you permission to break up a proper noun? Rules citation please, to determine that a proper noun is actually a set and subset. You cannot do this, but please, try.
George Washington was a Washington. See no permission needed. It's true.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
So you are saying that the proper noun is not a compound noun then?
Any proof of that in the actual rules? As per the tenets of this forum? Simple question.
Your "interpretation" then means Heavy Flamers ARE Heavy - after all, you separate the two words, because you have said you can do so, even though "Heavy Flamer" is a compound noun when applied to this actual game.
Assault Cannons are also Assault, Fire Dragons are on fire AND reptiles, and so on.
Or, and this is a long shot - that isnt how the English language works. Venerable Dreadnought is a compound proper noun, because that is how English works. Try again
47462
Post by: rigeld2
puma713 wrote:That point is moot, because for every "so a flamer is a heavy flamer and a bolter is a vulcan mega-bolter" argument, there is a counter "so a Loota is not an ork and a Scout Sergeant is not a space marine" argument.
The latter aren't "counter-arguments". They're more examples of poor writing.
37426
Post by: Idolator
nosferatu1001 wrote:So you are saying that the proper noun is not a compound noun then?
Any proof of that in the actual rules? As per the tenets of this forum? Simple question.
Your "interpretation" then means Heavy Flamers ARE Heavy - after all, you separate the two words, because you have said you can do so, even though "Heavy Flamer" is a compound noun when applied to this actual game.
Assault Cannons are also Assault, Fire Dragons are on fire AND reptiles, and so on.
Or, and this is a long shot - that isnt how the English language works. Venerable Dreadnought is a compound proper noun, because that is how English works. Try again
I am saying that a title doesn't detract from the nature of a thing. An Ironclad Dreadnought is a Dreadnought. For some odd reason GW always capitolizes the names of all of it's models even though they aren't proper names. I don't think Fire Dragons are on fire, i believe that they cause them, or use fire in some way. Firemen aren't on fire.
I'm sure that Heavy Flamers are weighty and put out a heavy blast of flame, so yes they are Heavy. Are they considered Heavy for rules purposes?? What to the rules for heavy flamers say. I believe that they are assault wepons when used by the models in the game.
Assault Cannons ar used for Assaulting. What are the rules. It's heavy when used by models on the table.
Is all of this really just to prove that a type of Dreadnought isn't really a Dreadnought and therefore cannot ride in a Drop Pod or Storm Raven? Automatically Appended Next Post: rigeld2 wrote: puma713 wrote:That point is moot, because for every "so a flamer is a heavy flamer and a bolter is a vulcan mega-bolter" argument, there is a counter "so a Loota is not an ork and a Scout Sergeant is not a space marine" argument.
The latter aren't "counter-arguments". They're more examples of poor writing.
They're all examples of poor writting.
45521
Post by: Sir_Prometheus
Happyjew wrote: Idolator wrote:Seriously, are there any rules prohibiting you from casting beneficial spells onto Dark Eldar? They are battle brothers and I do believe that you can do that. Once again, I don't know. My opinion is ill informed.
Only the FAQ that says that Dark Eldar are not Eldar for the purposes of Guide and Fortune.
Sir_Prometheus wrote: Happyjew wrote:
Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.
You didn't, actually.
Yes I did. I mentioned Dark Eldar and Heavy Flamers (and Assault Cannons, however I grouped the two weapons together).
And I told you why you were wrong. I'd give it you on eldar and dark eldar....except that a codex name is pretty different than a unit name. Automatically Appended Next Post: rigeld2 wrote:Sir_Prometheus wrote: Happyjew wrote:
Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.
You didn't, actually.
Are all bolters bolters?
If I have a unit equipped with "a twink linked bolter" what weapon profile is that?
See now, I think know the point you are trying to make......but you picked a horrible example. Because a twinlinked bolter is in fact, a bolter. Automatically Appended Next Post: nosferatu1001 wrote:
Prometheus - What gives you permission to break up a proper noun? Rules citation please, to determine that a proper noun is actually a set and subset. You cannot do this, but please, try.
See now, not only does this not make sense (I don't think you know what a proper noun is, fyi), but it also is not relevant in any way.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Is a Vulcan Mega Bolter a bolter?
46128
Post by: Happyjew
I'll break this down so it is a bit easier.
Sir_Prometheus wrote: Happyjew wrote: Idolator wrote:Seriously, are there any rules prohibiting you from casting beneficial spells onto Dark Eldar? They are battle brothers and I do believe that you can do that. Once again, I don't know. My opinion is ill informed.
Only the FAQ that says that Dark Eldar are not Eldar for the purposes of Guide and Fortune.
Sir_Prometheus wrote: Happyjew wrote:
Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.
You didn't, actually.
Yes I did. I mentioned Dark Eldar and Heavy Flamers (and Assault Cannons, however I grouped the two weapons together).
And I told you why you were wrong. I'd give it you on eldar and dark eldar....except that a codex name is pretty different than a unit name.
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?
rigeld2 wrote:Sir_Prometheus wrote: Happyjew wrote:
Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.
You didn't, actually.
Are all bolters bolters?
If I have a unit equipped with "a twink linked bolter" what weapon profile is that?
See now, I think know the point you are trying to make......but you picked a horrible example. Because a twinlinked bolter is in fact, a bolter.
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...
45521
Post by: Sir_Prometheus
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.
|
|
