So, question for ya, can't find any answers for this anywhere:
Can you take multiple Venerable Dreadnoughts in the Firespear Task Force formation? I ask this because the formation states "1 Venerable Dreadnought", and the codex states that a Venerable Dreadnought can take 1-2 additional Dreadnoughts in the unit.
I would say yes, because when you ask people about Imperial Guard formations that include "1 Tank Commander" for example, then that implies a minimum of 2 tanks, since the codex entry for the Tank Commander states that the Commander has to take an additional tank at minimum. Now, the Venerable Dreadnought doesn't HAVE to take additional Dreadnoughts, but you see my point.
So, if we are going after codex entries, wouldn't that mean that the Firespear Task Force formation would be able to take up to 3 Venerable Dreadnoughts? If that is the case, imagine 3 Venerable Dreadnoughts all with 2 twin-linked Autocannons firing twice each. Now that is a lot of powerful dakka right there!
It is a common debate because GW doesn't write rules consistently. The Canoptek Harvest has the same issue. RaW there is a datasheet called Ven Dread so it works, not everyone will agree though.
Technically, the Formation is telling you that you have to take 1 Vernerable Dreadnought ARMY LIST ENTRY. How many models can you take in a single Army List Entry? Up to 3. Rules as written, you'd be able to take a single unit of 1-3 Dreads. Rules as intended? Who knows.
What evidence do you have that it was written for a previous edition of the codex, considering the entry in the previous codex was 'Terminator Captain, not 'Captain in Terminator Armour'.
Ghaz wrote: What evidence do you have that it was written for a previous edition of the codex, considering the entry in the previous codex was 'Terminator Captain, not 'Captain in Terminator Armour'.
Basically GW just sucks at consistency.
Cool then it never worked so you have to houserule it. Also O was mistaken the datasheet is Venerable Dreadnoughts so that is broken too.
That's an interesting interpretation. Do you have any rules to back it up?
I see rules on the ALE that let you add Venerable Dreadnoughts and rules that specify that Formations deal in units and ALE.
So the argument that lets you add Venerable Dreadnoughts to the 1 Venerable Dreadnought wins out, since that's the argument that has rules backing it.
If you add Venerable Dreadnaughts to the 1 Venerable Dreadnought, then you aren't taking 1 Venerable Dreadnought and aren't following the formation. Pretty straight forward.
That's an interesting interpretation. Do you have any rules to back it up?
I see rules on the ALE that let you add Venerable Dreadnoughts and rules that specify that Formations deal in units and ALE.
So the argument that lets you add Venerable Dreadnoughts to the 1 Venerable Dreadnought wins out, since that's the argument that has rules backing it.
If you add Venerable Dreadnaughts to the 1 Venerable Dreadnought, then you aren't taking 1 Venerable Dreadnought and aren't following the formation. Pretty straight forward.
If you add a Ghost Ark to a unit of warriors in a Reclamation Legion then you are not taking a unit of warriors. Pretty straight forward. So Formations allow options to be taken that modify a Formations listing.
If the Formation has a size restriction for a unit, it mentions it in the Formation restrictions section. Pretty straight forward.
Otherwise, the player has full access to the options on the ALE. The ALE provides full permission to access those options.
That's an interesting interpretation. Do you have any rules to back it up?
I see rules on the ALE that let you add Venerable Dreadnoughts and rules that specify that Formations deal in units and ALE.
So the argument that lets you add Venerable Dreadnoughts to the 1 Venerable Dreadnought wins out, since that's the argument that has rules backing it.
Too bad RAW there is no such army list entry called 'Venerable Dreadnought'.
So you have to play it RAI and it's very obvious that RAI it's one Ven Dread in total only.
Incorrect. The printed versions of the Codexes provide EXACT page number references to the ALEs. So basically any overly pedantic line of reasoning that says 1 Canoptek Spyder does not use the Canoptek Spyders ALE is defeated.
.. you really want to go back to that argument again.
The argument where you tried to say 2 Spyders could be in a unit with the 1st Spyder and yet also not be a part of the Formation?
Or the argument where you make up rules in order to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder' mentioned by the Formation's special rule?
Also I'm pretty sure the Firespear Strike Force doesn't list a page number, so this new argument doesn't apply to it.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: .. you really want to go back to that argument again.
The argument where you tried to say 2 Spyders could be in a unit with the 1st Spyder and yet also not be a part of the Formation?
Or the argument where you make up rules in order to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder' mentioned by the Formation's special rule?
Also I'm pretty sure the Firespear Strike Force doesn't list a page number, so this new argument doesn't apply to it.
The only ALE that you can use has the Options to add additional Dreadnoughts.
So your choices are you cannot play the formation or you can add additional Dreadnoughts. That is RAW.
RAW, you can add additional Spyders beyond the first in the Canoptek Harvest. Doing so only adds a bookkeeping task of distinguishing the original Spyder versus the 2 upgrade Spyders. No rules are made up.
FlingitNow wrote: Yes which no longer exists. The formation was written for a previous version of the codex, so is broken RaW.
That's a mighty big assumption there. It's pretty clear what the captain in terminator armour is in the codex. A captain, who's paid the extra to be in terminator armour. It's not hard to work out that's what the RAW are and what the RAI to be.
As for the whole dreadnought debate, theres already a distinction made in the marine codex. In the battle Demi company you can take a UNIT of Dreadnoughts, is 1-3 of them. In the Strike Force Ultra detachment, it specifically states 1 Venerable dreadnought.
So if it states 1 Venerable dreadnought, that isn't a unit of multiple numbers of them.
So you have to play RAI, and it's very obvious that RAI you can only take 1.
Point to the ALE you can use. It's very obvious that on the ALE you are forced to point to that there are Options on the ALE that lets you add additional Dreadnoughts. That's the rules on the page right there. No amount of RAI can erase rules on the page.
FlingitNow wrote: Yes which no longer exists. The formation was written for a previous version of the codex, so is broken RaW.
That's a mighty big assumption there. It's pretty clear what the captain in terminator armour is in the codex. A captain, who's paid the extra to be in terminator armour. It's not hard to work out that's what the RAW are and what the RAI to be.
As for the whole dreadnought debate, theres already a distinction made in the marine codex. In the battle Demi company you can take a UNIT of Dreadnoughts, is 1-3 of them. In the Strike Force Ultra detachment, it specifically states 1 Venerable dreadnought.
So if it states 1 Venerable dreadnought, that isn't a unit of multiple numbers of them.
Formations require units and ALE. So it's a unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnought with the option granted by the ALE of adding additional dreadnought. Check the Formation Restrictions to see if there are any restrictions on the unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnought. If there are no Formation Restrictions then the ALE allows you to add additional dreadnoughts. Pretty straightforward RAW right there.
RAW? You can't use any ALE as there is no such ALE called 'Venerable Dreadnought'.
RAI? You can use the 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' ALE. While that option does allow you to take up to 2 additional Ven Dreads, it is also very obvious from a RAI standpoint that you are only meant (and therefore allowed) to take 1.
If your standpoint is that 'no amount of RAI can erase rules from the page', then you believe that in every circumstance RAW overrides RAI. Therefore you can never take the Formation as there is no such ALE as 'Venerable Dreadnought' or 'Captain in Terminator Armour'.
You can't have it both ways and say that in one case RAI overrides the RAW but then doesn't for this other aspect of the issue.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: RAW? You can't use any ALE as there is no such ALE called 'Venerable Dreadnought'.
RAI? You can use the 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' ALE. While that option does allow you to take up to 2 additional Ven Dreads, it is also very obvious from a RAI standpoint that you are only meant (and therefore allowed) to take 1.
If your standpoint is that 'no amount of RAI can erase rules from the page', then you believe that in every circumstance RAW overrides RAI. Therefore you can never take the Formation as there is no such ALE as 'Venerable Dreadnought' or 'Captain in Terminator Armour'.
You can't have it both ways and say that in one case RAI overrides the RAW but then doesn't for this other aspect of the issue.
An argument that insists 1 Venerable Dreadnought cannot use the Venerable Dreadnoughts ALE is dismissed as overly pedantic.
RAW arguments can dismiss overly pedantic lines of reasoning and still claim RAW.
Your argument is trying to take a negligible reference problem to justify erasing permissions obviously granted in the ALE which is rules abuse.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Ok, if you think that's overly perdantic we'll move the focus on to the Captain.
What ALE do I use for him? RAW, none. RAI, I use the Captain ALE.
Do I have to give him Terminator Armour? Sure, the Formation says he does, but in his ALE it's optional.
If you say yes he has to have Terminator armour, why does that specification matter while the '1' for the Dreadnought does not?
The Rules, p121 wrote:Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st Millenium. Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in their games, it is not uncommon for them simply to describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together.
@ Kan: That line refers to the Special Rules a Formation gives, and how some are USRs and not explained.
In any case, last I checked Terminator armour wasn't a special rule.
@ col_impact: So does 1 Captain not upgraded in Terminator armour satisfy the requirement? Just because you say it does fulfil the requirement, doesn't mean it does. Why do 3 Dreadnoughts = 1? Especially if you replay to this with 1 Captain without Terminator armour =/= 1 Captain with Terminator armour.
In every other instance of how you can take Dreadnoughts, it says stuff like "1 unit of Dreadnoughts". If you compare the Battle Demi-Company to Strike Force Ultra, one allows you to take multiple Dreadnoughts (BDC), the other allows you to take one Dreadnought (SFU). Centurion Siegebreaker Cohort follows the same phrasing.
This is actually a case of GW being consistent on how they write things. If you were able to take more than one Dreadnought, it would say "1 unit of Venerable Dreadnoughts", not 1 Venerable Dreadnought".
Matt.Kingsley wrote: @ Kan:
That line refers to the Special Rules a Formation gives, and how some are USRs and not explained.
In any case, last I checked Terminator armour wasn't a special rule.
@ col_impact:
So does 1 Captain not upgraded in Terminator armour satisfy the requirement?
Just because you say it does fulfil the requirement, doesn't mean it does. Why do 3 Dreadnoughts = 1? Especially if you replay to this with 1 Captain without Terminator armour =/= 1 Captain with Terminator armour.
Again, 1 Dreadnought upgraded with 2 additional Dreadnoughts satisfies the 1 Dreadnought requirement. I purchase the 1 then add the 2 just as easily as I add a Ghost Ark, Trukk, or Drop Pod to Formations. The ability to do so is listed on the ALE and I break no rule when I access those options.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
casvalremdeikun wrote: In every other instance of how you can take Dreadnoughts, it says stuff like "1 unit of Dreadnoughts". If you compare the Battle Demi-Company to Strike Force Ultra, one allows you to take multiple Dreadnoughts (BDC), the other allows you to take one Dreadnought (SFU). Centurion Siegebreaker Cohort follows the same phrasing.
This is actually a case of GW being consistent on how they write things. If you were able to take more than one Dreadnought, it would say "1 unit of Venerable Dreadnoughts", not 1 Venerable Dreadnought".
Can you point to any rule which supports your assumption?
I'll repeat. Why does it? You can't just say the same statement over and over again without an actual, water-tight argument.
And again, does that mean the Captain doesn't have to take Terminator armour? Y/N Why/Why not and if he does, why is the Ven Dread able to ignore the '1' requirement?
I'll repeat. Why does it? You can't just say the same statement over and over again without an actual, water-tight argument.
And again, does that mean the Captain doesn't have to take Terminator armour? Y/N Why/Why not and if he does, why is the Ven Dread able to ignore the '1' requirement?
I satisfy the listing when I take the Captain and take Terminator armour.
I satisfy the listing when I take 1 venerable dreadnaught and upgrade with 2 additional dreadnaughts.
Why is the Captain listing satisfied only if you take Terminator armour, while the Venerable Dreadnought listing is satisfied if you take 3 Venerable Dreadnoughts instead of 1?
At least you're only dodging part of the question now.
The unit data sheet for the Venerable Dreadnought is "Venerable Dreadnoughts" not "Venerable Dreadnought". Much like the Captain in Terminator Armor (a unit data sheet that does not exist), the 1 Venerable Dreadnought is a specific entry.
Do you have any rules to support your assumption? Where can I find the unit data sheet for the Venerable Dreadnought? What options does it have?
Matt.Kingsley wrote: @ casvalremdeikun:
"That doesn't matter because that's being overly pedantic and you can ignore that and still be playing completely RAW."
The above was col_impact's argument when I brought up the exact same thing.
My point was that it only allows a single Dreadnought because the entry in the formation does not say 1 Venerable Dreadnoughts(the Unit Data Sheet entry), but 1 Venerable Dreadnought(a specific entry).
Why is the Captain listing satisfied only if you take Terminator armour, while the Venerable Dreadnought listing is satisfied if you take 3 Venerable Dreadnoughts instead of 1?
At least you're only dodging part of the question now.
I am not dodging anything. I am simply upgrading which the rules allow me to do.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: @ casvalremdeikun:
"That doesn't matter because that's being overly pedantic and you can ignore that and still be playing completely RAW."
The above was col_impact's argument when I brought up the exact same thing.
My point was that it only allows a single Dreadnought because the entry in the formation does not say 1 Venerable Dreadnoughts(the Unit Data Sheet entry), but 1 Venerable Dreadnought(a specific entry).
Can you point to rules which back your assumption?
The Formation rules specify that you access UNITS and ALE.
So I will follow the Formations rules which are RAW.
It's just that col_impact will most likely give you the same response he gave me, "that you're being too pedantic".
That or he'll bring up the fact that RAW Formation only refer to ALEs and not individual models (Even though that fact breaks his argument being solely RAW like he claims... but whatever).
Called it!
@ col_impact: You literally (again) dodged the 'why?' part of the question in your response that you are not dodging anything...
Again, why? Why is the Captain listing satisfied only if you take Terminator armour, while the Venerable Dreadnought listing is satisfied if you take 3 Venerable Dreadnoughts instead of 1?
I'll keep asking the same question until you answer it. I need a reason agree with you. A statement without an argument behind it does not give me a reason.
It's just that col_impact will most likely give you the same response he gave me, "that you're being too pedantic".
That or he'll bring up the fact that RAW Formation only refer to ALEs and not individual models (Even though that fact breaks his argument being solely RAW like he claims... but whatever).
Called it!
@ col_impact:
You literally (again) dodged the 'why?' part of the question in your response that you are not dodging anything...
Again, why? Why is the Captain listing satisfied only if you take Terminator armour, while the Venerable Dreadnought listing is satisfied if you take 3 Venerable Dreadnoughts instead of 1?
I'll keep asking the same question until you answer it. I need a reason agree with you. A statement without an argument behind it does not give me a reason.
Already answered
Spoiler:
I satisfy the listing when I take the Captain and take Terminator armour.
I satisfy the listing when I take 1 venerable dreadnaught and upgrade with 2 additional dreadnaughts.
To be fair to col_impact he has a point that saying Venerable Dreadnought doesn't apply to the datasheet Venerable Dreadnoughts is some what overly pedantic. Where the rules do explicitly state that Formations list ALE rather than model names. If GW wanted you to only take 1 Ven Dread then the formation needs to list Ven Dreads with a restriction that the unit can only comprise of 1 model. So we are left with either GW not writing the rules in a consistent manner (likely) or they have typo'd and missed an "s" off their unit name (also likely).
col's interpretation does follow the written rules as close as is possible.
To everyone else in this tread it does not. Explain to us with your basic logic why it does.
If 3 Dreads = 1, then QED 1 Captain w/o Termi armour = 1 Captain w/ it.
His Termi armour is an option, and sure the listing specifies it, but that doesn't overrule his ALE which gives me the choice to not take it.
To everyone else in this tread it does not. Explain to us with your basic logic why it does.
If 3 Dreads = 1, then QED 1 Captain w/o Termi armour = 1 Captain w/ it.
His Termi armour is an option, and sure the listing specifies it, but that doesn't overrule his ALE which gives me the choice to not take it.
A Formation that lists '1 unit of warriors' is satisfied by 1 unit of Warriors that takes the option of a Ghost Ark unit (even though 2 units does not equal 1 unit?!)
A Formation that list '1 unit of Warriors in a Ghost Ark' is not satisfied by 1 unit of Warriors alone. The warriors must take the option of the Ghost Ark unit.
In each case the listing is satisfied and legal options are purchased on top of that per the ALE.
So I'll use RAI to use the closest entry possible - the Warriors entry - and see that the Ghost Ark is only optional. The Formation entry doesn't override the ALE, therefore I won't take the Ghost Ark. This is allowed because RAW I don't have to take the Ghost Ark.
So I'll use RAI to use the closest entry possible - the Warriors entry - and see that the Ghost Ark is only optional. The Formation entry doesn't override the ALE, therefore I won't take the Ghost Ark. This is allowed because RAW I don't have to take the Ghost Ark.
Sorry. You are not satisfying the listing. You purchase to satisfy the listing and can opt to add upgrades on top of that (unless the Formation explicitly restricts those upgrades). If the ALE allowed you to add Grot Oilers as well you could satisfy the listing of '1 unit of warriors in a ghost ark' with '1 unit of warriors, 1 Ghost Ark, and 1 Grot Oiler'
"Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain."
And then from 'Army List Entries':
"Regardless of where this information is found, it is known as an Army List Entry. Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel miniatures..."
This establishes the default position of what a formation datasheet lists as being the a unit of what is listed per its datasheet or army list entry.
It may be intended that only a single model should be taken, however as it stands RAW does not restrict from filling out the unit per its datasheet.
So I'll use RAI to use the closest entry possible - the Warriors entry - and see that the Ghost Ark is only optional. The Formation entry doesn't override the ALE, therefore I won't take the Ghost Ark. This is allowed because RAW I don't have to take the Ghost Ark.
Sorry. You are not satisfying the listing. You purchase to satisfy the listing and can opt to add upgrades on top of that (unless the Formation explicitly restricts those upgrades). If the ALE allowed you to add Grot Oilers as well you could satisfy the listing of '1 unit of warriors in a ghost ark' with '1 unit of warriors, 1 Ghost Ark, and 1 Grot Oiler'
How so? I've just used RAI to be able to purchase the unit in the first place and RAW to not purchase a Ghost Ark.
I mean sure, full RAI would require me to buy the Ghost Ark, but that doesn't matter, in the same way full RAI would require me to not purchase 2 additional Ven Dreads.
So I'll use RAI to use the closest entry possible - the Warriors entry - and see that the Ghost Ark is only optional. The Formation entry doesn't override the ALE, therefore I won't take the Ghost Ark. This is allowed because RAW I don't have to take the Ghost Ark.
Sorry. You are not satisfying the listing. You purchase to satisfy the listing and can opt to add upgrades on top of that (unless the Formation explicitly restricts those upgrades). If the ALE allowed you to add Grot Oilers as well you could satisfy the listing of '1 unit of warriors in a ghost ark' with '1 unit of warriors, 1 Ghost Ark, and 1 Grot Oiler'
How so? I've just used RAI to be able to purchase the unit in the first place and RAW to not purchase a Ghost Ark.
I mean sure, full RAI would require me to buy the Ghost Ark, but that doesn't matter, in the same way full RAI would require me to not purchase 2 additional Ven Dreads.
As stated already, you satisfy the Formation listing and then can add any additional options/upgrades on top of that. The listing of '1 unit of warriors in a ghost ark' means you purchase 1 unit of warriors and 1 ghost ark. If the ALE allows you to add additional stuff on top of that then you are free to do so (unless the Formation lists restrictions). That is RAW.
Yes, but the clear RAI is that you can't add more Venerable Dreadnoughts. The intent is plain as day. You can't deny that.
If you're going to use RAI to take the Captain then you should do the exact same for the Ven Dread, not pick and choose where it suits you.
Whether it works RAW or not doesn't matter when it's clear as day what the RAI is meant to be, otherwise the game would cease to function every time a Psychic phase occurred.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Yes, but the clear RAI is that you can't add more Venerable Dreadnoughts. The intent is plain as day. You can't deny that.
If you're going to use RAI to take the Captain then you should do the exact same for the Ven Dread, not pick and choose where it suits you.
I use RAW each case. It's clear as day following the Formation rules and the ALE that I can add additional Venerable Dreadnoughts to the unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnought. If GW wanted to restrict the number they would have done so in the Formation Restrictions. Real straightforward.
Are you actually claiming that RAW you can use the Captain ALE instead of an ALE called 'Captain in Terminator armour'? And that it's overly pedantic to say that it isn't one?
wat
This isn't a case where you could argue it's a typo and they forgot an s. 3 whole words have been added to it.
Also I just remembered that one of your previous arguments was that in order to be forbidden from taking 2 additional models in the unit it'd have to be listed in the Restrictions. Therefore the Captain doesn't need to take Terminator armour RAW (assuming he can be taken RAW in the first place, which he can't) as the Restrictions don't say he has to. But hang on, didn't you saw he has to take Terminator armour RAW?
Are you actually claiming that RAW you can use the Captain ALE instead of an ALE called 'Captain in Terminator armour'? And that it's overly pedantic to say that it isn't one?
wat
This isn't a case where you could argue it's a typo and they forgot an s. 3 whole words have been added to it.
Also I just remembered that one of your previous arguments was that in order to be forbidden from taking 2 additional models in the unit it'd have to be listed in the Restrictions. Therefore the Captain doesn't need to take Terminator armour RAW (assuming he can be taken RAW in the first place, which he can't) as the Restrictions don't say he has to. But hang on, didn't you saw he has to take Terminator armour RAW?
As stated already, it is loose in pedantic terms, but the listing is 'Captain in Terminator Armour' which points to the Captain ALE with the Terminator Armour option. Once you satisfy the listing any additional upgrades can be purchased for the Captain (digital weapons, etc.) as long as they are legal and a legal combination with what is already purchased.
GW is loose with its conventions but RAW it still can only point to Captain ALE with the Terminator Armour option. If you don't include the Terminator Armour you aren't satisfying the listing.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: I didn't realise 'Captain in Terminator armour' was an ALE...
Overly pedantic. .
For someone who claims RAW. This statement means you cannot defeat his argument and are diverting. You cannot play it both ways, its either strict RAW or you admit your using RAI.
RAW it points to a ALE that doesn't exist. RAI it points to a Captain that takes the Terminator armour option.
You are actually calling RAIRAW.
Also 'GW is loose with its conventions' actually hurts your argument, as that means you can only take 1 Venerable Dreadnought and no more because GW consistently uses this terminology when they want you to not take additional models in a 1-model unit, even though conventionally you are able to because Formations refer to ALEs not individual models.
Also if you haven't noticed most RAW arguments ARE pedantic, because they have to follow the rules as close as possible. I can accept forgetting an s on the end of Venerable Dreadnoughts as being too pedantic, but mentioning the fact that 3 whole words have been added to the end of Captain? There is no way I can see that as being too pedantic to be RAW.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: I didn't realise 'Captain in Terminator armour' was an ALE...
Overly pedantic. .
For someone who claims RAW. This statement means you cannot defeat his argument and are diverting. You cannot play it both ways, its either strict RAW or you admit your using RAI.
There is a difference between RAW and 'overly pedantic RAW'. I choose RAW.
An example of 'overly pedantic RAW' is someone who claims that '1 Canoptek Spyder (pg. 93)' for the Canoptek Harvest does not refer to the ALE on page 93 which is 'Canoptek Spyders'.
RAW the Necron codex is without a doubt pointing exactly to the ALE on page 93 in the case of the '1 Canoptek Spyder'. Getting hung up on the missing 's' is indeed overly pedantic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt.Kingsley wrote: GW consistently uses this terminology when they want you to not take additional models in a 1-model unit, even though conventionally you are able to because Formations refer to ALEs not individual models.
That is quite an assumption you are making there. Do you have any rules at all backing up your claim that GW "consistently uses this terminology when they want you to not take additional models in a 1-model unit" or are you just trying to throw an assumption around as if it was an explicit GW rule? You are just throwing assumption around with no actual rule support
Do you have any rule at all to say that '1 Venerable Dreadnaught' means '1 Venerable Dreadnaught with its option of adding additional Dreadnaughts taken away'?
RAW reads entirely different. I see Formation rules that require you to treat '1 Venerable Dreadnaught' as a 'unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnaught' and upgrade options on the ALE that are in no way restricted.
"Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain."
And then from 'Army List Entries':
"Regardless of where this information is found, it is known as an Army List Entry. Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel miniatures..."
This establishes the default position of what a formation datasheet lists as being the a unit of what is listed per its datasheet or army list entry.
It may be intended that only a single model should be taken, however as it stands RAW does not restrict from filling out the unit per its datasheet.
I woke up today, and I hd a lot more answers than I expected! This one though seems like the most logical. So what I think is this: it was intended to only be 1 Dreadnought, but because of GWs inconsistent writing, the rules allow up to 3.
"Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain."
And then from 'Army List Entries':
"Regardless of where this information is found, it is known as an Army List Entry. Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel miniatures..."
This establishes the default position of what a formation datasheet lists as being the a unit of what is listed per its datasheet or army list entry.
It may be intended that only a single model should be taken, however as it stands RAW does not restrict from filling out the unit per its datasheet.
I woke up today, and I hd a lot more answers than I expected! This one though seems like the most logical. So what I think is this: it was intended to only be 1 Dreadnought, but because of GWs inconsistent writing, the rules allow up to 3.
Not so sure about that since the Formation specifically points out 1 Venerable Dreadnought and in the Army List Entry there is no Venerable Dreadnought entry. However there seems to be for Venereable DreadnoughtS which would allow one to take a unit/squadron if that was the case. That said you could probably take Dedicated transports for your Tactical Marines and possibly even the Dreadnought.
X078 wrote: Not so sure about that since the Formation specifically points out 1 Venerable Dreadnought and in the Army List Entry there is no Venerable Dreadnought entry. However there seems to be for Venereable DreadnoughtS which would allow one to take a unit/squadron if that was the case. That said you could probably take a Dedicated transport for your Tactical Marines.
Yeah, the formation datasheet doesn't point to anywhere useful per strict RAW without anything to tell us this formation is made up of model profiles instead of or as well as army list entries. Either way we have to make an assumption, and I suspect the more reasonable one is a single Venerable Dreadnought.
X078 wrote: Not so sure about that since the Formation specifically points out 1 Venerable Dreadnought and in the Army List Entry there is no Venerable Dreadnought entry. However there seems to be for Venereable DreadnoughtS which would allow one to take a unit/squadron if that was the case. That said you could probably take a Dedicated transport for your Tactical Marines.
Yeah, the formation datasheet doesn't point to anywhere useful per strict RAW without anything to tell us this formation is made up of model profiles instead of or as well as army list entries. Either way we have to make an assumption, and I suspect the more reasonable one is a single Venerable Dreadnought.
I agree as well. As fun as 3 Dreads sound, 1 is way more reasonable and I do think it was intended.
It just goes to show how poorly GW goes through these rules. All would have been solved if the formation just stated: "1 Unit of Venerable Dreadnoughts" and then in a "Restrictions" window (that most formations have): "The unit of Venerable Dreadnoughts can not exceed 1 Dreadnought". This way, there are no questions and if they wanted you to be able to field more than one, they just change the number in the restriction or remove it all together.
It baffles me how they still are so inconsistant with these things. I know they are a model creating company before a gaming company, but still. Some of these rules are just poorly written..
There is a difference between RAW and 'overly pedantic RAW'. I choose RAW.
Wait... What?
RAW, as I understand it and I assume pretty everyone else by how the term is used, is to refer and follow the rules word by word, exactly as written.
Now by saying one can be "pedantic" with RAW is like saying the water is wet - being pedantic and adhereing to the exact wording of the rule as it is printed/written black on white is the very definition of RAW.
You either go RAW and break the formation because it is not possible to field the "Captain in Terminator Armour" or you go RAI and use the clear intent of fielding the model that comes with the formation rules.
The same goes for the "Venerable Dreadnought" ALE which does not exist. So we, again, retort to RAI to be able to fulfill the requirement and go to "Venerable Dreadnoughts".
Since we used RAI twice already and the intent of the formation is clear in that it should allow the models in the box to be fielded in a bound army, we cannot suddenly switch around and add more dreadnaughts.
You choose one route to go with the Captain and do not suddenly defer to another interpretation because it suits you.
HYWPI - Remain consistent then have a go and field this RAW broken formation with Captain and 1 dread. But if you insist of bringing 2+ Dreads in, I'd call you out on the inconsitancy in your argument and deny you the formation benefits.
To OP: I think it is pretty clear now it is only 1 dreadnought, as we saw with BDC et SFU it is written differently.
I wasn't certain too, but the debate proved it, to my opinion.
There is a difference between RAW and 'overly pedantic RAW'. I choose RAW.
An example of 'overly pedantic RAW' is someone who claims that '1 Canoptek Spyder (pg. 93)' for the Canoptek Harvest does not refer to the ALE on page 93 which is 'Canoptek Spyders'.
RAW the Necron codex is without a doubt pointing exactly to the ALE on page 93 in the case of the '1 Canoptek Spyder'. Getting hung up on the missing 's' is indeed overly pedantic.
.
Thank you for admitting that you are not playing by RAW. Your RAI is noted.
I'm just glad there isnt a Required Unit Marking or else I'd be hopeless in here....
Claiming this MUST refer to the ALE, despite 2 pieces of evidnece to the contrary, means you cannot be following RAW. RAW there is no way to fulfill either requirement, as there is no ALE for either.
X078 wrote: Not so sure about that since the Formation specifically points out 1 Venerable Dreadnought and in the Army List Entry there is no Venerable Dreadnought entry. However there seems to be for Venereable DreadnoughtS which would allow one to take a unit/squadron if that was the case. That said you could probably take a Dedicated transport for your Tactical Marines.
Yeah, the formation datasheet doesn't point to anywhere useful per strict RAW without anything to tell us this formation is made up of model profiles instead of or as well as army list entries. Either way we have to make an assumption, and I suspect the more reasonable one is a single Venerable Dreadnought.
Formations do not list models. Formations list units and ALE.
If they listed models, you would be fielding models (not in units) directly on the battlefield. All the basic rules would break in 40k (moving, shooting, assault, etc.) since they require units to function. You would basically be left with fielding that model as scenery and with all the capabilities of scenery. The rules only allow for fielding models directly in the case of scenery.
The RAI argument that says the formation is referencing a model is being overly pedantic and using a negligible reference problem to not only go directly against the rules but to do something illegal in the rules (field a model directly). That is rules abuse.
There is a difference between RAW and 'overly pedantic RAW'. I choose RAW.
An example of 'overly pedantic RAW' is someone who claims that '1 Canoptek Spyder (pg. 93)' for the Canoptek Harvest does not refer to the ALE on page 93 which is 'Canoptek Spyders'.
RAW the Necron codex is without a doubt pointing exactly to the ALE on page 93 in the case of the '1 Canoptek Spyder'. Getting hung up on the missing 's' is indeed overly pedantic.
.
Thank you for admitting that you are not playing by RAW. Your RAI is noted.
Your inability to distinguish overly pedantic RAW from RAW in even the clear cut Canoptek Harvest example has been noted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: I'm just glad there isnt a Required Unit Marking or else I'd be hopeless in here....
Claiming this MUST refer to the ALE, despite 2 pieces of evidnece to the contrary, means you cannot be following RAW. RAW there is no way to fulfill either requirement, as there is no ALE for either.
We do the best to make sense of what ALE to use. And in fact its really not hard to sort out what ALE in each case is to be used. Only an overly pedantic line of argumentation insists that they have to throw up their arms and say the rules break.
Why do we do this? Because the rules that we have require units and ALE. We push forward with those rules and find the ALE that satisfies the formations listing. In fact, it's incredibly easy and clear to determine which ALE to use.
What we don't do is start making up rules and allowances because we encounter an area of pedantic messiness. We don't start suddenly saying the Formation is referencing a model directly. Not only is that making up rules but it is also breaking the rules. The rules of 40k do not allow models to be fielded directly on the battlefield (only scenery is allowed this). So we know with certainty that an argument that says Formations can list models directly is wholly invalid.
"hey I brought the new space marine formation to try out hope you dont mind. I cant wait to use my 3 riflemen dreads for 24 twin linked shots a turn!"
"what, dude thats not how formations work, it says one venerable dreadnaut, even the box comes with and shows only one"
"right, one venerable dreadnauts, thats what I said, so 3 dreadnauts. the formation says one venerable dreadnaught. since one venerable dreadnaught can purchase 2 more dreadnaughts according to its entry, you have one 3 man venerable dreadnaut"
"the entry says one venerable dreadnaut...."
"right, one venerable dreadnaught, who can then buy 2 more venerable dreadnaughts"
"wouldnt that be 3 venerable dreadnaughts?'
"what? Dont be stupid, its one three man venerable dreadnaut!"
" I think ill pass"
this is the future you have chosen for yourself col.
Orock wrote: I can just see this playing out at a pickup game
"hey I brought the new space marine formation to try out hope you dont mind. I cant wait to use my 3 riflemen dreads for 24 twin linked shots a turn!"
"what, dude thats not how formations work, it says one venerable dreadnaut, even the box comes with and shows only one"
"right, one venerable dreadnauts, thats what I said, so 3 dreadnauts. the formation says one venerable dreadnaught. since one venerable dreadnaught can purchase 2 more dreadnaughts according to its entry, you have one 3 man venerable dreadnaut"
"the entry says one venerable dreadnaut...."
"right, one venerable dreadnaught, who can then buy 2 more venerable dreadnaughts"
"wouldnt that be 3 venerable dreadnaughts?'
"what? Dont be stupid, its one three man venerable dreadnaut!"
" I think ill pass"
this is the future you have chosen for yourself col.
I am sure you are well aware of how unpopular the rules as written can be but I stick with playing RAW. For example I do not have a problem with a Tau player who plays Hunter Contingent RAW because the rules are exceedingly clear how to play that Formation. Most players will try to argue against the clear Hunter Contingent RAW or cry OP instead of actually seeing how it plays out or if it even is OP.
The way the rules are written, the Firespear Task Force can upgrade the 1 Venerable Dreadnaught with 2 additional Dreadnaughts.
So do your games just stop and cease to function properly when you reach the Psychic phase?
Or can you not use this Formation since 'Captain in Terminator armour' isn't an ALE?
If no to either, you aren't playing completely RAW like you always claim you do.
Hunter contingent rules ARE raw, people grasped at straws to try and shut them down. Then when they couldnt they accepted a ruling from a popular format organizer and took it as "good enough"
Multiple dreadnauts are by definition not raw. Because the absolute raw, is how its writeen. One venerable dreadnaut. Not one unit, no permission to upgrade, just one.
Formation
"1 captain in terminator armour"
"1 venerable dreadnaught"
Since neither of these are ALEs we have 2 options.
1 (RAW) stop fielding formation, it doesn't work.
2 (RAI) you argue use the closest ALEs as that was what was intended.
So far, we are not using 100% RAW so we are clear on this. We are using option 2.
Now we use
"1 Captain ALE"
"1 Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE"
Using these ALEs we may upgrade the dreadnaughts to have 2 additional members.
We may also upgrade the captain to have a bike and artificer armour.
This clearly breaks RAI (remember RAW is dead and gone since we chose option 2)
To satisfy RAI we would have
"1 captain in terminator armour" =/= "1 captain on a bike with artificer armour"
"1 venerable dreadnaught"=/= "3 venerable Dreadnaughts"
If you argue that RAI isn't important, and we should use RAW, then you cannot field the formation. By fielding the formation you agree to use the rules as intended.
It is fair to say when they wrote
"1 captain in terminator armour" they meant "1 captain in terminator armour""
And when they wrote "1 venerable dreadnaught" they meant "1 venerable dreadnaught"
So either play by RAW or RAI. if you reply to this, just answer at the very start if you are using RAW or RAI.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: So do your games just stop and cease to function properly when you reach the Psychic phase?
Or can you not use this Formation since 'Captain in Terminator armour' isn't an ALE?
If no to either, you aren't playing completely RAW like you always claim you do.
Nope. I don't play by overly pedantic RAW. I play by RAW.
Hunter contingent rules ARE raw, people grasped at straws to try and shut them down. Then when they couldnt they accepted a ruling from a popular format organizer and took it as "good enough"
Multiple dreadnauts are by definition not raw. Because the absolute raw, is how its writeen. One venerable dreadnaut. Not one unit, no permission to upgrade, just one.
RAW, the Formation rules require units and ALE. So you use the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE and purchase a unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnaughts. That ALE gives permission to upgrade the unit with 2 additional Venerable Dreadnaughts, so you do. Clear chain of permission and no rule is broken.
You obviously don't play by RAW at all. Which is fine and all (I don't either, I play by RAI so the game can actually function to some degree), just stop trying to convince everyone - including yourself - that you play completely RAW. You don't.
Formation
"1 captain in terminator armour"
"1 venerable dreadnaught"
Since neither of these are ALEs we have 2 options.
1 (RAW) stop fielding formation, it doesn't work.
2 (RAI) you argue use the closest ALEs as that was what was intended.
So far, we are not using 100% RAW so we are clear on this. We are using option 2.
Now we use
"1 Captain ALE"
"1 Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE"
Using these ALEs we may upgrade the dreadnaughts to have 2 additional members.
We may also upgrade the captain to have a bike and artificer armour.
This clearly breaks RAI (remember RAW is dead and gone since we chose option 2)
To satisfy RAI we would have
"1 captain in terminator armour" =/= "1 captain on a bike with artificer armour"
"1 venerable dreadnaught"=/= "3 venerable Dreadnaughts"
If you argue that RAI isn't important, and we should use RAW, then you cannot field the formation. By fielding the formation you agree to use the rules as intended.
It is fair to say when they wrote
"1 captain in terminator armour" they meant "1 captain in terminator armour""
And when they wrote "1 venerable dreadnaught" they meant "1 venerable dreadnaught"
So either play by RAW or RAI. if you reply to this, just answer at the very start if you are using RAW or RAI.
I play by RAW and not by overly pedantic RAW. I treat negligible reference problems as negligible.
The Formation rules absolutely require UNITS and ALE. Any solution we come up with must adhere to known and established rules.
So 1 Venerable Dreadnaught has to point to a unit and an ALE. There is only one option in the codex. We find it easily unless we are being overly pedantic.
That ALE has options on it. Formations allow you to access the options. We do so.
The way you are arguing by RAI involves making up rules and allowances that go directly against existing and established rules and break the game. Going against existing rules and breaking the game cannot be the rules as intended. 40K does not allow the direct fielding of models. None of the rules allow it. So your 1 Venerable Dreadnaught is now scenery that cannot interact with anything except as scenery.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt.Kingsley wrote: You obviously don't play by RAW at all. Which is fine and all (I don't either, I play by RAI so the game can actually function to some degree), just stop trying to convince everyone - including yourself - that you play completely RAW. You don't.
I play by RAW. The only thing that is a barrier to game functioning is overly pedantic RAW. Overly pedantic RAW tries to force the game to break on negligible technicalities that require no guesswork to resolve.
What you are doing is using overly pedantic RAW to throw up your arms and claim the rules are hopelessly broken to then try to sneak in broad allowances that go against established rules, that make up rules, and that break the game. Formations do not reference models. The rules of 40k do not permit the direct fielding of models. You have committed rules abuse.
Since you have decided one venerable dreadnaught means one unit of venerable dreadnauts 1-3 and are andamant thats how it be because it do, mabye you should be having this conversation with your intended opponents. Whatever houserules you have decided to run dosent matter to the public at large. But if your friends or local events tell you otherwise, you may have to live with other peoples logic.
I play by RAW and not by overly pedantic RAW. I treat negligible reference problems as negligible.
No you don't. If you played by RAW you wouldnt play the formation. That is RAW.
You assume it was intended to be playable, so you play it as intended . That is Rules as intended
No. You are being overly pedantic and throwing up your hands and saying a formation is unplayable when 1 Venerable Dreadnaught can only refer to the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE by the rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orock wrote: Since you have decided one venerable dreadnaught means one unit of venerable dreadnauts 1-3 and are andamant thats how it be because it do, mabye you should be having this conversation with your intended opponents. Whatever houserules you have decided to run dosent matter to the public at large. But if your friends or local events tell you otherwise, you may have to live with other peoples logic.
The rules say that 1 venerable dreadnaught means 1 unit of one venerable dreadnaught that uses the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE.
As already stated, the Formation rules explicitly require units and ALE.
And as already stated, the rules of 40k do not allow the direct fielding of models.
I am still waiting for anyone to show how 1 venerable dreadnaught model on the battlefield does anything more than act as scenery as it is wholly unable to interact in the game.
So we have no choice but to say that 1 venerable dreadnaught means 1 unit of one venerable dreadnaught that uses the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE if we follow the rules.
for 25+ years, it was always "one dreadnaut as scenery" SOMEHOW with one strength higher shots, grey knight singular dreads managed to pull their weight and be considered more than scenery.
And it dosen't matter that you yourself are waiting for someone else to prove you wrong. The rest of the players are waiting for you to prove yourself right. The fact nobody else has agreed with your particular version of reality should clue you in. And again, it dosent matter if you cant convince people you will never meet on some random internet board. But if you cant convince anyone whom you would actually like to play this against, none of trying to twist the english language into your own interpretation will matter.
I play by RAW and not by overly pedantic RAW. I treat negligible reference problems as negligible.
No you don't. If you played by RAW you wouldnt play the formation. That is RAW.
You assume it was intended to be playable, so you play it as intended . That is Rules as intended
No. You are being overly pedantic and throwing up your hands and saying a formation is unplayable when 1 Venerable Dreadnaught can only refer to the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE by the rules.
Unfortunately RAW it can only refer to the non-existent 'Venerable Dreadnought' ALE.
Similarly, RAW the Formation can only refer to the non-existent 'Captain in Terminator armour' ALE.
However it is playable under RAI.
If you play the game with it being playable, you aren't playing RAW.
No. You are being overly pedantic and throwing up your hands and saying a formation is unplayable when 1 Venerable Dreadnaught can only refer to the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE by the rules.
RAW is pedantic, raw isn't a grey matter. RAW is black and white, as written.
You cannot claim that your argument is superior because it's RAW when it isn't. You're argument is RAI, because RAW is unplayable , that's why we are using RAI.
Simply put, if you want to play RAW as you claim. You can play the formation when you show me the datasheet for "captain in terminator armour".
Or we can agree that the game designers intended the formation to be playable, and not just set dressing for the box.
RAI isn't a bad thing. It's obvious the designers intended it to be playable. The point stands it is not RAW, you can pretend it is, but you are still playing something the way it was intended. Not the way it is written.
Now it is clear, that it's RAI. because if you play it at all, it's not RAW, therefore its RAI.
QED.
RAW has no bearing on this argument. At all.
RAI The writer intended "1 venerable dreadnaught" to mean "1 venerable dreadnaught"
I play by RAW and not by overly pedantic RAW. I treat negligible reference problems as negligible.
No you don't. If you played by RAW you wouldnt play the formation. That is RAW.
You assume it was intended to be playable, so you play it as intended . That is Rules as intended
No. You are being overly pedantic and throwing up your hands and saying a formation is unplayable when 1 Venerable Dreadnaught can only refer to the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE by the rules.
Unfortunately RAW it can only refer to the non-existent 'Venerable Dreadnought' ALE.
Similarly, RAW the Formation can only refer to the non-existent 'Captain in Terminator armour' ALE.
However it is playable under RAI.
If you play the game with it being playable, you aren't playing RAW.
Again. You are being overly pedantic and throwing up your arms and claiming something is unplayable . . .
AND THEN using that line of reasoning to come up with a way to play that makes up rules, breaks existing rules, and attempts to field illegal items. That is rules abuse.
RAIThe writer intended "1 venerable dreadnaught" to mean "1 venerable dreadnaught"
Can you refute the underlined part?
Sure. The writer intended "1 venerable dreadnaught" to mean "unit of 1 venerable dreadnaught using the Venerable Dreadnaught ALE" because if its not a unit using an ALE it is not playable in 40k.
Or are you saying that the writer intended you to play the Venerable Dreadnaught as scenery?
I play by RAW and not by overly pedantic RAW. I treat negligible reference problems as negligible.
No you don't. If you played by RAW you wouldnt play the formation. That is RAW.
You assume it was intended to be playable, so you play it as intended . That is Rules as intended
No. You are being overly pedantic and throwing up your hands and saying a formation is unplayable when 1 Venerable Dreadnaught can only refer to the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE by the rules.
Unfortunately RAW it can only refer to the non-existent 'Venerable Dreadnought' ALE.
Similarly, RAW the Formation can only refer to the non-existent 'Captain in Terminator armour' ALE.
However it is playable under RAI.
If you play the game with it being playable, you aren't playing RAW.
Again. You are being overly pedantic and throwing up your arms and claiming something is unplayable . . .
AND THEN using that line of reasoning to come up with a way to play that makes up rules, breaks existing rules, and attempts to field illegal items. That is rules abuse.
But it is unplayable. You said so yourself, the rules can only refer to ALEs. How can it refer to the Captain ALE? That isn't the 'Captain in Terminator armour' ALE? Now that is rules abuse.
Also the fact that your getting pissed at me for 'making up rules' is hilarious, since in all the Canoptek Spyder thread you'd make up rules to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
AND YET STILL claimed your argument was 100% RAW and the most correct.
AND THEN using that line of reasoning to come up with a way to play that makes up rules, breaks existing rules, and attempts to field illegal items.
Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 9 wrote:a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right.
But it is unplayable. You said so yourself, the rules can only refer to ALEs. How can it refer to the Captain ALE? That isn't the 'Captain in Terminator armour' ALE? Now that is rules abuse.
Also the fact that your getting pissed at me for 'making up rules' is hilarious, since in all the Canoptek Spyder thread you'd make up rules to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
AND YET STILL claimed your argument was 100% RAW and the most correct.
AND THEN using that line of reasoning to come up with a way to play that makes up rules, breaks existing rules, and attempts to field illegal items.
The hypocrisy is real here.
I made up no rules in the Canoptek Spyder thread and am not a hypocrite. Book-keeping is not a rule.
The rules that we have absolutely require units and ALEs. When a Formation lists a unit that does not exactly letter for letter line up with an ALE in the codex we don't throw up our hands and start wildly making up rules and breaking existing ones. We find the ALE that fits and it is very easy to do so. It's not debatable what ALE to use in the case of the Venerable Dreadnaught or the Captain. There are no other tenable options for the ALE.
1 Venerable Dreadnaught can only refer to 'a unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnaught using the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE'. Otherwise you have made up a rule that allows Formations to list models. And you are overlooking the fact that fielding a model directly in 40k means you are fielding scenery that will not be able to interact with any of the 40k rules for units (moving, shooting, assaulting, etc.)
Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 9 wrote:a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right.
Cool. The rules require you to use an ALE, so point to the ALE that you use. Otherwise where are getting the rules for this Venerable Dreadnaught thing? Nice scenery.
Spoiler:
Army List Entries
The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games
Workshop publications, such as codexes, codex supplements and dataslates.
Regardless of where this information is found, it is known as an Army List
Entry. Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel miniatures and
includes everything you will need to know in order to use that unit in a game
of Warhammer 40,000.
In some older codexes, the information for a single unit’s Army List Entry is
spread out amongst different sections of the book. Taken together they
describe, and are treated for all rules purposes as, a single Army List Entry.
When using such a codex, each unit’s Faction is the same as its codex title. For
example, all units in Codex: Space Marines belong to the Space Marines
Faction, whilst all units in Codex: Chaos Daemons belong to the Chaos
Daemons Faction.
RAI The writer intended "1 venerable dreadnaught" to mean "1 venerable dreadnaught"
Can you refute the underlined part?
Sure. The writer intended "1 venerable dreadnaught" to mean "unit of 1 venerable dreadnaught using the Venerable Dreadnaught ALE" because if its not a unit using an ALE it is not playable in 40k.
Or are you saying that the writer intended you to play the Venerable Dreadnaught as scenery?
How are you possibly arguing that the person who wrote
"1 venerable dreadnaught" did not mean "1 venerable dreadnaught"
To make sure im not mistaken, I actually copy/pasted those, they are identical.
1 means 1
apple means apple
ostrich means ostrich.
They are all identical pairs, they mean themselves.
Oh and,
Again. You are being overly pedantic and throwing up your arms and claiming something is unplayable . . .
AND THEN using that line of reasoning to come up with a way to play that makes up rules, breaks existing rules, and attempts to field illegal items. That is rules abuse.
Here's what the formation says,
"1 captain in terminator armour"
"1 venerable dreadnaught"
My formation
"1 captain in terminator armour"
"1 venerable dreadnaught"
yours
"1 captain in terminator armour"
"3 venerable dreadnaughts"
And I'm the one abusing rules?
I'm not being pedantic, im using RAW because as discussed earlier, RAW is like that.
RAW = unplayable.
I can't stress this enough, that's why we use RAI, because RAW doesn't work all the time. This is one of those times.
If you claim to use RAW, you can never use the defense, "you're being pedantic" , instead say, "you're very thorough, that is what's written there!"
@ col_impact: The problem is things like Wounds and all that can be tracked because the rules tell us how to determine which model(s) suffer them.
Same with other stat changes.
The Canoptek Harvest Formation does no such thing, so you made up rules in order to determine which Spyder was 'the Spyder'
Not to mention you also made up a rule at one point that 'allowed' 1 Spyder to be a member of the Formation while at the same time having its squad mates NOT be a part of the Formation and be detachment-less. And again you claimed it to be RAW (before you then dropped it, presumably because you realised that it wasn't RAW).
Ok, so I'm making up rules for the Ven Dread? Well yes, that's kinda what you have to do with RAI, otherwise you can't play the game. I'm making up just as many rules as you are to be able to legally field the Captain in the Formation. Again, hypocrisy on your part.
And one again the rules DO function when fielding a single model directly, as single models are also considered units.
Under the rules, scenery are not actual models, they're terrain.
1 Venerable Dreadnaught can only refer to 'a unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnaught using the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE'. Otherwise you have made up a rule that allows Formations to list models. And you are overlooking the fact that fielding a model directly in 40k means you are fielding scenery that will not be able to interact with any of the 40k rules for units (moving, shooting, assaulting, etc.)
and 1 captain in terminator armour can only refer to a unit of 1 captain, using the captain ALE.Otherwise you have made up a rule that allows Formations to list models. And you are overlooking the fact that fielding a model directly in 40k means you are fielding scenery that will not be able to interact with any of the 40k rules for units (moving, shooting, assaulting, etc.)
Yet you disagree with the captain getting a shiny bike and artificer armour.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: @ col_impact:
The problem is things like Wounds and all that can be tracked because the rules tell us how to determine which model(s) suffer them.
Same with other stat changes.
The Canoptek Harvest Formation does no such thing, so you made up rules in order to determine which Spyder was 'the Spyder'
Not to mention you also made up a rule at one point that 'allowed' 1 Spyder to be a member of the Formation while at the same time having its squad mates NOT be a part of the Formation and be detachment-less. And again you claimed it to be RAW (before you then dropped it, presumably because you realised that it wasn't RAW).
Ok, so I'm making up rules for the Ven Dread? Well yes, that's kinda what you have to do with RAI, otherwise you can't play the game. I'm making up just as many rules as you are to be able to legally field the Captain in the Formation. Again, hypocrisy on your part.
And one again the rules DO function when fielding a single model directly, as single models are also considered units.
Under the rules, scenery are not actual models, they're terrain.
Point to the ALE that you are required to have. At present you have a model with no rules associated with.
1 Venerable Dreadnaught can only refer to 'a unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnaught using the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE'. Otherwise you have made up a rule that allows Formations to list models. And you are overlooking the fact that fielding a model directly in 40k means you are fielding scenery that will not be able to interact with any of the 40k rules for units (moving, shooting, assaulting, etc.)
and 1 captain in terminator armour can only refer to a unit of 1 captain, using the captain ALE.Otherwise you have made up a rule that allows Formations to list models. And you are overlooking the fact that fielding a model directly in 40k means you are fielding scenery that will not be able to interact with any of the 40k rules for units (moving, shooting, assaulting, etc.)
Yet you disagree with the captain getting a shiny bike and artificer armour.
Agreed that 1 captain in terminator armour can only refer to a unit of 1 captain using the captain ALE. Equipping it with Terminator armour is required to satisfy the Formation listing. You can then add any additional upgrades from the ALE as you like as long as the Terminator armour stay on there. If the ALE allowed you to add additional Captains you could do that too.
RAI? The Ven Dread ALE. However RAI you can only have 1 as it refers to a single Ven Dread, not multiple Ven Dreads.
Same thing with the Captain.
RAW? An ALE doesn't exist. Ah well.
RAI? The Captain ALE. However, RAI you have to give him Terminator armour as it refers to a Captain in Terminator armour.
How do you know what is RAI? Can you read the writer's mind?
The ALE we have for the Venerable Dreadnaught requires it to be fielded as a unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnaught. The ALE allows for it to be upgraded. The listing does not say that it cannot be upgraded with additional Venerable Dreadnaughts. You are making up a restriction where there is none.
If the writer had intended for the Venerable Dreadnaught to be restricted in number he would have included that restriction in the Formations Restrictions. He did not so the intent is very clear.
We know that when you're able to take models normally they phrase it as 'N units of X' (where N is a number and X is a unit of some description whose models have the same name as the unit itself). From this we can conclude that when they simply say '1 X' they only want us to take 1 model from that unit with no squad mates.
The whole "How do you know what is RAI? Can you read the writer's mind? " defence is a fallacy.
This line of thought also apply to the Captain. How do we know they meant for us to take a Captain with the Termainator armour upgrade from the Captain ALE? If they wanted us to they'd have included the Terminator armour requirement in the REstrictions and told us to take 1 Captain. They did not so the intent is very clear - they meant for us to take a 'Captain in Terminator armour' from the 'Captain in Terminator armour' ALE. Any other interpretation is attempting to read the writer's mind which no one can do.
How do you know what is RAI? Can you read the writer's mind?
Can you?
Are you playing it RAW?
Are you using the "captain in terminator armour" ALE?
or are you assuming the writer intended it to be playable?
If the writer had intended for the Venerable Dreadnaught to be restricted in number he would have included that restriction in the Formations Restrictions. He did not so the intent is very clear.
Or y'know , if he meant "one venerable dreadnaught" he'd write " one venerable dreadnaught" , just a thought.
We know that when you're able to take models normally they phrase it as 'N units of X' (where N is a number and X is a unit of some description whose models have the same name as the unit itself). From this we can conclude that when they simply say '1 X' they only want us to take 1 model from that unit with no squad mates.
Do you have some rule which supports this assumption on your part? Otherwise you are making up a rule based on wild guessing.
I have rules in the ALE for the Venerable Dreadnaught that says I can add additional Dreadnaughts. You are lacking a rule that restricts that granted permission. My rule trumps your made up guess.
How do you know what is RAI? Can you read the writer's mind?
Can you?
Are you playing it RAW?
Are you using the "captain in terminator armour" ALE?
or are you assuming the writer intended it to be playable?
If the writer had intended for the Venerable Dreadnaught to be restricted in number he would have included that restriction in the Formations Restrictions. He did not so the intent is very clear.
Or y'know , if he meant "one venerable dreadnaught" he'd write " one venerable dreadnaught" , just a thought.
Well yes, it's an assumption. That's what RAI is. If it was literal from the rules themself it would be RAW
You have a rule that allows you to add additional Ven Dreads in the 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' ALE. What rule allows you to use the 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' ALE?
Or:
You have a rule that allows you to take Terminator armour for the 'Captain' ALE. You don't have to take it though. What rule allows you to use the 'Captain' ALE for the Firespear Task Force?
Point to the ALEs which the rules require to use.
How about you point them out. Show us RAW which ALEs we are meant to use. Not RAI - that's our side - but RAW.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Well yes, it's an assumption.
That's what RAI is. If it was literal from the rules themself it would be RAW
You have a rule that allows you to add additional Ven Dreads in the 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' ALE. What rule allows you to use the 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' ALE?
Or:
You have a rule that allows you to take Terminator armour for the 'Captain' ALE. You don't have to take it though. What rule allows you to use the 'Captain' ALE for the Firespear Task Force?
Point to the ALEs which the rules require to use.
How about you point them out. Show us RAW which ALEs we are meant to use. Not RAI - that's our side - but RAW.
You have to have an ALE or else you have no rules for your unit. So point to the ALEs you are using.
Well, the Formation rules (RAW, obviously) tell you what ALEs to use. If the ALE doesn't exist, oh well. According to you we can never use RAI because we can't read the writers' minds, therefore we can only use ALEs that don't exist. Since they don't exist, we can't use them. Ergo, we can't use the Formation.
So sad.
This is what your current argument says happens. If you disagree, why?
If you say we can use the 'Captain' and 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' ALEs without RAI, show us the rule that allows us to.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Well, the Formation rules (RAW, obviously) tell you what ALEs to use.
If the ALE doesn't exist, oh well. According to you we can never use RAI because we can't read the writers' minds, therefore we can only use ALEs that don't exist. Since they don't exist, we can't use them. Ergo, we can't use the Formation.
So sad.
This is what your current argument says happens. If you disagree, why?
If you say we can use the 'Captain' and 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' ALEs without RAI, show us the rule that allows us to.
I am asking you to point to the ALEs that your argument is using. If you can't point to an ALE you have no argument since the rules require you to use an ALE. So which ones are you using?
RAI? the 'Captain' and 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' ALEs, with the additional restriction of forcing the Captain to have Terminator armour and the Venerable Dreadnought to not purchase and squad-mates.
RAW? 2 ALEs they don't have any rules. Warhammer 40,000: The Rules just says they can only refer to ALEs, it doesn't say those ALEs have to have any rules. So obviously (RAW) the ALEs 'Captain in Terminator armour' and 'Venerable Dreadnough' exist, they just lack any rules or points costs.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: RAI? the 'Captain' and 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' ALEs, with the additional restriction of forcing the Captain to have Terminator armour and the Venerable Dreadnought to not purchase and squad-mates.
So you are wildly making up a restriction.
The ALE that you are using has a very clear rule that grants a very clear permission.
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
You cannot wildly make up a rule that goes directly counter an established rule.
The writer of the rule would have been very familiar with the permission granted on the ALE to add additional Dreadnaughts and chose not to restrict that permission.
Therefore, RAI and RAW, you can add additional dreadnaughts. The permission is right there on the ALE and nowhere is that permission revoked.
So you have no argument then as RAW you can't point to an ALE to use?
Thank god this thread can finally finish.
And I already explained the RAI section.
We know that when you're able to take models normally they phrase it as 'N units of X' (where N is a number and X is a unit of some description whose models have the same name as the unit itself). From this we can conclude that when they simply say '1 X' they only want us to take 1 model from that unit with no squad mates.
It's obvious that RAI you can't take 2 additional Ven Dreads. You can't say that you can RAW, because then you can't even use the ALE in the first place. Either way you don't get 2 additional Ven Dreads, it's just the RAW way also means you can't field the Formation without the game breaking during the list building stage.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: So you have no argument then as RAW you can't point to an ALE to use?
Thank god this thread can finally finish.
And I already explained the RAI section.
We know that when you're able to take models normally they phrase it as 'N units of X' (where N is a number and X is a unit of some description whose models have the same name as the unit itself). From this we can conclude that when they simply say '1 X' they only want us to take 1 model from that unit with no squad mates.
It's obvious that RAI you can't take 2 additional Ven Dreads.
You can't say that you can RAW, because then you can't even use the ALE in the first place. Either way you don't get 2 additional Ven Dreads, it's just the RAW way also means you can't field the Formation without the game breaking during the list building stage.
It's obvious RAI that you can take additional Dreadnaughts. The permission to do so is right there on the ALE that you required use. The writer would have been fully aware that that permission is granted. If he wanted to take that granted permission away he would have done so in a restriction.
Not my argument mate. That's yours.
If you are so keen to argue that you only use RAW, then without any RAI at all, tell me what ALEs to use.
Tell me what ALEs to use , and where you get permission to use ALEs that are not listed in the formation.
The rules require you to use an ALE. So if you cannot point to an ALE you have no argument.
EXACTLY!
RAW you can point to no ALE, so you have no argument.
I have pointed in my argument to the ALEs I am required to use. You have to point to the ALEs that you are using in your argument. Otherwise you have no argument. The game requires ALEs.
It's obvious RAI that you can take additional Dreadnaughts. The permission to do so is right there on the ALE that you use. The writer would have been fully aware that that permission is granted.
Don't change the subject. You said you only used RAW, not RAI. We've been discussing this for pages, you said you're argument was RAW.
If you want to argue RAI, we can move on to it, given that you agree we are no longer arguing RAW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have pointed in my argument to the ALEs I am required to use. You have to point to the ALEs that you are using in your argument. Otherwise you have no argument. The game requires ALEs.
What RAW ALEs did you point to, because the ALEs im pointing to are
"captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".
It's up to you to show the RAW why we can use ALEs that aren't "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".
I didn't realise that RAI maths don't exist the way they do in real life. It specifies a single model. By the rules of the game (page 9), single models are always considered a unit.
Also I can give the Captain artificer armour and a bike, permission is right there on his ALE that you use (or rather, don't use RAW, but whatever). The writer would have been fully aware that that permission is granted. He did not restrict it in the restrictions.
Looks like that if RAW you could take a Captain in the first place you can choose to not give him Terminator armour.
It's obvious RAI that you can take additional Dreadnaughts. The permission to do so is right there on the ALE that you use. The writer would have been fully aware that that permission is granted.
Don't change the subject. You said you only used RAW, not RAI. We've been discussing this for pages, you said you're argument was RAW.
If you want to argue RAI, we can move on to it, given that you agree we are no longer arguing RAW.
I have fully fleshed out my argument based consistently on RAW. I don't need to discuss RAI.
You have failed to produce a full argument. You have failed to point to an ALE.
Your particular RAI argument fails because you are trying to make up a rule out of nowhere that goes against a permission clearly granted on the ALE you are required to use. The writer of the rule would have been fully aware of the permission granted on the ALE and chose not to restrict it.
I didn't realise that RAI maths don't exist the way they do in real life. It specifies a single model. By the rules of the game (page 9), single models are always considered a unit.
Also I can give the Captain artificer armour and a bike, permission is right there on his ALE that you use (or rather, don't use RAW, but whatever). The writer would have been fully aware that that permission is granted. He did not restrict it in the restrictions.
Looks like that if RAW you could take a Captain in the first place you can choose to not give him Terminator armour.
What are you going to do about this rule on the ALE?
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
That rule defeats your whole RAI argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
harkequin wrote: you pointed to "captain" and "venerable dreadnaughts" which are not the same as "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".
What ALEs are you going to point to in your argument and use when you are playing the Captain and Venerable Dreadnaught?
If you cannot come forth and simply state this you have no argument
harkequin wrote:
you pointed to "captain" and "venerable dreadnaughts" which are not the same as "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".
What ALEs are you going to point to in your argument and use when you are playing the Captain and Venerable Dreadnaught?
If you cannot come forth and simply state this you have no argument
You haven't answered me yet.
Where is your permission to use "captain" and "venerable dreadnaught" ALEs , using only RAW
Matt.Kingsley wrote: And RAI the Formation clearly specifies a single model.3 models aren't 1.
The Formation lists 1 model that can be upgraded with 2 additional models. It's right there on the rules. You purchase the 1 model satisfying the Formation and then are free to upgrade 2 more models.
Are you saying that the permission clearly granted on the ALE is somehow restricted?? If so please point to the rule that restricts that permission. Failure to do so means that that permission is freely exercisable by the player.
have fully fleshed out my argument based consistently on RAW If this was true you would be arguing that you can't use the Firespear Task Force as it refers to 2 ALEs without rules.
My RAW argument is not an overly pedantic one.
The Formation rules require us to use units and ALEs. As long as we are not overly pedantic we can easily find the ALEs. It's not even debatable which ALEs to use.
The only possible ALE that 1 Venerable Dreadnaught can refer to is the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE.
The only possible ALE that 1 Captain in Terminator armour can refer to is the Captain ALE.
harkequin wrote:
you pointed to "captain" and "venerable dreadnaughts" which are not the same as "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".
What ALEs are you going to point to in your argument and use when you are playing the Captain and Venerable Dreadnaught?
If you cannot come forth and simply state this you have no argument
You haven't answered me yet.
Where is your permission to use "captain" and "venerable dreadnaught" ALEs , using only RAW
Already answered many times.
Spoiler:
I play by RAW and not by overly pedantic RAW. I treat negligible reference problems as negligible.
The Formation rules absolutely require UNITS and ALE. Any solution we come up with must adhere to known and established rules.
So 1 Venerable Dreadnaught has to point to a unit and an ALE. There is only one option in the codex. We find it easily unless we are being overly pedantic.
That ALE has options on it. Formations allow you to access the options. We do so.
So which ALEs are you going to use or are you conceding that you have no argument?
The Formation rules require us to use units and ALEs. As long as we are not overly pedantic we can easily find the ALEs. It's not even debatable which ALEs to use.
The only possible ALE that 1 Venerable Dreadnaught can refer to is the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE.
The only possible ALE that 1 Captain in Terminator armour can refer to is the Captain ALE.
You are making an assumption, that is not RAW.
Show me where it gives you written permission to use ALEs that are NOT "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
If you can present this permission in the rules as written then it is not RAW.
CrownAxe wrote: "Overly pendantic RAW" is what RAW is col_impact
Nope. Overly pedantic RAW allows itself to intentionally get hung up on negligible technical details.
It's not debatable that we have to use ALEs. It's not debatable which ALEs to use. It's patently obvious and noncontroversial which ALEs to use.
So it's clear that the RAW is to use ALEs and to use the patently obvious ones (Venerable Dreadnaughts, Captain)
It's also clear that any rules on those ALEs need to be followed. That includes the permission to add additional Dreadnaughts unless that permission is somehow taken away.
Nope. Overly pedantic RAW allows itself to intentionally get hung up on negligible technical details.
It's not debatable that we have to use ALEs. It's not debatable which ALEs to use.
So it's clear that the RAW is to use ALEs and to use the patently obvious ones (Venerable Dreadnaughts, Captain)
It's also clear that any rules on those ALEs need to be followed. That includes the permission to add additional Dreadnaughts unless that permission is somehow taken away.
You still haven't answered. Show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".
Saying "it's clear", amounts to , "because i said so"
So your argument is that you cannot play that Formation?
Precisely.
More clearly i'm trying to highlight to you that RAI is an important part of the rules.
When we brought up RAI you said "can you read their mind?" So I'm pointing out that using pure RAW (Which you claim to use) you can't do what you want (field the formation).
However with RAI we can (safely) assume the designers intended it to be playable, therefore we can assume they intended us to use the closest ALEs
If you don't accept RAI this discussion can't continue.
Put simply. YOU ARE USING RAI
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nope. My RAW argument is not an overly pedantic one.
then its not RAW, it's RAI , that's what seperates them
Nope. Overly pedantic RAW allows itself to intentionally get hung up on negligible technical details.
It's not debatable that we have to use ALEs. It's not debatable which ALEs to use.
So it's clear that the RAW is to use ALEs and to use the patently obvious ones (Venerable Dreadnaughts, Captain)
It's also clear that any rules on those ALEs need to be followed. That includes the permission to add additional Dreadnaughts unless that permission is somehow taken away.
You still haven't answered.
Show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".
Saying "it's clear", amounts to , "because i said so"
So your argument is that you cannot play that Formation?
Precisely.
More clearly i'm trying to highlight to you that RAI is an important part of the rules.
When we brought up RAI you said "can you read their mind?"
So I'm pointing out that using pure RAW (Which you claim to use) you can't do what you want (field the formation).
However with RAI we can (safely) assume the designers intended it to be playable, therefore we can assume they intended us to use the closest ALEs
If you don't accept RAI this discussion can't continue.
Put simply.
YOU ARE USING RAI
So you are saying it's patently obvious and noncontroversial which ALEs to use?
Yea, my RAW argument doesn't bother getting hung up on things that are patently obvious and noncontroversial. That's what not being overly pedantic means.
So you are saying it's patently obvious and noncontroversial which ALEs to use?
No.
did you read my argument?
I'm not arguing which to use, im arguing that RAW doesn't let you field this.
Yea, my RAW argument doesn't bother getting hung up on things that are patently obvious and noncontroversial. That's what not being overly pedantic means
So you are ignoring part of what's written?
So you are not using the rules as they are written?
then it is not RAW
Now you still haven't answered me...
Show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".
making no assumptions, using only RAW, which i remind you, means Rules as written , you don't get to assume anything, use only whats written. Because this is RAW
So you are saying it's patently obvious and noncontroversial which ALEs to use?
No.
did you read my argument?
I'm not arguing which to use, im arguing that RAW doesn't let you field this.
Yea, my RAW argument doesn't bother getting hung up on things that are patently obvious and noncontroversial. That's what not being overly pedantic means
So you are ignoring part of what's written?
So you are not using the rules as they are written?
then it is not RAW
Now you still haven't answered me...
Show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".
making no assumptions, using only RAW, which i remind you, means Rules as written , you don't get to assume anything, use only whats written. Because this is RAW
It's patently obvious and noncontroversial which ALEs to use. No other tenable options can be put forward. Therefore we don't even need to argue because its negligible. That's what a RAW argument does that is not overly pedantic. It does not get hung up with patently obvious and noncontroversial and negligible things.
It's patently obvious and noncontroversial which ALEs to use. No other tenable options can be put forward. Therefore we don't even need to argue because its negligible.
So you have no RAW argument then,
If it's obvious that they intended which ALEs to use, its RAI
otherwise
Show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".
It's patently obvious and noncontroversial which ALEs to use. No other tenable options can be put forward. Therefore we don't even need to argue because its negligible.
So you have no RAW argument then,
If it's obvious that they intended which ALEs to use, its RAI
otherwise
Show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".
There is no need for any argument. It's patently obvious which ALEs we use. We don't need to resort to any overly pedantic line of reasoning. Are there any other tenable ALEs to use?
There is no need for any argument. It's patently obvious which ALEs we use. Are there any other tenable ALEs to use?
There is need for an argument, you claim its RAW, then Show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
otherwise admit you are not using RAW to determine which ALEs to use.
The answer "it's obvious, i dont need to back it up with what's written, might be acceptable if you weren't arguing that everything you said was backed up by what's written.
There is no need for any argument. It's patently obvious which ALEs we use. Are there any other tenable ALEs to use?
There is need for an argument, you claim its RAW, then Show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
otherwise admit you are not using RAW to determine which ALEs to use.
The answer "it's obvious, i dont need to back it up with what's written, might be acceptable if you weren't arguing that everything you said was backed up by what's written.
My argument is RAW. It just refrains from arguing in an overly pedantic manner. All proper RAW arguments should refrain from overly pedantic arguments that are intent on breaking the rules so no one plays.
Using the RAW to argue against patently obvious and noncontroversial items is rules abuse. An overly pedantic argument that claims that the formation cannot be played RAW is rules abuse. I refrain from rules abuse.
So we are agreed about which ALEs to use. That item is put to rest. What's the next item to address?
Show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
Show me this one simple rule, and you win.
Don't keep saying it's obvious , or pedantic.
You're the one arguing it's RAW , so use it.
If it really is the rules as written then it should be easy to copy paste.
I'm off for the night, take your time, reply whenever you can show me the permission to use ALEs that aren't "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
Show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
Show me this one simple rule, and you win.
Don't keep saying it's obvious , or pedantic.
You're the one arguing it's RAW , so use it.
If it really is the rules as written then it should be easy to copy paste.
I'm off for the night, take your time, reply whenever you can show me the permission to use ALEs that aren't "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
My argument is RAW. And I have always made clear that it is not an overly pedantic RAW. The game of 40k is not infallible so an overly pedantic RAW means you don't get to play. so in order to play you have to not sweat the obvious stuff like 'a Formation is meant to be played'. By arguing RAW I mean using RAW to sort out controversial, non-obvious things worth arguing about and only resorting to RAI when RAW offers no solution about those controversial things.
The Formation rules require you to use units and ALEs so you are required to find an ALE to use to play and you are required to field the Formation listing as a unit.
Any line of reasoning that thinks you can field models directly goes against all of the rules in 40k.
Any line of reasoning that thinks you do not require ALEs for your models goes directly against RAW and is practically untenable because doing so means you lack the rules to field the unit.
So the rules direct us to find ALEs for '1 Venerable Dreadnaught' and 'Captain in Terminator armour'
It's patently obvious and noncontroversial which ALEs to use for Venerable Dreadnaught and Captain in Terminator armour so we use those ALEs (Venerable Dreadnaughts, Captain). If the Formation is going to be played at all its obvious which ALEs will be used.
The controversial thing we are trying to sort out is if multiple dreadnaughts can be taken in the Firespear Task Force.
On the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE there is this rule.
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
col_impact wrote: My argument is RAW. And I have always made clear that it is not an overly pedantic RAW.
This is just silly. You're making an assumption on how you think the rules should function because the explicit wording does not function by itself, yet claim you are not making a RAI argument.
Simply drop the "OMG I'M SO RAW" attitude and accept that RAI is okay.
It's okai to be RAI *hug*
The game of 40k is not infallible so an overly pedantic RAW means you don't get to play so in order to play you have to not sweat the obvious stuff like 'a Formation is meant to be played'. By arguing RAW I mean using RAW to sort out controversial, non-obvious things worth arguing about.
The Formation rules require you to use units and ALEs so you are required to find an ALE to use to play and you are required to field the Formation listing as a unit.
Any line of reasoning that thinks you can field models directly goes against all of the rules in 40k.
Any line of reasoning that thinks you do not require ALEs for your models goes directly against RAW and is practically untenable because doing so means you lack the rules to field the unit.
So the rules direct us to find ALEs for '1 Venerable Dreadnaught' and 'Captain in Terminator armour'
It's patently obvious and noncontroversial which ALEs to use for Venerable Dreadnaught and Captain in Terminator armour so we use those ALEs (Venerable Dreadnaughts, Captain). If the Formation is going to be played at all its obvious which ALEs will be used.
On the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE there is this rule.
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
So we have permission to add 2 Dreadnaughts.
You're assuming the formation's rules were intended to be read as "1 (unit of) (')Venerable Dreadnought(s')".
It's entirely possible the formation's rules were intended to be read as "(unit of) 1 Venerable Dreadnought (from 'Venerable Dreadnoughts')".
Either way requires making an assumption, which there is nothing wrong with.
The reason I think it's more likely the latter is the formation being part of the Start Collecting Space Marines box, which comes with a Captain in Terminator Armour, a Tactical Squad and a Venerable Dreadnought.
You're assuming the formation's rules were intended to be read as "1 (unit of) (')Venerable Dreadnought(s')".
It's entirely possible the formation's rules were intended to be read as "(unit of) 1 Venerable Dreadnought (from 'Venerable Dreadnoughts')".
Either way requires making an assumption, which there is nothing wrong with.
The reason I think it's more likely the latter is the formation being part of the Start Collecting Space Marines box, which comes with a Captain in Terminator Armour, a Tactical Squad and a Venerable Dreadnought.
I have always argued that the Formation rules, which require units, make the listing read as "(unit of) 1 Venerable Dreadnaught (from 'Venerable Dreadnoughts')".
This rule works the same either way.
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
Col - your argument cannot be raw. Because you are NOT using the rules as written
The rule as written requires you to use the "captain in terminator armour" ALE. This is impossible for you to disagree with, using rules as written. This is a truth, and if you were arguing honestly you would not deny this.
By your own admission, by using "obvious" as a determiner, you cannot be using raw. We know this, and you know this.
Just stop. Your argument is flawed, and has been for five pages.
RAW, the formation cannot be used. RAI you use the Ben dread ale and the captain ALE and restrict the, to one model and to wearing terminator armour on the captain.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Col - your argument cannot be raw. Because you are NOT using the rules as written
The rule as written requires you to use the "captain in terminator armour" ALE. This is impossible for you to disagree with, using rules as written. This is a truth, and if you were arguing honestly you would not deny this.
By your own admission, by using "obvious" as a determiner, you cannot be using raw. We know this, and you know this.
Just stop. Your argument is flawed, and has been for five pages.
RAW, the formation cannot be used. RAI you use the Ben dread ale and the captain ALE and restrict the, to one model and to wearing terminator armour on the captain.
Do my eyes deceive me? Nos promoting playing RaI? But also and mainly QFT!!!
nosferatu1001 wrote: Col - your argument cannot be raw. Because you are NOT using the rules as written
The rule as written requires you to use the "captain in terminator armour" ALE. This is impossible for you to disagree with, using rules as written. This is a truth, and if you were arguing honestly you would not deny this.
By your own admission, by using "obvious" as a determiner, you cannot be using raw. We know this, and you know this.
Just stop. Your argument is flawed, and has been for five pages.
RAW, the formation cannot be used. RAI you use the Ben dread ale and the captain ALE and restrict the, to one model and to wearing terminator armour on the captain.
Do my eyes deceive me? Nos promoting playing RaI? But also and mainly QFT!!!
Nope, however it isnt a new position. I use RAW to detemine the base position, then work from there. Like knowing the rules never let models without eyes shoot up until 7th ed, but still shot with my bezerkers with helmets.
Col is likely behaving like something often found under a bridge here. As soon as they stated this supposed difference between "pedantic" RAW, as if you can have a Rule-as-written-but-not-actually-whats-written and still call it RAW, and actualRAW, which means using the rule as written (oddly enough) gthey are either deliberately winding people up, or frankly do not understand the term RAW.
I am still waiting for someone to show a controversy or debate over which ALEs to use. If there is no controversy we don't need to argue about it if it's patently clear which ALEs we use.
Unless someone shows a controversy, we can stick to debating what is controversial, namely the number of Dreadnaughts in the Formation and the presence of a rule which grants clear permission to add additional Dreadnaughts and the absence of any rule which restricts that permission.
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
The counter argument seems to be proposing that if you have to fix some pedantic typographical reference problems to get the rules to match up exactly you get free reign make up all sorts of rules and to ignore all rules. That is rules abuse.
And yet there is a rule quite evident on the ALE that you have to use that grants full permission to add additional Dreadnaughts and no rule which takes away that permission.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fragile wrote: Its RAW when its in his favor (aka Pylon Death Ray) but its Pedantic when its not (Spyders, etc.)
In the case of Spyders, the ALE to use is EXACTLY referenced by page number in the printed codex, which is more than enough to address any reference problems between 'Canoptek Spyder' and 'Canoptek Spyders'. There is absolutely full justification in the RAW over which ALE to use. Reference by page number leaves absolutely no doubt.
Only a person intent on committing rules abuse in their favor would claim that the 1 Canoptek Spyder in the formation does not use the Canoptek Spyders ALE.
Except the Firespear Task Force formation which explicitly points out:
1 Venerable Dreadnought
Show me a rule that says I cannot add to the unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnought with the Options to add additional Dreadnaughts rule I have free unrestricted access to.
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
RAW, the formation cannot be used. RAI you use the Ben dread ale and the captain ALE and restrict the, to one model and to wearing terminator armour on the captain.
Agreed that you use the Ven Dread ALE and the Captain ALE but it cannot be RAI to restrict to one model if there is a rule on the ALE that grants full permission to add additional Dreads on the ALE. The writer would have been fully aware of the permission that is explicitly granted and no where is that restriction explicitly taken away.
You are trying to use a small reference problem in the RAW to justify wholesale making up of rules to go directly against rules clearly present on the ALE.
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
You need to point to a rule that restricts this permission. Otherwise you have no RAI argument and have committed rules abuse.
I would compare the formation with e.g. the recent Tau formations and come to the conclusion that 1 unit of riptides equals multiples whereas 1 venerable dreadnought equals 1 venerable dreadnought.
Naw wrote: I would compare the formation with e.g. the recent Tau formations and come to the conclusion that 1 unit of riptides equals multiples whereas 1 venerable dreadnought equals 1 venerable dreadnought.
Do you have a rule to back up that wild guess at intent?
This rule is clearly present on the ALE that you are required to use
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
Naw wrote: I would compare the formation with e.g. the recent Tau formations and come to the conclusion that 1 unit of riptides equals multiples whereas 1 venerable dreadnought equals 1 venerable dreadnought.
Do you have a rule to back up that wild guess at intent?
This rule is clearly present on the ALE that you are required to use
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
nosferatu1001 wrote: Col - the debate is there is NO ALE called captain in terminator armour.
Therefore raw you cannot fulfill the formation requirements.
You cannot , honestly, disagree with this position. Do you agree or disagree?
Nobody is saying there is an ALE called exactly "Captain in Terminator armour".
The Formation rules require you to use units and ALEs; therefore you must find an ALE in the SM codex.
It is patently obvious which ALE we are to use for the Captain in Terminator armour. There are no tenable alternatives than the Captain ALE
There is no need to argue one way or the other using RAI or RAW if it's obvious. Arguing over it is arguing over pedantics. Someone will need to present an actual alternative ALE to use for it to be worth arguing over.
However, there is a need to argue over how many dreadnaughts are allowed in the unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnaught (from the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE).
There is a rule on the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE . . .
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
Naw wrote: I would compare the formation with e.g. the recent Tau formations and come to the conclusion that 1 unit of riptides equals multiples whereas 1 venerable dreadnought equals 1 venerable dreadnought.
Do you have a rule to back up that wild guess at intent?
This rule is clearly present on the ALE that you are required to use
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
Nothing is preventing the rule from being used.
I would agree with you if it wasn't a formation.
Do you have a Formation rule that backs up what you claim? As it is now, the only thing you have backing you up is your own wild guess at intent whereas I have an actual rule in the book. My rule trumps your guess.
This thread needs to be locked. It isn't going anywhere and will never go anywhere.
Here is the reality of the situation...
The rules for Formation tell us that a given Formation will list the Army List Entries required. Army List Entries have names. In a perfect world, GW would follow their own rules and list out the names of the Army List Entries required. Any restrictions (e.g. only 1 Venerable Dread model in the Venerable Dread unit) would be listed in the Restrictions section of the Formation.
This isn't a perfect world. GW frequently lists things that definitely AREN'T Army List Entries. They appear to occasionally list individual models... something the rules don't cover. They are incredibly inconsistent.
Looking for a RaW answer is a fool's errand. Even if you COULD find a RaW anwer, it would probably not agree with RaI. The RaW answer most of the time will be "there is no ALE called XXX, hence the Formation can't be taken".
The answer... as is frequently the case with this game, is to use common sense. Everyone KNOWS that the Canoptek Harvest is supposed to have a single Spyder model. Everyone KNOWS that you're only supposed to have a single Venerable Dread model. Everyone KNOWS that the Captain in Terminator Armour is really just a Captain ALE with the Terminator Armour upgrade.
Kriswall wrote: Everyone KNOWS that you're only supposed to have a single Venerable Dread model.
Wholly incorrect. Formation rules do not allow the direct fielding of models. The rules of 40k do not support models that are directly fielded (no moving, shooting, or assaulting among other things) . Nice bit of scenery you have there.
What rule are you invoking to restrict someone's access to this rule?
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
If there is no restriction, then the player can simply upgrade the unit of 1 Venerable Dread with 2 additional Venerable Dreads.
Col - "the Formation rules require you to use units and ALEs; therefore you must find an ALE in the SM codex"
Erm, no. Wrong. Utterly, totally wrong.
In order to use the ALE then you have to find one named exactly that in the sm codex. In order to legally field the formation you must find one named EXACTLY the same.
If you cannot find an EXACT match then you are not playing rules as written. There is no ale called "captain in terminator armour" in the SM codex, therefore you may not field the unit. Done. There is no other correct RAW answer.
But then, you admit you're not playing RAW. Just your curious version of RAI whereby "it's obvious" is allowed for requiring a captain ale and restricting him to terminator armour - despite thatNOT being a listed restriction, but "it's obvious" that "1 venerable dreadnought" doesn't restrict you to a single model unit, as it isn't listed as a restriction
Inconsistency. One of the signs of a weak, illogical argument.
Kriswall wrote: Everyone KNOWS that you're only supposed to have a single Venerable Dread model.
Wholly incorrect. Formation rules do not allow the direct fielding of models. The rules of 40k do not support models that are directly fielded (no moving, shooting, or assaulting among other things) . Nice bit of scenery you have there.
What rule are you invoking to restrict someone's access to this rule?
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
If there is no restriction, then the player can simply upgrade the unit of 1 Venerable Dread with 2 additional Venerable Dreads.
But then, you admit you're not playing RAW. Just your curious version of RAI whereby "it's obvious" is allowed for requiring a captain ale and restricting him to terminator armour - despite thatNOT being a listed restriction, but "it's obvious" that "1 venerable dreadnought" doesn't restrict you to a single model unit, as it isn't listed as a restriction
Yes indeed, there need to be rules that restrict for there to be a restriction.
If you cannot point to a restriction then why do you think there is one?
Undoubtedly you must satisfy the Formation and purchase the unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnought but then you are free to upgrade it per the options and add additional Venerable Dreads.
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
Are you saying that units bought in formations do not have access to options?
...Undoubtedly you must satisfy the Formation and purchase the unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnought and then you are free to upgrade it per the options and add additional Venerable Dreads.
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
Are you saying that units bought in formations do not have access to options?
That might be the case if the Option you pasted belonged to the Venerable Dreadnought from the FTF formation, however it does not, it belongs to the entry of Venerable DreadnoughtS.
...Undoubtedly you must satisfy the Formation and purchase the unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnought and then you are free to upgrade it per the options and add additional Venerable Dreads.
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
Are you saying that units bought in formations do not have access to options?
That might be the case if the Option you pasted belonged to the Venerable Dreadnought from the FTF formation, however it does not, it belongs to the entry of Venerable DreadnoughtS.
The rules require you to have an ALE so which ALE are you using for the Venerable Dreadnaught from the FTF formation?
If you do not have an ALE you lack rules for the Venerable Dreadnaught and will be unable to do anything with that Dreadnaught.
It's this kind of silliness that infects much of the counter-arguments in this thread. Just because there is a negligible referencing issue between 'Venerable Dreadnought' and 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' does not mean you get to ignore the BRB requirement of having an ALE for the units you field. Not only do the Formation and ALE rules require it, but not having an ALE means you have no rules for your Venerable Dreadnought.
The rules require you to have an ALE so which ALE are you using for the Venerable Dreadnaught from the FTF formation?
If you do not have an ALE you lack rules for the Venerable Dreadnaught and will be unable to do anything with that Dreadnaught.
The question should be which rules are you using to allow it since the formation clearly states 1, it is not RAW that is certain.
I'm as much of a RAW man as the next guy but in this case I would be quite content to not care, and go with the one model myself.
The rules require you to have an ALE so which ALE are you using for the Venerable Dreadnaught from the FTF formation?
If you do not have an ALE you lack rules for the Venerable Dreadnaught and will be unable to do anything with that Dreadnaught.
The question should be which rules are you using to allow it since the formation clearly states 1, it is not RAW that is certain.
I'm as much of a RAW man as the next guy but in this case I would be quite content to not care, and go with the one model myself.
Again, you cannot field the Venerable Dreadnought without an ALE so which ALE are you going to use?
Not having one is not an option unless you intend to run the Venerable Dreadnaught as scenery.
"Going with the one model" is also not an option because Formations require units and ALEs, and Formations do not allow the direct fielding of models. Moreover, the rules of 40K require units to be fielded. Models directly fielded will not be able to move, shoot, be shot at, or assault, among other things.
Your continued inability to present the required ALE shows off the silliness of the counter argument. Just because there is a negligible reference problem between Venerable Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnoughts does not mean you get to whatever the feth you please and break all the rules and not have an ALE. The ALE is the rules required to play the Ven Dreadnought!
The rules require ALEs.
The rules require units to be fielded.
Follow the rules and tell me which ALE you are going to use to field that Venerable Dreadnought. If you cannot your argument is wholly invalid.
The rules of 40k do not support models that are directly fielded (no moving, shooting, or assaulting among other things) . Nice bit of scenery you have there.
This is wrong.
I even showed you the rule that says this is incorrect when you asked be to pages ago. And I know you read (or saw it and ignored it, because your reply ignored what the rule said).
Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 9 wrote:a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right.
Not to mention your reply made no sense... I mean how can it be scenery? The rules tell you what terrain is and a single model like a Dreadnought it is not.
And for the nth time, RAW you use an ALE that lacks rules. Therefore it's unplayable. Ah well, better find another Formation that works...
No doubt you'll repeat the same argument again as to why this isn't RAW and that your argument is RAW despite not using any rules as they are written to make your point.
I am astounded by the fact that this has gone on for 6 pages. The spyder was settled. One means one. Not one unit. If it said "one unit" as MANY formations do, then you could take "one unit" but you are not given permission to do that. You are given permission to take one model.
The argument that units are comprised of models and models will always lead to units is fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of these formations. This is how GW writes rules. You can rules lawyer or you can just play it right.
For those of you who don't want to be THAT GUY, just take one. If you want to have to read these 6 pages to your opponent to dubiously convince him/her that you are correct before the battle starts, be my guest. But honestly, who cares? Any big event that you might want to take this to is going to laugh at you for suggesting this as RAW, and anyone that you want to faceroll in a normal game with your giant advantage gained *sarcasm* is going to just accept their death by a thousand rules interpretations before it's all over.
Kriswall wrote: Everyone KNOWS that you're only supposed to have a single Venerable Dread model.
Wholly incorrect. Formation rules do not allow the direct fielding of models. The rules of 40k do not support models that are directly fielded (no moving, shooting, or assaulting among other things) . Nice bit of scenery you have there.
What rule are you invoking to restrict someone's access to this rule?
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
If there is no restriction, then the player can simply upgrade the unit of 1 Venerable Dread with 2 additional Venerable Dreads.
Again, you cannot field the Venerable Dreadnought without an ALE so which ALE are you going to use?
Ok, since you insist i would go with entry from IMPERIAL ARMOUR VOLUME TWO SECOND EDITION p141.
0-1 VENERABLE DREADNOUGHT
What ALE are you going to use?
Page 141 of my copy of Imperial Armour Volume Two Second Edition has a couple of pictures of Storm Eagles. The book does have 5 different Dreadnought variants. None of them are called Venerable Dreadnought. Try again?
Page 141 of my copy of Imperial Armour Volume Two Second Edition has a couple of pictures of Storm Eagles. The book does have 5 different Dreadnought variants. None of them are called Venerable Dreadnought. Try again?
Ah my bad mixed em up mine is IA vol 2 - Space Marines and Forces of the Inquisition p141.
Col_impact , stop trying to get us to provide ALEs , you have to provide permission to use ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
The rules of 40k do not support models that are directly fielded (no moving, shooting, or assaulting among other things) . Nice bit of scenery you have there.
This is wrong.
I even showed you the rule that says this is incorrect when you asked be to pages ago. And I know you read (or saw it and ignored it, because your reply ignored what the rule said).
Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 9 wrote:a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right.
Not to mention your reply made no sense... I mean how can it be scenery? The rules tell you what terrain is and a single model like a Dreadnought it is not.
And for the nth time, RAW you use an ALE that lacks rules. Therefore it's unplayable. Ah well, better find another Formation that works...
No doubt you'll repeat the same argument again as to why this isn't RAW and that your argument is RAW despite not using any rules as they are written to make your point.
The rules require you to have an ALE to be able to play a unit. Without the ALE you lack the rules to do anything with the model in your possession.
Spoiler:
The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games
Workshop publications, such as codexes, codex supplements and dataslates.
Regardless of where this information is found, it is known as an Army List
Entry. Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel miniatures and
includes everything you will need to know in order to use that unit in a game
of Warhammer 40,000.
In some older codexes, the information for a single unit’s Army List Entry is
spread out amongst different sections of the book. Taken together they
describe, and are treated for all rules purposes as, a single Army List Entry.
When using such a codex, each unit’s Faction is the same as its codex title. For
example, all units in Codex: Space Marines belong to the Space Marines
Faction, whilst all units in Codex: Chaos Daemons belong to the Chaos
Daemons Faction.
So point to the ALE you are going to use.
Again, this kind of silliness of not providing an ALE when the rules absolutely demand an ALE in order to be able to play that Venerable Dreadnaught shows your argument is wholly invalid.
2) The Firespear Strike Force formation is not a formation from IMPERIAL ARMOUR VOLUME TWO SECOND EDITION.
The Firespear Task Force is also not a Formation in the space Marines codex.
Indeed, it isn't even in a codex at all.
So if the above quote is one reason why IAs don't count, do you also think Codex Space Marines can't be used with the Formation? I mean, it doesn't tell you to use Codex Space Marines.
Also the Rules say:
Warhammer 40,000: The Rules page 121 wrote:Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise of a Formation are listed on it...
Therefore, according to the rules, 'Captain in Terminator armour' and 'Venerable Dreadnought' are ALEs. Not being able to locate the rules for them is just a hitch.
harkequin wrote: Col_impact , stop trying to get us to provide ALEs , you have to provide permission to use ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
go ahead and show me the written permission.
Also MOD LOCK PLEASE
You have to be able to point to an ALE or you will be unable to play the Venerable Dreadnought as you will lack rules for playing it.
Again, this is silliness on your part. You are basically conceding here that you have no valid argument.
My argument has always been that it is patently obvious which ALE to use for Venerable Dreadnought and for Captain in Terminator armour. Whether that is a non-pedantic RAW justification or a patently obvious RAI justification does not matter since the matter of which ALE to use is noncontroversial. Nobody has submitted any viable alternatives to those ALE.
2) The Firespear Strike Force formation is not a formation from IMPERIAL ARMOUR VOLUME TWO SECOND EDITION.
The Firespear Task Force is also not a Formation in the space Marines codex.
Indeed, it isn't even in a codex at all.
So if the above quote is one reason why IAs don't count, do you also think Codex Space Marines can't be used with the Formation? I mean, it doesn't tell you to use Codex Space Marines.
Also the Rules say:
Warhammer 40,000: The Rules page 121 wrote:Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise of a Formation are listed on it...
Therefore, according to the rules, 'Captain in Terminator armour' and 'Venerable Dreadnought' are ALEs.
Not being able to locate the rules for them is just a hitch.
You have yet to point to an ALE for your Venerable Dreadnought.
Use RAI or whatever but the rules require you to have an ALE so point to it and satisfy this fundamental requirement for your argument to be valid.
If you cannot then you have no rules for your Venerable Dreadnought and the Dreadnought will be unable to do anything and your argument will be wholly invalid.
No, I have failed to point to rules for the ALE, because none exist.
That doesn't change the fact that RAW 'Venerable Dreadnought' is an ALE. Otherwise the Formation wouldn't be referencing it.
Anything otherwise is just an assumption. Why are you assuming 'Venerable Dreadnought' isn't an ALE? What rules tell you it isn't an ALE? Certainly not the Formation rules, as they refer to ALEs.
Ergo, 'Venerable Dreadnought' and 'Captain in Terminator armour' are ALEs. They just lack playable rules.
And my argument is not wholly invalid as I never claimed it was playable RAW. That, my friend, was your claim.
Page 141 of my copy of Imperial Armour Volume Two Second Edition has a couple of pictures of Storm Eagles. The book does have 5 different Dreadnought variants. None of them are called Venerable Dreadnought. Try again?
Ah my bad mixed em up mine is IA vol 2 - Space Marines and Forces of the Inquisition p141.
You are required to use the most current edition which is the Second Edition. Try again?
You have to be able to point to an ALE or you will be unable to play the Venerable Dreadnought as you will lack rules for playing it.
No , I don't.
YOU are the one saying you're using RAW , YOU are the one saying the formations is playable RAW. All YOU.
I'm asking you to prove it with the RULES AS WRITTEN. that you claim to use.
They are written, so write them down.
By refusing to answer this multiple times you have proven you have no argument.
You lose.
You are basically conceding here that you have no valid argument.
do you even know what my argument is? please enlighten me.
My argument has always been that it is patently obvious which ALE to use
prove it.
"It's obvious" is worthless.
You claim it's rules as written, so show me the written rules.
"It's obvious they intended which to use" is RAI.
So finally, unless you want to dodge this question again,
show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
just for fun I'm going to bo back and count how many times you've failed to answer this.
"It's obvious" is not a RAW defense
"You're pedantic" is not a RAW defense
Matt.Kingsley wrote: No, I have failed to point to rules for the ALE, because none exist.
That doesn't change the fact that RAW 'Venerable Dreadnought' is an ALE. Otherwise the Formation wouldn't be referencing it.
Anything otherwise is just an assumption. Why are you assuming 'Venerable Dreadnought' isn't an ALE? What rules tell you it isn't an ALE? Certainly not the Formation rules, as they refer to ALEs.
Ergo, 'Venerable Dreadnought' and 'Captain in Terminator armour' are ALEs. They just lack playable rules.
And my argument is not wholly invalid as I never claimed it was playable RAW. That, my friend, was your claim.
Which ALEs are you going to point to with your RAI argument?
You have to be able to point to an ALE or you will be unable to play the Venerable Dreadnought as you will lack rules for playing it.
No , I don't.
YOU are the one saying you're using RAW , YOU are the one saying the formations is playable RAW. All YOU.
I'm asking you to prove it with the RULES AS WRITTEN. that you claim to use.
They are written, so write them down.
By refusing to answer this multiple times you have proven you have no argument.
You lose.
You are basically conceding here that you have no valid argument.
do you even know what my argument is? please enlighten me.
My argument has always been that it is patently obvious which ALE to use
prove it.
"It's obvious" is worthless.
You claim it's rules as written, so show me the written rules.
"It's obvious they intended which to use" is RAI.
So finally, unless you want to dodge this question again,
show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
just for fun I'm going to bo back and count how many times you've failed to answer this.
"It's obvious" is not a RAW defense
"You're pedantic" is not a RAW defense
You have yet to show that it is controversial or debatable which ALE to use.
If there is no controversy over which ALE to use from all sides then I don't have to use a RAW line of reasoning to pedantically justify what is already noncontroversial.
There are simply no other tenable options than the Venerable Dreadnoughts ALE and the Captain ALE in the Space Marines codex.
If you think there are other tenable options then point to them.
You mean the argument I dropped ages ago because you don't believe in RAI so there was no point continuing as you kept wanting to argue RAW over RAI?
'Captain' and 'Venerable Dreadnoughts', with the additional restrictions of Terminator armour being a required upgrade and being barred from purchasing additional Venerable Dreadnoughts. The obvious RAI interpretation.
But why is that relevant to the post you quoted? My current argument is that RAW the Formation isn't playable as it refers to 2 ALEs without rules. You have failed to prove otherwise and once again have dodged questions you've been asked with more questions in an effort to distract everyone.
harkequin wrote: 15 it's 15 times you have dodged this question. That's just dishonest.
Either show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
OR
admit you can't show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
What RAW tells us is that Formations require units and ALEs. The rules also tell us that models cannot be directly fielded.
It's patently obvious which ALE to use for each. Whether that is RAI or RAW makes no difference until you can show some controversy over which ALE that is eventually settled upon. The rules support my argument and they so far do not support your silliness of trying to field models without ALEs.
You have yet to point to the ALEs to use because it proves my point that the issue is noncontroversial. Quit dodging the question.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: You mean the argument I dropped ages ago because you don't believe in RAI so there was no point continuing as you kept wanting to argue RAW over RAI?
'Captain' and 'Venerable Dreadnoughts', with the additional restrictions of Terminator armour being a required upgrade and being barred from purchasing additional Venerable Dreadnoughts. The obvious RAI interpretation.
But why is that relevant to the post you quoted? My current argument is that RAW the Formation isn't playable as it refers to 2 ALEs without rules. You have failed to prove otherwise and once again have dodged questions you've been asked with more questions in an effort to distract everyone.
So we both point to the same ALEs. So its a noncontroversial issue which ALEs to use since there are no other tenable options.
However, you are committing rules abuse by barring purchase of additional Venerable Dreadnoughts.
This rules is quite clearly on the ALE you have pointed to.
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
There is no restriction on that clearly granted permission.
The writer of the Formation was fully aware of the rule. If he had intended for the Dreadnoughts to not have access to the option of adding additional Dreadnoughts he would have included a restriction. Therefore your RAI has no merit and has been unveiled to be a 'power-nerfing' interpretation trying to masquerade as RAI. You have no justification to restrict the number.
harkequin wrote: 15 it's 15 times you have dodged this question. That's just dishonest.
Either show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
OR
admit you can't show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
What RAW tells us is that Formations require units and ALEs. The rules also tell us that models cannot be directly fielded.
It's patently obvious which ALE to use for each. Whether that is RAI or RAW makes no difference until you can show some controversy over which ALE that is eventually settled upon. The rules support my argument and they so far do not support your silliness of trying to field models without ALEs.
You have yet to point to the ALEs to use because it proves my point that the issue is noncontroversial. Quit dodging the question.
16
I have told you time and time again, "it's obvious" is not an answer.
YOU say it's raw , so YOU have to provide the WRITTEN rules.
Here's the ALEs "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
If these are not the ALEs you are fielding , then it's not RAW. It's not my fault you can't find them.
Now,
Either show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
OR
admit you can't show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
Where the restriction that forces me to purchase Terminator armour?
And again, dodging questions.
The writer of the Formation was fully aware of the rule. If he had intended for the Dreadnoughts to not have access to the option of adding additional Dreadnoughts he would have included a restriction. Therefore your RAI has no merit and has been unveiled to be a 'power-nerfing' interpretation trying to masquerade as RAI. You have no justification to restrict the number.
The writer of the Formation was fully aware of the rules. If he had intended for you to use any ALEs other that 'Tactical Squad', 'Captain in Terminator armour' or 'Venerable Dreadnought' he would have included them. Therefore RAI has no merit and has been unvieled to be a rules abusing interpretation trying to masquerade as RAI/RAW. You have no justification to use 'Captain' or 'Venerable Dreadnoughts'.
I can do it, too. The thing is, mine actually works and is true.
Read the rules for moving, shooting, assaulting, etc.
The Shooting Sequence 1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.
For those rules to function the Venerable Dreadnaught must be fielded as a unit.
If you insist on fielding as a model the Venerable Dreadnaught will not be able to do anything.
Read the rules on page 9. He will be as signle models are units.
harkequin wrote: 15 it's 15 times you have dodged this question. That's just dishonest.
Either show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
OR
admit you can't show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
What RAW tells us is that Formations require units and ALEs. The rules also tell us that models cannot be directly fielded.
It's patently obvious which ALE to use for each. Whether that is RAI or RAW makes no difference until you can show some controversy over which ALE that is eventually settled upon. The rules support my argument and they so far do not support your silliness of trying to field models without ALEs.
You have yet to point to the ALEs to use because it proves my point that the issue is noncontroversial. Quit dodging the question.
16
I have told you time and time again, "it's obvious" is not an answer.
YOU say it's raw , so YOU have to provide the WRITTEN rules.
Here's the ALEs "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
If these are not the ALEs you are fielding , then it's not RAW. It's not my fault you can't find them.
Now,
Either show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
OR
admit you can't show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"
You still haven't shown me the rules as written.
16
I have only ever said that my RAW argument is one that is not overly pedantic.
You have yet to show that the issue you are trying to hang me up on is anything but overly pedantic.
It's patently obvious what ALEs we are to use and sure that is RAI reasoning, but it's patently obvious RAI reasoning about an overly pedantic and non-controversial issue. So again my argument is a RAW argument that is not overly pedantic one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Where the restriction that forces me to purchase Terminator armour?
You have to satisfy the Formation listing. You are then free to add any upgrades on top of that.
It's patently obvious what ALEs we are to use and sure that is RAI reasoning
Finally, progress. So you agree that you are using RAI to make an assumption (granted, a very safe and obvious assumption) ?
So again my argument is a RAW argument that is not overly pedantic one.
It's RAI, you literally just said that.
If you agree that you are using RAI we can move on.
You are trying to be essentialist. No one has a 100% pure RAW argument or 100% pure RAI argument.
And like you just said, my argument is RAW that has only implemented RAI for very safe and obvious assumptions (that are noncontroversial and safely set aside as overly pedantic). Aside from the very safe and obvious assumption my argument is thoroughly backed by RAW.This surely makes my argument superior to an RAI argument that goes directly against obvious and clearly stated rules written in the book.
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
Just because there is a negligible referencing problem between Venerable Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnoughts, it is still obvious that we use the Venerable Dreadnoughts ALE, and we do not have the freedom the ignore the rules.
The rules for the ALE are in effect. The rules for Formations are in effect. The rules of 40k are in effect.
We do not suddenly get the ability to field models directly without ALE and ignore rules on the ALE. That is rules abuse.
You are trying to be essentialist. No one has a 100% pure RAW argument
Yet you claimed for 5 pages that you did....
That's why i had to ask you 16 times to provide RAW until you eventually admitted you were using RAI.
Now we can finally move on.
My argument is that when the Writer wrote
"1 venerable dreadnaught" they meant "1 venerable dreadnaught"
This is a safe and obvious assumption.
You assume that when he wrote
"1 venerable dreadnaught" he did not mean " 1 venerable dreadnaught"
My assumption is undeniably safer and more logical.
Can you refute this.
Remember , we are in RAI territory now.
To pre-empt your argument.
You argue that RAI he meant "1 entry of venerable dreadnaughts" (which is a further stretch than mine)
You argue that we are to use the "venerable dreadnaughts" ALE. That is an assumption, your RAI as it is the closest ALE, with no restrictions, as there are none listed in restrictions correct?
Read the rules on page 9. He will be as signle models are units.
Ok cool so you are fielding him as a unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnaught using the Venerable Dreadnoughts ALE.
On that ALE you will notice clear as day . ..
Spoiler:
OPTIONS: • May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
That is not what I said, and you know it.
Also way to go ignoring most of my post. At least previously you pretended to read and respond to them genuinely.
Seriously stop dodging questions. If you want a mod to lock this tread just click the yellow triangle and stop ignoring questions for the sake of making small, tight circles.
You have to satisfy the Formation listing. You are then free to add any upgrades on top of that.
But what rules say he must wear Terminator armour? You've failed to ever point to a rule that says he has to.
You are trying to be essentialist. No one has a 100% pure RAW argument
Yet you claimed for 5 pages that you did....
That's why i had to ask you 16 times to provide RAW until you eventually admitted you were using RAI.
Now we can finally move on.
My argument is that when the Writer wrote
"1 venerable dreadnaught" they meant "1 venerable dreadnaught"
This is a safe and obvious assumption.
You assume that when he wrote
"1 venerable dreadnaught" he did not mean " 1 venerable dreadnaught"
My assumption is undeniably safer and more logical.
Can you refute this.
Remember , we are in RAI territory now.
To pre-empt your argument.
You argue that RAI he meant "1 entry of venerable dreadnaughts" (which is a further stretch than mine)
You argue that we are to use the "venerable dreadnaughts" ALE. That is an assumption, your RAI as it is the closest ALE, with no restrictions, as there are none listed in restrictions correct?
The rules require this and practically speaking it can be none other than
"(a unit of) 1 Venerable Dreadnaught (using the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE)"
If it's not a unit you can't field it.
You have to have an ALE so its the Venerable Dreadnoughts one.
Guys, I suggest stopping responding to the question dodging, inconsistent argument poster that we know is wrong, have proven so for 6 pages now, and is absolutely arguing dishonestly - the goal shifting, terminology abuse is just one clue
To sum up: the formation as it stands refers to ALEs that have no rules, and as such [b]cannot be fiekded[/] in any RAW sense
The utterly obvious RAI tells you a unit of one dreadnought only, and the captain must wear terminator armour. The god awful middle ground, inconsistent self admitted RAI argument from col_impact, that one restriction isn't really one, but the other is, holds zero weight,
Read the rules on page 9. He will be as signle models are units.
Ok cool so you are fielding him as a unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnaught using the Venerable Dreadnoughts ALE.
On that ALE you will notice clear as day . ..
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
That is not what I said, and you know it.
Well are you fielding him as a unit or a model?
And what ALE are you using for the rules?
He cannot be fielded as a model not in a unit, so we must be talking about a unit.
Also you already indicated that you will use the Venerable Dreadnoughts ALE.
So I am confused as to how we are not in the same page.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: Guys, I suggest stopping responding to the question dodging, inconsistent argument poster that we know is wrong, have proven so for 6 pages now, and is absolutely arguing dishonestly - the goal shifting, terminology abuse is just one clue
To sum up: the formation as it stands refers to ALEs that have no rules, and as such [b]cannot be fiekded[/] in any RAW sense
The utterly obvious RAI tells you a unit of one dreadnought only, and the captain must wear terminator armour. The god awful middle ground, inconsistent self admitted RAI argument from col_impact, that one restriction isn't really one, but the other is, holds zero weight,
Mod lock please.
Which ALEs are you using?
The ALE that you have to use has this rule
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
And there is no rule restricting it.
Quit trying to get a Mod Lock to avoid the issue of flat out ignoring rules on the page. That's thread abuse.
Single models are units. Just read page 9 already.
As for the other question, you already know that as I've already told you when you asked me those same question previously.
Unlike you I don't dodge questions. However there comes a point where answering the same question from the same person multiple times in one thread gets to be too much.
Quit trying to get a Mod Lock to avoid the issue of flat out ignoring rules on the page. That's thread abuse.
omfg this thread is reaching the point of absurdity,
You argue that we are to use the "venerable dreadnaughts" ALE. That is an assumption, RAI as it is the closest ALE, with no restrictions, as there are none listed in restrictions correct?
As for the other question, you already know that as I've already told you when you asked me those same question previously.
Unlike you I don't dodge questions. However there comes a point where answering the same question from the same person multiple times in one thread gets to be too much.
Ok so it's being fielded as a unit using the Venerable Dreadnoughts ALE. Correct?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
harkequin wrote: You argue that we are to use the "venerable dreadnaughts" ALE. That is an assumption, RAI as it is the closest ALE, with no restrictions, as there are none listed in restrictions correct?
This rule on the ALE grants permission
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
You have to show a rule that takes that permission away.
Asking the same question again while dodging everyone elses' I see?
I should just stop trying... It's obvious you aren't going to change your mind no matter how much logic is thrown your way as you're the kind of person who obviously is ok with bending and breaking rules when it suits them.
harkequin wrote:
You argue that we are to use the "venerable dreadnaughts" ALE. That is an assumption, RAI as it is the closest ALE, with no restrictions, as there are none listed in restrictions correct?
This rule on the ALE grants permission
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
You have to show a rule that takes that permission away.
perfect.
And we use the Captain ALE as it is closest. There are no restrictions in the restrictions box, and it says he may take a space marine bike and artificer armour, you have to show a rule that takes that permission away.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Asking the same question again while dodging everyone elses' I see?
I should just stop trying... It's obvious you aren't going to change your mind no matter how much logic is thrown your way as you're the kind of person who obviously is ok with bending and breaking rules when it suits them.
You just aren't coming out and stating what you are doing.
The quote you keep repeating says its a unit. So its a unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnought. And you have to have an ALE. So its the Venerable Dreadnoughts ALE.
harkequin wrote:
You argue that we are to use the "venerable dreadnaughts" ALE. That is an assumption, RAI as it is the closest ALE, with no restrictions, as there are none listed in restrictions correct?
This rule on the ALE grants permission
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
You have to show a rule that takes that permission away.
perfect.
And we use the Captain ALE as it is closest. There are no restrictions in the restrictions box, and it says he may take a space marine bike and artificer armour, you have to show a rule that takes that permission away.
You have to satisfy the listing of the Formation minimally. So Terminator armour needs to wind up on the listing at a minimum. You are free to purchase any other upgrades. Some upgrades preclude the Terminator armour so choosing those will muck up the minimal listing. If they didn't preclude the armour you could add those upgrades as well. But any upgrade is fair game as long as the minimal listing is satisfied legally by the rules.
If the Captain ALE allowed you to add models to the unit (such asGrot Oilers) or a whole new unit (such as a Drop Pod) you could do that even though the Formation is listing only a Captain unit. You just need a legal option to do so.
You have to satisfy the listing of the Formation minimally
Can you back this up?
So I can take my centurions as part of the formation as well, after all, I am satisfying the minimum.
You are applying arbitrary restrictions as you see fit.
To use your own words against you,
You have to show a rule that takes that permission away.
It's not in the restrictions, therefore it's not a restriction. your rule, not mine.
Before this post your rules were for 6 pages
"we use the closest ALEs"
and
"we can add any upgrades that those ALEs can take, that aren't forbidden in the restrictions box"
Now that you have been countered a sudden new rule appears, "you have to fill out the minimum" <- this has no rules basis, and conveniently lets you take an upgrade YOU want.
If we apply rules Equally we get this
"1 captain in terminator armour" -> "use captain ALE" -> make sure we get as close to "1 captain in terminator armour" as possible - > "1 captain, with the terminator armour upgrade"
we also get,
"1 venerable dreadnaught" -> "use venerable dreadnaughts ALE" -> make sure we get as close to "1 venerable dreadnaught" as possible - > "1 venerable dreadnaught" or "1 venerable dreadnaughts choice consisting of 1 venerable dreadnaught"
You have to satisfy the listing of the Formation minimally
Can you back this up?
So I can take my centurions as part of the formation as well, after all, I am satisfying the minimum.
If there was an option on the Captain ALE to add centurions to the unit then yes you could do it. However I do not see that option on the ALE.
The Reclamation Legion lists a unit of warriors on the Formation.
The warrior ALE allows the addition of a Ghost Ark. That is a whole unit not listed on the Formation!
Minimally we need to have a unit of warriors. The ALE allows us to add a Ghost Ark. This is okay even though 0-1 Ghost Arks is not on the Formation listing.
If there was an option on the Captain ALE to add centurions to the unit then yes you could do it. However I do not see that option on the ALE.
Why do i need the captain ALE,
I have filled the formation minimum requirements,
I need 1 captain in terminator armour, and 1 ven dread
I have 1 captain in terminator 1 ven dread and 1 centurions squad, I've satisfied the minimum.
Where is your rule for "satisfying the minimum"?
Formation rules use units and ALEs. Yup we still got to follow the rules!
Spoiler:
Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units
renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium.
Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will
need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them simply to
describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific
units together. Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List
Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules
that those units gain. Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains
its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation.
Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of Unbound
armies. If they are, their units maintain the special rules gained for being part
of the Formation.
What ALE are you using if not the Captain ALE? You need the ALE to have the rules to play the Captain. Otherwise its just inert scenery.
Also how are you purchasing anything if you are not using the Captain ALE. You can't magically have a Captain wind up on the battlefield without an ALE. It's required!
Your argument is starting to stray into silliness where we don't have to follow Formation rules or use ALEs.
Cool , so where is this satisfy the minimum thing?
Dude face it, you are like the black knight in monty python, no legs to stand on , but still trying to win.
I'm going to leave it at this and request a mod lock.
You've argued very dishonestly as i've shown, any time you've been refuted, you've moved the goal posts, or come up with new "rules", I point out why they don't work, and you selectively apply them so that my scenario doesn't count, just because . You lied about not using RAI for 6 pages I'm done.
Here, no need to reply, just mull it over and see if you can justify to yourself why you don't have to apply rules equally, only as you see fit.
If we apply rules Equally we get this
"1 captain in terminator armour" -> "use captain ALE" -> make sure we get as close to "1 captain in terminator armour" as possible - > "1 captain, with the terminator armour upgrade"
we also get,
"1 venerable dreadnaught" -> "use venerable dreadnaughts ALE" -> make sure we get as close to "1 venerable dreadnaught" as possible - > "1 venerable dreadnaught" or "1 venerable dreadnaughts choice consisting of 1 venerable dreadnaught"
harkequin wrote: Cool , so where is this satisfy the minimum thing?
Dude face it, you are like the black knight in monty python, no legs to stand on , but still trying to win.
I'm going to leave it at this and request a mod lock.
You've argued very dishonestly as i've shown, any time you've been refuted, you've moved the goal posts, or come up with new "rules", I point out why they don't work, and you selectively apply them so that my scenario doesn't count, just because . You lied about not using RAI for 6 pages I'm done.
Here, no need to reply, just mull it over and see if you can justify to yourself why you don't have to apply rules equally, only as you see fit.
If we apply rules Equally we get this
"1 captain in terminator armour" -> "use captain ALE" -> make sure we get as close to "1 captain in terminator armour" as possible - > "1 captain, with the terminator armour upgrade"
we also get,
"1 venerable dreadnaught" -> "use venerable dreadnaughts ALE" -> make sure we get as close to "1 venerable dreadnaught" as possible - > "1 venerable dreadnaught" or "1 venerable dreadnaughts choice consisting of 1 venerable dreadnaught"
Have a pleasant day.
Looks like you are simply conceding and abandoning the argument now that you realize you cannot work around the rules on the ALE.
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
Don't mistake conceding for not being a masochist. You are unreasonable, there is no reasoning.
You are not the only person on the entire forum who correct, the reason everyone else in this thread disagreed is because you are wrong. We tried to show you, but you refuse to listen or discuss honestly.
This isn't a forum for convincing people you are right, it's for finding the answer and making a call.If you don't discuss honestly, it's pointless.
I proved you wrong several times, just because you go "NONONONONO" with your fingers in your ears doesn't make you right, it makes you unreasonable and stubborn.
I'm sick of banging my head against a brick wall. So is everyone else, that's why they left.
Why do you think everyone disagreed with you?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and as a last sentence to prove you wrong in 16 words
Saying that "1 venerable dreadnaught" does not mean "1 venerable dreadnaught" is delusional. They are identical.
harkequin wrote: Don't mistake conceding for not being a masochist. You are unreasonable, there is no reasoning.
You are not the only person on the entire forum who correct, the reason everyone else in this thread disagreed is because you are wrong. We tried to show you, but you refuse to listen or discuss honestly.
This isn't a forum for convincing people you are right, it's for finding the answer and making a call.If you don't discuss honestly, it's pointless.
I proved you wrong several times, just because you go "NONONONONO" with your fingers in your ears doesn't make you right, it makes you unreasonable and stubborn.
I'm sick of banging my head against a brick wall. So is everyone else, that's why they left.
Why do you think everyone disagreed with you?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and as a last sentence to prove you wrong in 16 words
Saying that "1 venerable dreadnaught" does not mean "1 venerable dreadnaught" is delusional. They are identical.
Have a good one mate.
The ALE simply has a rule which allows me to add 2 additional Venerable Dreadnoughts to the minimal 1 Venerable Dreadnought that I need for the Formation. I can add them just as easily as I can add a Ghost Ark unit (that is not listed on the Formation) to a unit of Warriors in a Reclamation Legion.
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
You have utterly failed to show a restriction that takes away that plain permission. Your failure in this regard is what you have been banging your head on this whole time.
This has gone on for too long. If you want RAW all you have to do is look at the battle demi-company and Strike Force Ultra listings. Pg. 174 of the SM Codex gives the description of 0-1 unit of dreads, Ironclads, or Ven Dreads. Pg. 177 gives a listing of a single Ven Dread. This is as clear cut as it can be. The listing says what it means, and means what it says. To read it any other way is HIWPI.
RAW you have to take army list entries that don't verbatim match up.
RAI we can figure out what units to take and use the written words as required, I.e. terminator armor and 1.
RAI there's just no logical justification for taking 2 or 3 ven dreads when it says 1. Yes it's not listed as a restriction, but it is listed as what you take, and a number other than 1 is not one. If they intended it to not be 1 they would have not put a 1 there.
blaktoof wrote: RAW you have to take army list entries that don't verbatim match up.
RAI we can figure out what units to take and use the written words as required, I.e. terminator armor and 1.
RAI there's just no logical justification for taking 2 or 3 ven dreads when it says 1. Yes it's not listed as a restriction, but it is listed as what you take, and a number other than 1 is not one. If they intended it to not be 1 they would have not put a 1 there.
Nobody is saying that you do not take 1 Venerable Dreadnought to minimally satisfy the Formation. There is just absolutely no listing of a restriction.
There is a rule that allows you to purchase more Venerable Dreadnoughts on top of the 1 Venerable Dreadnaught that satisfies the Formation.
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model
Formations allow you to take options. If the writer of the Formation had intended for the formation to be restricted to 1 then he would have written a rule in the Formations Restrictions such as "may only take 1 Venerable Dreadnaught". That is what the Formation Restrictions section is for on Formations.
Otherwise you are only wildly guessing that the listing "1 Venerable Dreadnought" is actually stating a restriction. Your wild guess cannot overcome the plain permission to add additional Dreadnoughts granted on the ALE.
Just as easily as I can take a Ghost Ark unit for each unit of warriors in the Reclamation Legion, even though Ghost Ark is no where on that listing, I can take additional Venerable Dreadnoughts. Similarly if the Venerable Dreadnoughts had the option for adding Grot Oiler models to the unit I could add those despite not being listed on the Formation.
Basically the options of the ALE fully apply unless explicitly taken away.
? But also and mainly 
