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.

Exposing yet another sloppy loophole in the codex printing.
If you read the Dread entry in the Chaos rule book, and apply the upgrades in order, and follow strict literal wording here is how the entry goes.

1. Base - 3 attack str 10
2. Choose CCW as the second arm - 4 attack str 10
3. Replace either CCW with Missle Launcher
IF after adding the Missle Launcher, you do not have a CCW, then attacks are reduced to 2 and str to 6.
this is not the case so we still have 4 attack str 10


loopy loophole, and I believe obviously against the spirit and intent of the rules, but still.

thoughts?

Why would you retain an attack if you are removing the CCW for the missile?
start 3 A
add CCW 2nd arm +1
replace CCW with Missile Launcher -1

Laserbait wrote:Why would you retain an attack if you are removing the CCW for the missile?
start 3 A
add CCW 2nd arm +1
replace CCW with Missile Launcher -1

His point is that the Chaos codex doesn't say that removing the CCW with a missile launcher results in -1 Attack, and he's right.

Another issue is that the basic rules state that a Dreadnought armed with two Dreadnought CCWs gets a +1 Attack bonus like infantry does.

The Chaos Dreadnought gets 4 Attacks on his basic statline for taking the additional CC weapon, but by the RAW he would still get a +1A bonus in close combat for having both weapons as well.

So technically he would have 5A in CC and 6A on the charge.


Definitely should be FAQ'd.

Not looking for a fight, but it says "replace" CCW with missile launcher. Isn't it just a semantical arguement?


An example would be "I had a warwalker squadron in my army list, but I replaced it with a wraithlord"
Would it be correct for people to assume that I now had a ww squad and a wraith in the army?

Laserbait wrote:Not looking for a fight, but it says "replace" CCW with missile launcher. Isn't it just a semantical arguement?


An example would be "I had a warwalker squadron in my army list, but I replaced it with a wraithlord"
Would it be correct for people to assume that I now had a ww squad and a wraith in the army?

Right, but read the codex entry again. Nowhere does it say the original CCW provides +1 attack and therefore nothing is lost by replacing it with a ML.

Only the 'additional' close combat weapon purchased on the other arm provides +1A.


We're just talking about poor semantics here on the part of GW. I don't imagine anyone would actually try to pull this in a game unless they were a complete a-hole to begin with.

You are correct, nowhere does it state that having the first CCW grants an additional attack. But where it states that "if the dread is left with no ccw arms, its attacks are reduced to 2" implies it. I guess, without ccw arms it still gets 2 attacks by belly bumping, hip checking, headbutting, or some such. (oooh thats a mental picture isn't it? )

As to anyone not trying to pull it off? I don't know, its a dog eat dog world out there in competitive land.....
LOL

I'm sure everyone realises that this doesn't make sense even without your pointing it out, Laserbait. That doesn't change what the rules say. House rule it if you like, but there's another forum for that.

I Totally agree, its super a-hat play style to do this, of course i've run across a-hats in tournaments before, so it always helps to be prepared

yakface wrote:
His point is that the Chaos codex doesn't say that removing the CCW with a missile launcher results in -1 Attack, and he's right.
Another issue is that the basic rules state that a Dreadnought armed with two Dreadnought CCWs gets a +1 Attack bonus like infantry does.
The Chaos Dreadnought gets 4 Attacks on his basic statline for taking the additional CC weapon, but by the RAW he would still get a +1A bonus in close combat for having both weapons as well.
So technically he would have 5A in CC and 6A on the charge.
Definitely should be FAQ'd.

I thought this was the way it was supposed to be played... Odd... I thought it might've been some "rule" in the description that just said "+1 attack" just for having the extra CCW and then +1 for having 2 CCWs... its weird.

I hope it is FAQ'd. Oh well.

- G

maybe they meant it to be a bonus to the chaos dread for as it is suppose to be the dread doesn't seem worth it.

Oh my god.... talk about wishfull thinking.....

everybody knows that the DN gets the extra +1 attack for having 2 CC weapons.... Drop one...and you lose the 1+ attack...

You know it and I know it... this was the way before...and you know its still now...

You know that thats the way the intended it...or else the would say: this 'special' CC arm gives you an extra Attack EVEN when you replace your other CC weapon with a shooting weapon....

Sum people get to far by looking for loopholes....

What exactly is your post meant to add? The OP himself acknowledged that it's a

loopy loophole, and I believe obviously against the spirit and intent of the rules, but still.

Obviously this is a RAW and not a RAI discussion, and more for the sake of itself than for anything people would use on the tabletop. Your self-righteous indignation is misplaced.

Deleted

The point was, while the entry states that the dreadnought is reduced to two attacks if it has no DCCW, there is nothing stating that it loses an attack if one arm is replaced.

So far, no one is arguing that it's the right way to play, just that as far as the RAW is concerned, the dreadnought has 4 attacks.

Except that RAW is bunk and the entry clearly states that only having one DCCW means that the Dreadnought has three attacks at strength 10.

Nurglitch wrote:Are you guys reading the same Chaos Codex as I am? It says:

"Wargear: Dreadnought close combat weapon incorporating a twin-linked bolter in one arm."

And

"Once close combat arm (along with its twin-linked bolter) may be replaced with a missile launcher for no additional cost. If the Dreadnought is left with no close combat arms, its Attacks are reduced to 2, and it is no longer armed with a Dreadnought close combat weapon."

Read properly the entry reads as:

1. Dreadnought has one arm equipped with 1x DCCW for S10 A3
2. Choose a second arm, either (a) or (b).
2a. A DCCW for a total of 2x DCCW for S10 A4
2b. A Ranged Weapon for S10 A3
3. Replace a DCCW with Missile Launcher
3a. If Dreadnought had 2x DCCW at (2), then 1x DCCW and Missile Launcher for S10 A3,
3b. If Dreadnought has 1x DCCW at (2), then Missile Launcher and Ranged Weapon for S6 A2 (base)

There is a flaw in your reading, you are infering 3a. if you read the text that you quoted it doesn't say the attacks are reduced when you change the number of CCW, it gives a conditional statement, 'IF the Dreadnought is left with no close combat arm' the rest of the line is only looked at when the condtion is met.

Nurglitch wrote:Except that RAW is bunk and the entry clearly states that only having one DCCW means that the Dreadnought has three attacks at strength 10.

Except the Entry doesn't Clearly Say that, which is the whole point of this thread.

As for declaring RAW as Bunk, I think thats a little extreme of a view.

yakface wrote:The Chaos Dreadnought gets 4 Attacks on his basic statline for taking the additional CC weapon, but by the RAW he would still get a +1A bonus in close combat for having both weapons as well.

So technically he would have 5A in CC and 6A on the charge.

As I would interpret it:

The Chaos Dreadnought gains +1A for having an additional DNCCW by Codex - instead gaining +1A for 2 CCWs (DNCCWs count as CCWs) by BBB.

In other words, the Chaos Dreadnough rule for having an additional DNCCW overrides the basic rule that DNCCWs count as CCWs, and having 2 CCWs grants +1A. What's silly is that the Codex override gives the same net effect as following the BBW.


As for buying the 2nd CCW, and then replacing it with ML to gain +1A, I don't have a problem with it, as both upgrades were paid for.

Shaman of Chaos wrote:There is a flaw in your reading, you are infering 3a. if you read the text that you quoted it doesn't say the attacks are reduced when you change the number of CCW, it gives a conditional statement, 'IF the Dreadnought is left with no close combat arm' the rest of the line is only looked at when the condtion is met.

Actually there is no flaw in my reading (I know, bold statement, read as: "If there was a flaw, this ain't it..."). The text clearly states the stats of a Chaos Dreadnought with 0, 1, and 2 Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons. With 0 it has S6 A2, with 1 it has S10 A3, and with 2 it has S10 A4. If a Chaos Dreadnought is upgraded to two DCCW and further upgrades one DCCW to a Missile Launcher then it only has one DCCW left and we know exactly how that works because it was the initial condition of the Dreadnought prior to the mandatory and optional upgrades.

Shaman of Chaos wrote:Except the Entry doesn't Clearly Say that, which is the whole point of this thread.

Part of the problem I see with this thread is the same problem that always (yes, always) pops up when people start throwing around terms like "obviously" or "clearly": these terms distract people from the important question of what counts as evidence and what counts as clarity. Whether the entry says anything clearly is an open question until it is decided what value of "clearly" we're working with. If we count 'clearly' as indicating what's printed on the page, then we can conclusively say that the entry clearly says what I claim it does because the S & A of a Dreadnought with one DCCW is printed on the page.

Shaman of Chaos wrote:As for declaring RAW as Bunk, I think thats a little extreme of a view.

Not as extreme as you might imagine. The logician Alfred Tarski showed why RAW didn't work for semantics way back in the '30s. In terms of modern logic and mathematics the very concept is laughable (hence the joke "2+2=5 for high values of '2' and low values of '5'"). Not to say it isn't a widespread folk belief, just that it embodies a linguistically naive theory of meaning (semantics don't work like that, here's some background on why: http://www.universalteacher.org.uk/lang/semantics.htm).

JohnHwangDD wrote:


As for buying the 2nd CCW, and then replacing it with ML to gain +1A, I don't have a problem with it, as both upgrades were paid for.

well since its free to get the ML after you add the 2nd CCW, why wouldn't you do it?

Nurglitch wrote: Actually there is no flaw in my reading (I know, bold statement, read as: "If there was a flaw, this ain't it..."). The text clearly states the stats of a Chaos Dreadnought with 0, 1, and 2 Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons. With 0 it has S6 A2, with 1 it has S10 A3, and with 2 it has S10 A4. If a Chaos Dreadnought is upgraded to two DCCW and further upgrades one DCCW to a Missile Launcher then it only has one DCCW left and we know exactly how that works because it was the initial condition of the Dreadnought prior to the mandatory and optional upgrades.

Except you a referancing a model statline that has been changed by upgrades.
I agree that the statline shows a dreanought with one ccw, however once you start applying upgrades, you start changing the statline. There is nothing in the text of the rules that mentions subtracting attacks, the rules mention that if you pay a certian number of points you get +1 attacks, if you give the dreadnought a missle launcher, and it doesn't have any more ccw its attack charecteristic becomes 2.
the codex doesn't address the result of the Dread still having one CCW

Nurglitch wrote:

Shaman of Chaos wrote:Except the Entry doesn't Clearly Say that, which is the whole point of this thread.

Part of the problem I see with this thread is the same problem that always (yes, always) pops up when people start throwing around terms like "obviously" or "clearly": these terms distract people from the important question of what counts as evidence and what counts as clarity. Whether the entry says anything clearly is an open question until it is decided what value of "clearly" we're working with. If we count 'clearly' as indicating what's printed on the page, then we can conclusively say that the entry clearly says what I claim it does because the S & A of a Dreadnought with one DCCW is printed on the page.

Shaman of Chaos wrote:Except you a referancing a model statline that has been changed by upgrades.
I agree that the statline shows a dreanought with one ccw, however once you start applying upgrades, you start changing the statline. There is nothing in the text of the rules that mentions subtracting attacks, the rules mention that if you pay a certian number of points you get +1 attacks, if you give the dreadnought a missle launcher, and it doesn't have any more ccw its attack charecteristic becomes 2.
the codex doesn't address the result of the Dread still having one CCW

The original stat-line of the model as armed with a single DCCW does not change and is not changed by upgrades. Whether the Chaos Dreadnought you are fielding has 0, 1, or 2 DCCW the stat-line for Chaos Dreadnoughts describes a Chaos Dreadnought with a single DCCW. The mistake you've made here is fairly simple: you're conflating a specific token (the Chaos Dreadnought that you're fielding and ostensibly upgrading) of the type (the Chaos Dreadnought described by the army list).

Shaman of Chaos wrote:Did you just talk about the fact that using the term "clearly" causes problems, then go on to use the term?
and you claim is based on a base statline, BEFORE upgrades.

No, I just explained why using the term "clearly" without explicitly stating a semantic value for it will cause trouble. Then I stated a semantic value for it and used it correctly.

Shaman of Chaos wrote:You also mentioned in your first post in the thread about Reading "Properly", which is a who different debate on strict v. interperative reading.

I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Could you restate it more clearly, by which I mean using a formal style so I can use a dictionary and a grammar to decipher it?

Shaman of Chaos wrote:Then again if we didn't have differing opinions on such things, we wouldn't need tournament judges

We don't need tournament judges. Given some effective method of analysis, the presence of substantively differing opinions merely indicates at least one opinion may be wrong and at most only one is right. Determining which opinion expresses the truth of the matter is a matter for semantic analysis. Though effective methods of semantic analysis are not closely guarded state secrets, ignorance of them is widespread, and disinterest in taking the time to learn how to implement them leaves us all impoverished when it comes to discussion of things like the rules of 40k (much like we are all impoverished during a game when an innumerate child won't acknowledge they've rolled a 3 rather than the 4+ needed to make their saving throw).

Nurglitch wrote:

Shaman of Chaos wrote:You also mentioned in your first post in the thread about Reading "Properly", which is a who different debate on strict v. interperative reading.

I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Could you restate it more clearly, by which I mean using a formal style so I can use a dictionary and a grammar to decipher it?

My mistake by not catching the typo in my post. I meant to say that by stating that one needed to read "properly" you were touching on a subject that is open to endless debate, literal versus interperative reading.

Nurglitch wrote:We don't need tournament judges. Given some effective method of analysis, the presence of substantively differing opinions merely indicates at least one opinion may be wrong and at most only one is right. Determining which opinion expresses the truth of the matter is a matter for semantic analysis. Though effective methods of semantic analysis are not closely guarded state secrets, ignorance of them is widespread, and disinterest in taking the time to learn how to implement them leaves us all impoverished when it comes to discussion of things like the rules of 40k (much like we are all impoverished during a game when an innumerate child won't acknowledge they've rolled a 3 rather than the 4+ needed to make their saving throw).

I understand what your saying, at least I think I do. However, I view the rules as a series of denotative, logic-operator statements, like a computer program. I'm also aware that this is not the only way to read the rules, and it may in fact be the minority view on rules-reading. Looking at the rules connotatively is something that works well, but allows for more variance in interpritation. The FAQs generally serve to renforce the implied meanings of the rules by making them the denotative meaning as well, thereby making the same rules apply to both styles of rules interpritation.

I agree with you that if you look at the implication of meaning behind the way the rules are written, the dread witha missle launcher has 3 attacks. Can you concide that if the rules are read in the way that I have described, dennotatively, and in seqential order starting with the base statline and applying the effects of the upgrades in the order presented, that the missle launcher dread has 4?

Shaman of Chaos wrote:My mistake by not catching the typo in my post. I meant to say that by stating that one needed to read "properly" you were touching on a subject that is open to endless debate, literal versus interperative reading.

Ah, makes sense now. Right now I'm working on my PhD in philosophy and in the course of clawing my way up I've had the (mis)fortune to have to drag my ass through the thickets of the philosophy of language. In the philosophy of language, particularly in formal semantics, the issue of "literal vs interpretative reading" is a dead issue. More to the point "literal reading" has been thus far confirmed to be a linguistic dead end. I'm not going to bother arguing for it because better philosophers and linguists than I have shown why it is a non-starter, you're just going to have to do the research yourselves. I recommend starting with Tarski's semantics and working from there. Currently in formal semantics it's a given that meaning is fixed via some interpretative method. The propositions of arithmetic, for example, are only true under one sequence of one interpretation (they satisfy some interpretation). Then there's true for all sequence of some interpretation. Then there's true for every interpretation with a domain of k members. And finally there's logical truth (aka logical validity) which is true for all interpretations, the truth value of the logical operators. Let me say that this isn't terribly high-level stuff and certain members of the community should do some research in the field before supposing that the "literal vs interpretative reading" is endless or even a real debate. (No, I'm not an expert, this stuff was first covered in my first undergraduate year in class entitled "Critical Thinking"). Anyhow, I'm just trying to point out that this isn't even an issue in the 'real' world of formal semantics.

Shaman of Chaos wrote:I understand what your saying, at least I think I do. However, I view the rules as a series of denotative, logic-operator statements, like a computer program. I'm also aware that this is not the only way to read the rules, and it may in fact be the minority view on rules-reading. Looking at the rules connotatively is something that works well, but allows for more variance in interpritation. The FAQs generally serve to renforce the implied meanings of the rules by making them the denotative meaning as well, thereby making the same rules apply to both styles of rules interpritation.

So, given that you view the rules this way, what bearing does that have on how the rules should be read? What makes you think you might be wrong? What counts as "works well"? I'm asking because I'm more interested in how the rules should be read than in how any one might read them. That means I'm interested in the functions that connect the rules described by the text of the rulebook with the events in the game on the table. If you understood what I'm saying, then you would also agree with me about applying conventional methods of formal semantics to the text rather than your own idiosyncratic (and if you'll pardon me, somewhat wooly) notions.

Shaman of Chaos wrote:I agree with you that if you look at the implication of meaning behind the way the rules are written, the dread witha missle launcher has 3 attacks. Can you concide that if the rules are read in the way that I have described, dennotatively, and in seqential order starting with the base statline and applying the effects of the upgrades in the order presented, that the missle launcher dread has 4?

Except I'm not talking about looking at "the implication of meaning behind the way the rules are written". I'm talking about taking the information on the page, analyzing it into a set of terms, a grammar, a deductive apparatus, and a semantics for the sake of clarity ('clarity' here being used synonymously with 'well-defined', that is to say 'discrete'). This isn't about implication or connotation, this is about what information is printed on the page. If we analyze that information rigorously, with close attention to the logical structure of the information, a particularly the logical rule known as [R] or 'reiteration' it is clear (well-defined) that a Dreadnought with a single Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon has A3. A Dreadnought armed with a Missile Launcher and a single Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon has a single Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon and therefore has A3.

I can consider that, if the read are read in the way that you have described, denotationally, and in sequential order starting with the base statline and applying the effects of the upgrades in the prescribed order, that a Dreadnought equipped with a Missile Launcher has A4. However upon rigorous consideration it appears that that conclusion is incorrect. The method of reading is ill-defined and logically invalid, and returns a false argument as its conclusion because that conclusion contradicts the information given on the page, the so-called 'base statline' of a Chaos Dreadnought armed with a single Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon.

Nurglitch wrote:

I can consider that, if the read are read in the way that you have described, denotationally, and in sequential order starting with the base statline and applying the effects of the upgrades in the prescribed order, that a Dreadnought equipped with a Missile Launcher has A4. However upon rigorous consideration it appears that that conclusion is incorrect. The method of reading is ill-defined and logically invalid, and returns a false argument as its conclusion because that conclusion contradicts the information given on the page, the so-called 'base statline' of a Chaos Dreadnought armed with a single Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon.

Except the base statline refers to a dreadnought with only a single close combat weapon, and doesn't take into account the effect of the second arm. the base stateline is the statline for the dread before upgrades, so it doesn't return a false argument, because your not ending up with a one armed dreadnought,

now if the missle launcher, or second CCW gets blown off, I would agree that the dreadnought now has 3 attacks, since it is now a one armed dreadnought, as displayed in the intial statline.

Shaman of Chaos wrote:Except the base statline refers to a dreadnought with only a single close combat weapon, and doesn't take into account the effect of the second arm. the base stateline is the statline for the dread before upgrades, so it doesn't return a false argument, because your not ending up with a one armed dreadnought,

Yes, the basic statline of a Chaos Dreadnought describes a Chaos Dreadnought equipped with a single Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon. If a second Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon is added, the Chaos Dreadnought gets an extra attack. If a Ranged Weapon is added, the Chaos Dreadnought will have the basic statline since it only has one Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon. As you can see this does take into account the effect of having either a Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon or a Ranged Weapon. The basic statline for the Chaos Dreadnought is the same as the statline for a Chaos Dreadnought with a single Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon and a Ranged Weapon. So yes, the argument you're using does return a false argument because we already know how many attacks a Dreadnought with a single Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon has, regardless of whether it has not yet been upgraded, has been upgraded with a ranged weapon, or has had its spare Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon destroyed in combat, and it contradicts that truth (and therefore false).