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.

Oaka, I see what you are saying, but the only thing that limits the number of Dreads is the number of available FOC slots. Dreads are not "0-3", therefore IF you can split them over both Elite and Heavy, you are not limited to three.

I definitely agree that the term "or" can mean "either or" or "and/or".

But that means that we certainly can't conclude that it means just one of those here. So while my personal gaming ethics would indicate that I can't take the 6 dreads (the more advantageous of two possible interpretations) I can't see how anyone could claim that it is illegal.

To prove it is illegal you must prove that "or" means only "either or". That is not possible. (or at least no one has done it yet, and certainly not in this thread).

So, does "fast as the wind" (I think that's the correct name of the bike trait) allow you to have FA bikes, troop bikes, and elites bikes? It says "or" also. When I read it, that trait allows you take bike units as FA, or troops, but doesn't require you to pick only one FOC choice. Same here - as Ghaz points out, you pick for each one - there's nothing in the trait rule that says "you may pick up to three dreadnoughts as HS or up to three as elites, not both."

to answer Oaka's question, yes, you can. And all three can be Ven.

What traits were you looking at, Oaka, with other wording?

So am I to assume, sprout, that you disqualified the guy on the basis of 6 dreadnoughts, not 6 venerable dreadnoughts?

Also, I was wondering if anybody has ever taken bike squads as both elites and troops and, if so, how the judge scored their comp (if it was based on non-troop slots).

mauleed---you are exactly right. "Or" can mean "either/or" and "and/or". But GW is known for its misprints and re-misprints....(FAQ's, Chapter Approved)....Just give the Rulez boyz time so that they can agree to reprint the entire codex with a correction and put Aragorn as a new special character .

In programming we have the or and the xor. But in spoken language they are both or so we cannot make the difference. If you want to use the word "or" in a rule then it must be clear with other word or the context which one is used.

<div class="NTForums_Quote">Posted By Sprout on 03/22/2006 1:08 AM<br>Like I said earlier, this is a tricky rule and it is going through all the GW channels. Only time will tell what happens on this situation, if they do anything about it or sit around and remake books for armies that don't need it.</div><br><br>


Well, they certainly wont be pulling any money away from their RTT funds...

The idea is simple, you can take some dreads, of which some can be venerable OR they can be normal (not venerable). Two more lines of rules would have solved the situation. Instead we get some disingenuous remarks about codices (codexes ? ) being needlessly re-printed. GW has admitted and fixed errors in subsequent printings before. GW has issued FAQs before. GW has reprinted codexes they felt needed to be re-done before. The fact that they are refusing to issue any more FAQs (per the seminar) and rely on a single set of Judges to (seemingly) arbitrarily rule on an issue seems like they are ducking the issue.

Speaking of....If the 3 dreads only interpretation is what were going with, then you owe me and my friend a 20-0 win. Both of us played one (1) table away from the judging table on the first and second rounds against the same opponent (His name was Robert, and he had some nicely painted LOTD marines). He had 3 dreads in his army, using Wisdom, and two were Venerable. Since you say this is not possible, his list was illegal. I would disagree, and have no problem with the list. But your interpretation would say different.

One of the following must be correct, and I would like to know which:

A) You can have 6 dreads in your force, of which any or all may be venerable. Any taken as elites must be venerable.

B) You can have 6 dreads in your force, of which 3 may be venerable, and up to 3 may be normal - it depends on whether they are Heavy Support or Elites. No more than 3 of each type. (Note: This is the way our local group plays it and they way Army Builder interprets it as well.)

C)You may only have 3 dreads in your force, although they may be a mix of venerable or normal, depending on whether they were bought as Heavy Supprot or Elites.

D) You may include 3 dreads in your force, either as Heavy Support or Elites, but not as both. If you choose to take them as Elites, they must all be venerable.

E)Yor may take 3 dreads in your force as (D) above, but may only take them as venerable if they are Elites, and only as normal if HEavy Support.

Now you've gone and made my head hurt.

If the 3 dreads only interpretation is what were going with, then you owe me and my friend a 20-0 win. Both of us played one (1) table away from the judging table on the first and second rounds against the same opponent (His name was Robert, and he had some nicely painted LOTD marines). He had 3 dreads in his army, using Wisdom, and two were Venerable. Since you say this is not possible, his list was illegal.

The judges were badly overwhelmed; the only reason I got gigged was because someone brought it to their attention. I'd say it needs to be left alone and we chalk it up to a learning (and rules-clarifying) experience.

Now you've gone and made my head hurt.

Ah, the pain of ill-defined and easily-misinterpreted rules. I know it well.

Haven't we already proven that the answer is A?

I've changed my mind (again). I think you can have 6 dreads no problem, because of this little gem:

Terminator Command Squad Entry:

"Up to two models may replace their storm bolter with an assault cannon at +20 points or a heavy flamer at +10 points or may add a cyclone missile launcher to their existing weaponry at +25 points."

Since we know you can have both an assault cannon AND a heavy flamer in the same squad, it follows that you can have an elite AND a heavy support dreadnought in the same army, as the wording is the same.

- Oaka

Edit: However, since it took most of us a second look at this, and our initial opinion was that it was, in fact, illegal, it would not be a good idea to take this list to any tournament until it is clarified in the GT rules packet.

<div class="NTForums_Quote">Posted By bigchris1313 on 03/22/2006 6:02 PM<br>Haven't we already proven that the answer is A?</div><br><br>

If by 'proven' you mean that we generally interpret the answer as A, but cannot prove anything thanks to ambiguous language and run the chance of being disqualified at a tournament for using answer A. Yep, watertight.

As Oaka points out, the rules are replete with situations where or is used to signify a choice per model, and not requiring the same choice for all models (even in a single squad!) I haven't heard any response on the bike trait language. Not sure how you think the language is ambiguous...

Swift as the wind, honor your wargear, blessed be the warriors all use 'and/or' don't they? I don't think anyone could even try to argue that is an exclusive or with the and/ sitting in front of it. These are the entries afterall that create the context for the exclusive or argument.

You can order a burger and/or fries.
You can get a soda and/or a juice.
You can have a cake or a pie.
You can take napkins and/or straws.

Different statements, different rules, but they provide a Context which you'll hear as the basis for the argument against 6 dreads. Flip out all you want over it, but this is actually ambiguous.

Besides you're missing the point that regardless of what we think we have 'proven' on dakka, if it's even the slightest bit flimsy (it is) you stand to be screwed by it at an event that doesn't see things your way.

I definitely agree that it's ambiguous at best, and that being ambiguous you should opt for the less advantageous interp (that it is 3).

But on the flip side because it's ambiguous there is no way to definitively say that it is not legal.

You are right that as a gamer the responsible thing to do is field the least controvertial option. But because the rule is ambiguous at best, it is the responsibility of the judge to make the least controvertial decision which would have been to allow the list. Think about it. No one had whined and complained; they simply brought it up to the judge. If the judge had allowed it, there might have been some grumblings but ultimately the only online ranting would have been people like you guys blasting the guy for fielding such a list. No one would have really complained about the judges. Now the debate has a taken a turn away from blasting the guy fielding the list to a whole of lot bad PR for the organizers and GW in general.

So Sprout should have allowed it but brought it to GW's attention to look into.

Or he could have taken the usual GW route of dicing for it...4+ you can use the list...

Don't confuse contraversial with ambiguous. Lots of completely unambiguous rules are very contraversial.

For example, try to fire your bolter on the lascannon tac marine at a warmongers tournament and you'll see what I mean.

I disagree that allowing the list would have been "the least controversial decision." If I had to play the 6-ven list in a tournament setting, and I felt that its legality was shakey, I'd have been pretty p.o.'d

Swift as the wind, honor your wargear, blessed be the warriors all use 'and/or' don't they? I don't think anyone could even try to argue that is an exclusive or with the and/ sitting in front of it. These are the entries afterall that create the context for the exclusive or argument.

The problem is that GW frequently use just an 'or' in situations where it clearly isn't meant to be exclusive. That's what creates the ambiguity: the lack of consistency.

For example, if we take an 'or' by itself to be exclusive, Trust Your Battle Brothers can suddenly only be applied to a single type of squad...

The problem is that GW frequently use just an 'or' in situations where it clearly isn't meant to be exclusive. That's what creates the ambiguity: the lack of consistency.

For example, if we take an 'or' by itself to be exclusive, Trust Your Battle Brothers can suddenly only be applied to a single type of squad...

No because the word Any is in there. That trait says "Any Command Squad, Veteran Squad, Tactical Squad, Assault Sqaud or Devastator Squad may take the skills Counter-attack and True Grit at a cost of +3 points per model for both skills. Models with True Grit and a Bolter are assumed to have a close combat weapon at no extra cost." Therefore it does not limit it to 1 squad.

The Trait Heed The Wisdom Of The Ancients doesn't have the word Any when it is talking about the choice of Heavy Support or Elites. The only Any that is in this trait is talking about Elite Dreanaughts being Venerable.

<div class="NTForums_Quote">Posted By insaniak on 03/23/2006 2:41 PM

The problem is that GW frequently use just an 'or' in situations where it clearly isn't meant to be exclusive. That's what creates the ambiguity: the lack of consistency.

For example, if we take an 'or' by itself to be exclusive, Trust Your Battle Brothers can suddenly only be applied to a single type of squad...

Agreed that in a vaccuum the 'Heed' entry would have to be an inclusive 'or', as many have pointed out you need to go to some lengths to establish a context around the 'or' making it exclusive. What you will see from people who disagree with 6 dreads, 6 venerables, is that the 'and/or' in every other entry in the marine codex regarding Force Org changes constitutes a context for making the single 'or' exclusive.

And I gotta say also that Ghaz is plain wrong about: 'Take a dread, make it elite or heavy, continue picking.' Apply the same logic to the other and/or situations 'take a Dev squad, make it elite and/or heavy' cool, a single unit taking 2 FOC slots eh? Sure.

No because the word Any is in there.

Nope. 'Any' doesn't change the meaning of 'or'... it simply means 'Any Command Squad, or any Veteran Squad, or anyTactical Squad, or anyAssault Sqaud or or anyDevastator Squad..."

Taken as a rule by itself, it can still go either way. You can argue that the 'or' means you have to choose only one, or that you can choose multiples. It's only if you try to make the 'and/or' in other rules mean something that the 'or' here suddenly becomes exclusive.

The president once reportedly asked what the definition of 'is' is. This debate has actually made me question what the definition of OR is. Sheesh.

17 entries found for or.
or1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôr; are when unstressed)
conj.

Used to indicate an alternative, usually only before the last term of a series: hot or cold; this, that, or the other.
Used to indicate the second of two alternatives, the first being preceded by either or whether: Your answer is either ingenious or wrong. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
Archaic. Used to indicate the first of two alternatives, with the force of either or whether.
Used to indicate a synonymous or equivalent expression: acrophobia, or fear of great heights.
Used to indicate uncertainty or indefiniteness: two or three.

According to dictionary.com, these are the accepted definitions. The second is obviously of no application, as we are somehow implying you have a choice, and not being sarcastic. The third, refering to synymous or equivalent expression obviously doesn't fit either, we know elite choices are not HS choices. We are construcing a rule so uncertainty couldn't be the quality we are looking for. Therefore the definition applied here must be:

Used to indicate an alternative, usually only before the last term of a series: hot or cold; this, that, or the other.

The problem is that it is merely an alternative, there is nothing in the definition of "or" that dicates a *single* alternative. If a waitress were to walk up to me and offer "Can I get you coffee, tea, or dessert?", would I be within my bounds to choose coffee AND dessert? Sure, why not? She's offering all three. Think of how utterly complex saying the same thing would be if "or" were to restrict to a single option! "Can I get you coffee or tea or dessert or coffee and tea or coffee and dessert or tea and coffee or tea and coffee and dessert?"

Just as there is no implication that a Terminator squad can choose to replace up to 2 weapons with assault cannons OR heavy flamers OR add one of those missile launcher thingies (wth are they called....) but NOT mix and match, with the word "or", there is no implication from that definition that implies you are restricted to one choice.

Again, if I were to tell you "You may put dirty clothing in the blue hamper or the white hamper," nothing there is implied to say you can't do both. You simply have a total of two valid options and no restrictions at that point. You have to add on additonal restrictions to clarify what is meant.

And hopefully, as intimated, we'll be seeing the "GW Approved" restrictions (or reasons for lack thereof) in the near future in White Dwarf.

Ugh, another dictionary.com nutter claiming or cannot be exclusive. Lets start with your first example eh? Hot or Cold.

Mull it over.

It definitely can be exclusive.

And it definitely can be inclusive.

I don't see how anyone can definitively claim it's either in this case.

Posted By Moz on 03/24/2006 7:54 AM
Ugh, another dictionary.com nutter claiming or cannot be exclusive. Lets start with your first example eh? Hot or Cold.

Mull it over.

Perhaps you could learn something by reading a dictionary once in a while. Try this example. Water can be hot or cold. Now does that mean that all water must either be hot or cold? Or does that mean that some water is hot and some water is cold?

Mull it over.

So you're telling me, that 'or' cannot be exclusive because you can make a phrase using it that is inclusive, using a standalone example.  Great, there goes my argument, I'm sunk! 

Water can be hot or cold:  Is a good example of an 'or' in a vaccuum that we default to inclusive.  What is wrong with that?  It defaults to inclusive because water is plural, there could be many, and they could each be hot or cold. 

Is it hot or cold outside?: Exclusive, established by context, which in this case is the singular 'it' for outside.

 

This singular vs. plural is the distinction we are at in the heart of the argument. Does the term 'Dreadnaughts' refer to each one that you place into your army, thereby plural?  Or does 'Dreadnaughts' refer to the type of vehicle you may place in your army, singular?

The and/or context of other entries suggests that it is referring to the type, since you obviously cannot take each dreadnaught as both.

 

 

"I definitely agree that the term "or" can mean "either or" or "and/or". "

Thank goodness you do not write the rules.

Thank goodness you do not write the rules.

Captain, is that you?

I feel that we unneccessarily complicate things, when looking at thouse "and/or", which are used throughout the rest of the page.

P1: Often there are different ways of expressing one fact.

P2: Using one of these ways to express a certain fact predominantly, does not affect the viability of the other ways to express that certain fact.

Conclusion: Regarding the RaW, it is irrelevant, when a certain fact is expressed differently in different parts of the rules.



If you accept the conclusion written above, you might look if the following settles the matter of 6 Dreads per army.

P1: Marine Codes (p. 43) "Dreadnaughts may be taken as Heavy Support or as Elites."

P2: The term "or" can mean "either or" or "and/or".

P3: Nowhere in the rules does it specify how the "or" in question has to be read.

P4: When a rule allows two ways of list-building, the player who makes an armylist, may chose the way that is more beneficial to him.

Conclusion: You can take 6 Dreads.