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.

I don't have my codex handy, but what is the exact wording for the "6 dread" trait?

Is it "venerables must be elite" or "elites must be venerable"?

Is there a second printing with a different wording?

President of the Fan Club to the rescue!

Pg 43
"Heed the wisdom of the Ancients"
Dreadnoughts may be taken as Heavy Support or as Elites. Any Dreadnoughts selected as Elites must be Venerable and the 0-1 limit is removed. May not be selected by a Chapter that has taken "Aspire to Glory"

As for printing, mine is a first print, I'm not sure if there is a second printing, but where that information would be on my front page it says

 

"PRINTED IN CHINA"

So someone refresh my memory as to why you can't have 6 venerables again?

"Any Dreadnoughts selected as Elites must be Venerable and the 0-1 limit is removed."

Mine is "Printed in the UK Nov 2004". I suppose there could be a more recent stealth-printing...

Are we even sure you're allowed to have 6 dreads total?

Posted By whitedragon on 03/21/2006 11:26 AM
Are we even sure you're allowed to have 6 dreads total?

That's a different argument. That's been beaten to death......

I know, i was trying to inject a tad bit of sarcasm. It sure looks like you can have as many of your dreads venerable as you want, but the ones from elites MUST be.

Didn't you tell the person in question, "Any idiot can see that list is illegal"?

From what I see, 6 venerable dreadnoughts with this trait is perfectly legal. There's no reason for it not to be. After reading the threads, I have no idea why everyone is vilifying this guy. He may not have needed to cause a scene, but not only does he seem to have a point that the list is legal, but also to have a right to be irritated that he was legitimately robbed, after confirming to the best of his ability that it was legal.

/agree


I especially like this little bit:

"He also stated that he would past this information to the rules boyz and get a clarification on this rule in a upcoming issue of WD."

Droolzboys?!?!?! Say goodbye to your HTWA rule where all we had to figure out is if 6 dreads are legal. It'll prbably end up saying that terminators can take grots.

And won't I feel like an idiot if I find out this is the only wording.

I'll have to check my book when I get home, but I had gone through it last week wondering if I could have terminators and venerable dreads (more than 3 units total) and came to the determination that I could not. Hence my wondering if there are two versions/wordings. But until I get home, I won't know for sure.

Mauleed always admits when he is wrong, if this is a similar case, he'll be the first to let us know

This is the problem with GW's rules process: there's no verifiable way to know which way of reading it is right.

Hi, I'm Lord_Sutekh, and I ran 6 Venerables at the GD Atlanta tourney.
*chours: Hello Lord_Sutekh*
I was pissed, now I'm better, and now this isn't about anything that was said in the past about the rule or the list; this is about getting the ambiguous rule straight.

Now, we've seen lots of debate about this rule, and everyone has a different view on it. Some say 6 venerables is legal, some say only 3, in Elites, are legal, some say 6 dreads itself is illegal. The problems are: inconsistent rules-writing, insufficient text explaining boundaries, and assumptions of intent. Most if not all of these could have been avoided with a little proofreading.

If the rule had been written with just a couple more sentences, detailing what was and wasn't allowed, my weekend would have gone much more smoothly. For myself, I'm going with the most conservative interpretation from now on (Elite OR HS, no mixing, and only Venerable in Elite slots) until there's definitive, official data one way or another.

Wow, I'm a big moron.

It certainly does look like 6 venerables is perfectly legal. (I cracked the book open).

Feel free to heap on the deserved ridicule.

P1: "One Dreadnought per detatchment may be upgraded to Venerable at +20 pts." (SM 32)

P2: "Heed the Wisdom of the Ancients: Dreadnoughts may be taken as Heavy Support or Elites. Any Dreadnoughts selected as Elites must be Venerable and the 0-1 limit is removed." (SM 43)

C1: Assuming that one can take Dreadnoughts as both HS and Elites (which we've already ceded as true for purposes of this thread), one can take up to 6 Venerable Dreadnoughts because the 0-1 limit has been removed. Furthermore, any Dreadnought taken as an Elite must be Venerable.

Note: Remember that the final sentence of P2 is two indpendent clauses linked by a coordinating conjunction, "and;" thus, the two clauses do not have to be related. The sentence could be just as easily be rewritten as two independent clauses followed by periods.

If I may be so bold, I might just call it Bulletproof.

EDIT: Damnit, Ed beat me to it while I was typing it out. But if anyone wants to see the argument itself, here it is.

No reason to ridicule; obviously, there's still room to doubt, if the guys running the tournaments have the opinion they did.

It's like the sig says: Is there any good reason not to write the rules well enough to shut us up?
And the answer is: No, and it wouldn't take that much work.

No reason to ridicule; obviously, there's still room to doubt, if the guys running the tournaments have the opinion they did.

You're being far too charitable. Also your attitude here is pretty admirable - it's clear you got shafted, I'm impressed that rather than wallow in it like so many internet denizens (likely myself included) would you're moving on.

Sorry guys, I didn't know this part of the forum (I'm new here still..lol)

As the Wording in Heed The Wisdom Of The Ancients says "Dreadnaughts may be taken as Heavy Support or as Elites." The key word in that sentence is Or. For the simple fact if you look at the other Traits such as Be Swift As The Wind, or Blessed Be The Warriors, or Honour Your Wargear all those involve letting you place picks in other areas as well but they all say and/or in the sentence.

With this in mind, you can either choose to have 3 Dreadnaughts as Heavy Support or 3 Dreadnaughts as Elites, but not as both.

The 0-1 limit issue is stating that you can take more then 1 Venerable Dreadnaught because in the Elites section under Dreadnaught it says "One Dreadnaught per detachment may be upgraded to Venerable at +20 points".

It is a very tricky rule but that is the way it is ment to be. As for if I'm a GW Employee yes.

As for getting a rules clarification on this via WD. This situation is spreading through the GW channels faster then light hitting the earth. I assume something will be done to fix this problem.

It is a very tricky rule but that is the way it is ment to be. As for if I'm a GW Employee yes.

This debate was beaten like the twisted offpsring of a dead horse and a red-headed stepchild some time back.

And now you're going to tell us this is how it is "ment" to be? Drole.

And then you remark that you're a GW employee, figuring that will give you some sort of street cred. Drole x2.

<div class="NTForums_Quote">Posted By bigchris1313 on 03/21/2006 11:15 PM<br>

It is a very tricky rule but that is the way it is ment to be. As for if I'm a GW Employee yes.

This debate was beaten like the twisted offpsring of a dead horse and a red-headed stepchild some time back.

And now you're going to tell us this is how it is "ment" to be? Drole.

And then you remark that you're a GW employee, figuring that will give you some sort of street cred. Drole x2.</div><br><br>

mauleed asked me in another post if I was a employee and I was answering him. Tell me how you see this rule being interpreted?

The only difference from someone being able to field 6 Dreadnaughts compared to 3 is the word Or between Heavy Support and Elite. It doesn't say and/or like the others, therefore you must choose one or the other....Not both.

Posted by Sprout on 03/22/2006 12:21 AM
The only difference from someone being able to field 6 Dreadnaughts compared to 3 is the word Or between Heavy Support and Elite. It doesn't say and/or like the others, therefore you must choose one or the other....Not both.

Except it doesn't say 'only' either. It's quite simple actually. You take a dreadnought. You choose whether it will be an Elite or a Heavy Support choice. Repeat process. Therefore all of your Dreadnoughts have been taken as Elites or Heavy Support choices, exactly as the rules state.

BigChris, it's spelled "droll".

Sprout, I appreciate the efforts. I can see how you would read it that way, although my reading is along the same lines as Ghaz and Ed's, in that it appears to me that you can have a bunch of Venerables running around.

If you can use this example for some kind of leverage to get GW to update the FAQs and give a little more consideration to the issue of rules clarity and issuing the occasional update, more power to you. Speaking for all the gamers out here, it'd sure make our games more fun to have the rules be a bit clearer.

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.

BigChris, it's spelled "droll".

Not if I'm actually speaking French!

I find the most interesting question is:

Can you have 3 units of Terminators (3xElites) and 3 Venerable Dreads (3x Heavy Sup.) in the same army?

And thanks to this thread I realize that the answer is YES!
The 1/army restriction is dropped and nothing forbids Heavy Support Dreads to become venerable.

So sprout, your position is that "or" can only mean "one or the other and not both"?

So if I ask you if you'd like lettuce or tomato on your sandwich you can have one or the other, but not both?

And politely: how do you know how it's "suppose to be"? Do you have access to some private company documents that we do not that spell out more rules than we have available?

<div class="NTForums_Quote">Posted By mauleed on 03/22/2006 7:01 AM<br>So sprout, your position is that "or" can only mean "one or the other and not both"?

So if I ask you if you'd like lettuce or tomato on your sandwich you can have one or the other, but not both?</div><br><br>

Ed,

Your food analogy is not entirely accurate. At desert time, when your Mom says "Would you like ice cream or cake?" She doesn't imply you can have both, though she may be kind to give you a little bit of both. At least, thats my experience as a parent and seeing other parents.

Your analogy is the result of the knowledge that both lettuce and tomato are common things to have on a sandwich - ie, its a given that both COULD be on the sandwich, and thus its not improper to have both.

The ice cream vs. cake, however - usually you only have one or the other at dessert time (at least those of us watching our weight). Most of the time, you can have only one, and when someone asks that question, the implied expectation is that only one will be chosen. As another example, think of a being at a diner: "You want coffee or tea with that?" The implied question is just one or the other (though you could pay for both - its just not expected).

Thats how I read this rule. It allows you to increase the number of Ven dreads you can take, with the limitation of the 0-3 slots in the particular category (HS or elites).

What no one can deny is that it comes up as a point of contention. The rule is written poorly which is about all our last 6 dread thread came up with.

Use 6 dreads (venerable too) all you want, but some people are going to believe your list is illegal (for reasons we've beaten to death). This is one of the 'Take the lesser advantage' situations, if you are in a tournament where a ruling against you could ruin your weekend. This debacle serves as a good case in point.

I think Ghaz addressed the only issue, on whether you can have 6 dreads, effectively.

I'm not sure that we can lay blame for this on GW's doorstep. When I read the rules, it seems clear enough to me. Granted, I did have to look in a couple of places to verify, but it is legit. However, I can also see how someone who is pressed for time and by a number of other issues, could make a snap decision that is later, with 20/20 hindsight, found to be incorrect.

Sprout, did the player give you a copy of the email that he is now referring to as having given him authority? Can we see that email? I would have to say that if that email said the 6-vendread list was okay, and he showed it at the tournament, then something does need to be done. If he had permission, as required and constantly reitereated, then what this discussion tells me is to never spend any time or money to go to a tournament.

I can understand the argument that you can have 6 dreads when you look at just that rule.

I can also understand the argument that you can only have 3 dreads when you look at the rule compared to other traits that offer different wording.

I don't know how to call this one.

A question, though, if it means that you can still only have 3 dreads, do they all have to be either Elite or Heavy Support or can it be a combination? Is it possible to have a terminator squad, a whirlwind, and 3 dreadnoughts?

- Oaka