Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/01/19 21:12:42
Subject: Firespear Task Force - Multiple Dreadnoughts?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/19 21:14:01
2016/01/19 21:14:42
Subject: Firespear Task Force - Multiple Dreadnoughts?
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.
Did you read the rest of my post?
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/19 21:26:40
2016/01/19 21:28:10
Subject: Firespear Task Force - Multiple 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.
...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.
So again nice bit of scenery you got there.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/19 22:10:47
2016/01/19 22:10:15
Subject: Firespear Task Force - Multiple 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.
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.
2016/01/19 22:12:32
Subject: Firespear Task Force - Multiple 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.
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/01/19 22:35:07
2016/01/19 22:34:48
Subject: Firespear Task Force - Multiple Dreadnoughts?
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.
2016/01/19 22:43:31
Subject: Firespear Task Force - Multiple Dreadnoughts?
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.
2016/01/19 22:47:01
Subject: Firespear Task Force - Multiple Dreadnoughts?
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.
Obvious troll is obvious.
2016/01/19 22:48:21
Subject: Firespear Task Force - Multiple Dreadnoughts?
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?
2016/01/19 22:51:06
Subject: Firespear Task Force - Multiple Dreadnoughts?
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.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/01/19 23:05:29
2016/01/19 23:02:14
Subject: Firespear Task Force - Multiple Dreadnoughts?
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
2016/01/19 23:04:35
Subject: Firespear Task Force - Multiple Dreadnoughts?
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.
2016/01/19 23:06:14
Subject: Firespear Task Force - Multiple Dreadnoughts?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/19 23:08:54
2016/01/19 23:09:26
Subject: Firespear Task Force - Multiple Dreadnoughts?
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/19 23:13:17
2016/01/19 23:17:03
Subject: Firespear Task Force - Multiple Dreadnoughts?
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.
2016/01/19 23:17:37
Subject: Firespear Task Force - Multiple Dreadnoughts?
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?
2016/01/19 23:18:42
Subject: Firespear Task Force - Multiple Dreadnoughts?
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
2016/01/19 23:18:56
Subject: Firespear Task Force - Multiple Dreadnoughts?
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?
2016/01/19 23:23:11
Subject: Firespear Task Force - Multiple Dreadnoughts?
