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.

Not really the same thing, sourclams. Land Raider and Land Speeder shares a name to. Are they variants of each other?

'Land' is the adjective, 'Raider/Speeder' are the nouns. Are they 'Lands'? No, they're Raiders and Speeders designed by Archmagos Land.

"...the exception to this is the venerable dreadnought..."

This entry was written for the 5th edition codex, where the venerable dreadnought is a separate entry.

Separate, but with dreadnought in the name, and similar characterists that are varied slightly, thus variant.

By the way, it does say that they're the same, it isn't just the name. Look where it says unit composition:
land raider "unit composition: 1 land raider"
land raider crusader "unit composition: 1 land raider"
land raider redeemer "unit composition: 1 land raider"
they are all land raiders note

For dreads though, it says "1 ironclad dreadnought," "1 venerable dreadnought,' and "1 dreadnought." However the key word is still in there. A "veteran sergeant" is treated the same as a "veteran" except where it says he is different, notably his stat line.

So "is a predator a variant of a rhino."

Well no, look at the unit composition notes:
predator :"unit composition:1 predator"
rhino : "unit composition: 1 rhino"

they are not variants, as they do not have a similar word in their composition

oo, page 82 of the marine codex "The Crusader variant of the Land Raider..."

ironclads, regular dreadnoughts, and venerable dreadnoughts are all also under the same description "dreadnoughts" on page 65

Steelmage99 wrote:The difference between Devastators and Tacticals lies in weapon options.

And in the fact that they have completely different names.

If the Devastator Squad was listed as a 'Devastator Tactical Squad' you would have a point.

It's not.

Apparently the whole issue stems from the fact that the 3 Land Raider entries share part of a name.

No, the issue stems from the fact that the 3 Land Raider entries are all variants of the Land Raider...

It's not just about sharing the name. It's about sharing the name 'Land Raider'

But sharing part of a name does not make them one entry, or variants. Should I include the Land Speeder since it also shares part of a name?

If you can find a rule that allows you to take any variants of a 'Land' then go right ahead.

SW have acces to one Land Raider entry and that is....the Land Raider entry.

Again, not what it actually says.

Steelmage99 wrote:Mainly because Venerable Dreadnought used to be a variant, but isn't anymore. Also the SW Venerable Dreadnought differs from the SM Venerable Dreadnought. I can only imagine that GW wanted to keep something SW-specific.

What used to be a variant doesn't count, we've established that. That SM used to be able to upgrade a Dread to a Ven Dread by unit options has no bearing on the arguement.

Reading some of the above posts, I can even see an arguement that SW can field LR variants, but not the Ironclad. Since the LRC is identified as a variant and the unit is composed of 1 Land Raider, but the Ironclad is a listed as a unit of 1 Ironclad Dread (not 1 Dread).

dietrich wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:Mainly because Venerable Dreadnought used to be a variant, but isn't anymore. Also the SW Venerable Dreadnought differs from the SM Venerable Dreadnought. I can only imagine that GW wanted to keep something SW-specific.

What used to be a variant doesn't count, we've established that. That SM used to be able to upgrade a Dread to a Ven Dread by unit options has no bearing on the arguement.

Reading some of the above posts, I can even see an arguement that SW can field LR variants, but not the Ironclad. Since the LRC is identified as a variant and the unit is composed of 1 Land Raider, but the Ironclad is a listed as a unit of 1 Ironclad Dread (not 1 Dread).

I think that the fact that there is a specific acknowledgment in the LRC description that it is indeed a variant, and their being listed as "unit composition: 1 landraider" makes it absolutely clear that SW can field LRC/LRRs. There should no longer be any argument that this was the intent of the passage.

However, there i still a good argument that they can take dreadnoughts. All dreads, venerable included, are listed on the same page in the marine codex and have their rules described simultaneously. They are only differentiated in this section by stat line, and that a few have different variations of weapon/armour configurations.
It's like saying that space wolves can take "space marine veterans, and their variants." The only unit that is composed of "veterans" is the command squad, yet when you think of veterans you also think of vanguard and sternguard veterans, which have units composed of "sternguard veterans" and "vanguard veterans." Likewise, if they would only have access to "veterans," like some people here are trying to suggest, does that mean that they also do not have access to "veteran sergeants"?
I think it's clear that since we allow "veteran sergeants" to gain access to the equipment allowed for "veterans," when the unit has the root word in the name it is considered to be a variation of that root unit. This has been backed up by FAQ's, that have allowed 'veteran sergeants' access to 'veterans.' Had GW stated that space wolves have access to "land raiders" I would still think they meant they also have access to LRCs and LRRs, though I would accept an argument that they may not as well since it is rather unclear. However once they mention the word "variants" it is no longer a contentious issue.

Space wolves have access to all land raiders, dreadnoughts, and land speeders allowed to space marines.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:oo, page 82 of the marine codex "The Crusader variant of the Land Raider..."

ironclads, regular dreadnoughts, and venerable dreadnoughts are all also under the same description "dreadnoughts" on page 65

You know, I went through the Codex again last night, and you guys are grasping at straws.

"variant"
Of the items in question (Ironclad, Crusader, Redeemer, Storm), *only* the Crusader has the word "variant" anywhere in its entry. If you want to make the argument that the Crusader is allowed by GW using the word "variant", then you must necessarily conclude that Ironclads, Redeemers, and Storms are NOT allowed because they do NOT use the keyword "variant" in their description.

composition
If you want to use the Unit Type composition as the basis for argument ("1 Land Raider"), then you necessarily must exclude the Ironclad because it is a *Ironclad Dreadnought*, not a "Dreadnought".

unit description entries
If you want to say that Dreadnought, Ironclad, and Venerable are all the same because they're under the same heading, then you must necessarily exclude the Crusader, Redeemer, and Storm because they all have different description entries in the rules section.

The problem with your entire argument is that you pick-and-choose the basis for what forms the basis for inclusion as a "variant" within the Codex. For one model, you use one reason, for another model, you use another reason. Overall, these approaches are inconsistent and contradictory. Based on a more conservative, literal (i.e. RAW), permission-based reading of the situation, every "variant" is excluded at least once.

Furthermore, GW's SW FAQ was very clear in explicitly *NOT* stating that Crusaders, et al were allowed.

Consequently, the conclusion is that the SW do *NOT* have access to Crusader, Redeemer, Ironclad, or Storm.

So a Granny Smith apple isn't an apple.

A GS contains all of the characteristics of an Apple.

An Ironclad or Scout contains far fewer of the characteristics of a Dread or Speeder. The Ironclad is closer to a BA Furioso than a Dread. While the Scout is closer to a DE Raider than a Landspeeder.

So we're talking apples and oranges and pears.

A Granny Smith is green. It's also more expensive. Furthermore, I cannot get a Granny Smith out of the same bin as I get all of the other apples. It's still an apple.

An Ironclad has more armor. It's got different weapon loadouts. It is costed at a different points-level. It's still a Dreadnought.

sourclams wrote:A Granny Smith is green. It's also more expensive. Furthermore, I cannot get a Granny Smith out of the same bin as I get all of the other apples. It's still an apple.

Yeah, a Dark Angels apple.

But the Ironclad? Definitely an orange.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

sourclams wrote:A Granny Smith is green. It's also more expensive. Furthermore, I cannot get a Granny Smith out of the same bin as I get all of the other apples. It's still an apple.

Yeah, a Dark Angels apple.

But the Ironclad? Definitely an orange.

It's not an ironclad, it's an ironclad DREADNOUGHT

it's not a furioso, it's a furioso DREADNOUGHT

You are the one grasping at straws here. The rest of us think it is quite clear what a 'variant' is, you seem to think it is the same as an 'option' for no reason other than because you say so. You also do not explain why a venerable dreadnought is explicitly excluded from "and all variants," even though it is not purchased within the dreadnought's description, and is instead an entirely different entry under the title "Venerable Dreadnought."

FAQ's do not reference out of date codexes. They are made to address current codexes that refer to situations that are unclear, such as how a codex such as the space wolves that WAS initially written to refer to an outdated codex applies to the new one.

Space Wolves may take dreadnoughts and all variants, variants being all dreadnoughts other than the standard dreadnought, with the exception of the venerable. How do you get that you can't take an ironclad from that.

If they said you "may take a dreadnought and all kinds of dreadnoughts other than the standard dreadnought" would you be satisfied that they can take ironclads?

Johnny, finish this phrase for me:

Ironclad _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

3:1 in favor, but only Johnny has the stones to post much in the way of rebuttal. I don't agree with him, but I gotta admire the brass for taking on all challengers ala Rumsfeld.

I still say that the answer is to check with any tourney organizers.

I will predict that Codex Space Wolves Fifth Edition will grant them Land Raider Crusaders and Redeemers. Not so sure about Storms and Ironclads, but I'd wager the Ironclad is more likely of the two.

And it once again proves that GW rules and statements aren't nearly as crystal clear as they intend or we expect.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:It's not an ironclad, it's an ironclad DREADNOUGHT

it's not a furioso, it's a furioso DREADNOUGHT

True, but the important thing is that it isn't a "Dreadnought", as specifically named in the C: SM Army List. It has a different name, so it isn't the same thing.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:You are the one grasping at straws here. The rest of us think it is quite clear what a 'variant' is, you seem to think it is the same as an 'option' for no reason other than because you say so.

No, I'm merely showing that the rules don't say what you want them to say, and that's enough. The only use of the keyword "variant" is in the Crusader Fluff. Nothing else has it.

If I'm so wrong, then you can address the points in my post above, rather than flailing your arms helplessly.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:You also do not explain why a venerable dreadnought is explicitly excluded from "and all variants,"

I don't need to. Rules-wise, it's belt and suspenders.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:If they said you "may take a dreadnought and all kinds of dreadnoughts other than the standard dreadnought" would you be satisfied that they can take ironclads?

Absolutely.

Or even if the FAQ clarifed "variants" as "variants such as Land Raider Crusaders and Ironclad Dreadnoughts".

But that ain't what the FAQ says.

So basically, John wants GW to publish a dictionary defining EVERY word they use in their rulebooks, and FAQs. The ability to read, write, and comprehend English is no longer sufficient to read the rules. You now have to be fluent in GWish. Pretty soon "White" will no longer have meaning, and nobody will know how to paint a White Scars army.

This whole argument is akin to reading a driver's manual and saying "I Can't drive my car because they never defined the word 'key' for me."

Considering the level of detail that GW's most recent rulebook goes into, requiring the additional definition isn't at all unreasonable. For example, it's just stupid that WFB doesn't properly define what a "Monster" is.

And as for English comprehension, I'm not the one making linguistic leaps of faith in different and contradictory ways. That's on you guys. Particularly Pirate-bla-bla-blah.

It would have taken GW 30 seconds to add 5 words to specify exactly what they meant by "variants". They chose not to do so. Therefore, rules precedent says to take the restrictive position.

And based on a restrictive position, SW cannot take Crusaders, et al.

To get coverage of all of the "variants", you need to read the rules very generously, and apply inconsistent ways of reading different passages for each of the various unit entries. Sometimes saying that the Fluff description matters, sometimes that it's the unit composition.

And nobody has dared to address this inconsistency of argument.

Until somebody can do so coherently, your argument fails.

Considering the level of detail that GW's most recent rulebook goes into

Wrong. For example, Marneus Calgar God of War and No Retreat! wounds versus And They Shall Know No Fear and No Retreat! wounds.

The same level of clarity exists in GW codices as has always.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Until somebody can do so coherently, your argument fails.

All of the different variants and options available

What else do you need?

I think he's just fighting for the sake of fighting ... since a Land raider is a any thing which has in its name land raider ...

let follow your line of thought ( feel free to stop reading when you get the idea)
A "this land raider redeemer is not a land raider"
B "so what is it"
A "clearly it is a tank"
B "your taking the piss here its a landraider with flamers"
A "no its clearly a new tank"
B "ooook, so why does it look identical to a landraider, share the same name and rules?"
A " Game works shops just lazy and couldn't be bother to make a new tank"
B "so they just re-hashed the Landraider?"
A "yep"
B "Soo it is a Landraider then?"
A "no different tank"
B "but you said it's a......"
A "DIFFERENT TANK!"
B "but ..."
A "NO IT ISN'T YOU CAN HAVE IT"
B "why *@<£! do i bother with you" pack up models and leaves
A "once again i am victorous!"
A "so whos next"
A "any one?"
A "hello?"
A "..."
A "I'm so lonely"

well if they do say

All of the different variants and options available

then I don't see why you can't get different variants of the dreadnought. It says variants and options available which means you could take different versions of a unit; such as a land raider and a LRC, and have different options for it, like equipping it with different vehicle upgrades.

JohnHwangDD wrote:True, but the important thing is that it isn't a "Dreadnought",

No, the important thing is whether or not it is a type of Dreadnought... since that would make it a variant.

The fact that it's called a Dreadnought would certainly seem to indicate that it is, in fact, a type of Dreadnought...

Tri wrote:I think he's just fighting for the sake of fighting

Ahem.

I'm not making snide ad hominem attacks in my argument, so I'd expect similar consideration in return.

If you can't do that, don't post.

sourclams wrote:All of the different variants and options available

From a strict reading, the only thing that this adds is the Crusader, because the unit description actually uses the word "variant". None of the others apply.


But for sake of argument, following this same logic, GW could just as easily have said: "Rhinos, Dreadnoughts, Land Speeders, Land Raiders and all variants", rather than enumerating "Razorbacks, Predators, Vindicators, and Whirlwinds", because the Razor, Pred, Vindi, and WW all have the word "Rhino" in their description. Would you consider that to be a valid leap of logic?

Similarly, if GW had said "Space Marine Captain with all options and variants", would one necessarily conclude that the SW have access to nearly all of the SM Special Characters?

And if not, why not? Is Shrike not a Space Marine Captain variant?

JohnHwangDD wrote:the Razor, Pred, Vindi, and WW all have the word "Rhino" in their description.

John, when you open your codex, do you see entrees for the Razorhinoback? Prhinoredator? Whirhinolwind?

Would you consider that to be a valid leap of logic?

Absolutely not.

ad hominem? intresting phrase but the rules have been fairly well explained by others and theres not much to add to them (other then agree)

rhinos = razorback? (+others) oddly enough does count in the fluff as a rhino variant ... but when has the fluff ever been used for the rules?
if Razorbacks, Predators, Vindicators, and Whirlwinds were ment to be rhino variants they would have rhino included in the name Rhino Razorbacks, Rhino Predators, Rhino Vindicators, and Rhino Whirlwinds

for something to be called a variant it needs to have the same name + a name for that variant

LandRaider & variant = Landraider, LandRaider Crusader, LandRaider Redeemer, LandRaider Ares, Land Raider Helios, Land Raider Terminus Ultra & Land Raider Prometheus

LandSpeeder & variant = LandSpeeder, LandSpeeder Storm, LandSpeeder Tornado & LandSpeeder Typhoon

Dreadnought & varinants = Dreadnought, Venerable Dreadnought (can't be taken since SW have there own variant), IronClad Dreadnought, Furisio Dreadnought, Mortis Dreadnought & Siege Dreadnought

Preditor & variants = Preditor, Preditor Annihilator & Preditor Dustructor
*Note all the ones in red are not found in codex Space Marines and so cannot be used in a Space Wolves army

Similarly, if GW had said "Space Marine Captain with all options and variants", would one necessarily conclude that the SW have access to nearly all of the SM Special Characters?

yes you would unlness GW had the forsight to included "excluding special charictors"

I am thinking along the lines of variant being land raider this, and land raider that.

This tells us a different pattern of the vehicle being chosen,
eg: a land raider crusader is a variant on the chassis of a land raider. Different weapon fit and a different troop capacity.
eg: a land raider redeemer is a variant on the chassis of a land raider. Different weapon fit but the same troop capacity.

They follow a pattern: land raider + designation.

land raider redeemer
land raider crusader
both are also unit composition: land raider ( a nod to Pirateninjaofdeath )

I was about to type 'This follows to other variants of other vehicles that the faq talks about.' and then go on to list land speeder typhoon / tornado.

Threw me off track a little when i realised that typhoon / tornado are now just weapon options. So now they are just a land speeder with a Typhoon missile launcher / extra tornado pattern weapon. So that covers these being availabe to SW. They can pick land speeders, so just pick the options and use the points from c:sm, so no issue with those. Similar to the predator Dietrich has already mentioned, just being armed differently from the same entry.

The land speeder storm on the other hand follows the name + designation pattern, But also does not follow Piraterobotninjaofdeaths unit composition thinking. Redeemer / crusader are unit composition: land raider whereas the storm is unit composition: land speeder storm. This leads me to believe it is not available to SW. A whole new vehicle restricted to SM players to bring their scouts up on par with the awesome SW scouts, and created for their codex.

The ironclad follows the unit name + designation idea although the other way round:
Ironclad + dreadnought. I feel it wouldn't make much difference if it were dreadnought ironclad. But if we go back to to unit composition idea, again like the storm, this is unit composition: ironclad dreadnought rather than unit composition: dreadnought. This by the same thinking that ruled out the storm rules out the ironclad. A whole new vehicle restricted to SM players to bring their army up on par with the awesome SW army, and created for their codex. I would like to imagine the ironclad is a whole new design of the dreadnought. It is not just a new weapon fit like the land raiders, it has thicker armour and more weapon points ( hunter killers ).

I voted yes because there is no inbetween option ( there's always those sneaky grey areas ).

My thinking:

Crusader - yes
Redeemer - yes
Storm - no
Iron clad - no

SM can not pick any of the better parts from the SW codex so i don't see why SW can pick up a shopping basket and take their pick.

an intresting spot 'middle' but how does that work with venerable Dreadnoughts? unit composition: 1 venerable Dreadnought ... if they're not a variant why bother say SW can't have them?

sourclams wrote:

Does the Ironclad actually say "Variant: The Ironclad is a variant of Dreadnought" in its rules?

Yeah, they actually do. See that word behind 'Ironclad'? What word is that?

Oh man it says Variant Dreadnought: Ironclad in there? I was wrong to vote no.

Tri wrote:an intresting spot 'middle' but how does that work with venerable Dreadnoughts? unit composition: 1 venerable Dreadnought ... if they're not a variant why bother say SW can't have them?

I see your point, I didn't mention in my post the SM venerable dread because the faq says for us that we can't have it.

But now i can see that they say no venerable, but don't say no ironclad which was what i was thinking. hmmm. I'll have to think about that one, thanks for pointing that out.


As to your question:
I suppose in a SW army you can only have only one SW venerable dread from the SW list. Taking another from c:sm would give you two. Quite a powerful option.