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.

harkequin wrote:

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.

The rules also tell us that models cannot be directly fielded.

Untrue. Go read page 9 again (which I've quoted twice for you already in this thread as per your request).

 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.



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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

The rules also tell us that models cannot be directly fielded.

Untrue. Go read page 9 again (which I've quoted twice for you already in this thread as per your request).

Read the rules for moving, shooting, assaulting, etc.



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.

col_impact wrote:

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

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.

This thread really does need to be locked. It's ceased being informative 5 pages ago

 War Kitten wrote:
This thread really does need to be locked. It's ceased being informative 5 pages ago

really it was settled in the first page. if you read them, there is one person who thinks the everyone else is wrong

harkequin wrote:

col_impact wrote:

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.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

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 . ..




Automatically Appended Next Post:

harkequin wrote:

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.



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?

col_impact wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

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.

harkequin wrote:

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,

Mod lock please.

Single models are a unit.

Maybe if I say it again you'll actually read it.
Need more info? Read page 9 or the 2 times I've quoted it in this thread as per your request.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

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


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,


Hello little yellow triangle of friendship!

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?

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
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.

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



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.

col_impact wrote:


You have to show a rule that takes that permission away.

It is restricted by the rules written on the Firespear Task Force formation:

1 Venerable Dreadnought

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

harkequin wrote:

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 just moved the goalposts.

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 cannot pick and choose. Apply rules equally.

harkequin wrote:
you just moved the goalposts.

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"?

harkequin wrote:

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!




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"

Have a pleasant day.