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.

Some days I enjoy YMDC to engage my brain and help me better understand the rules of a complicated game.

Then there are the days where I find a thread like this.

rossatdi wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
So you claim that the RAW prevent Ven Dreads and Ironclad Dread from riding in a Drop Pod as well as the Storm Raven?

Absolutely.

Well that is kind check and mate really isn't it. How intentionally hard do you want to misunderstand the rules on purpose? Try pulling that one at a tournament.

Perhaps you should re-read the thread and don't insult me next time.

In the space marine codex every mention of a dreadnought unit type refers back to the section earlier in the codex that has 1 page listing all three dreadnoughts. Within that section are the individual special rules and wargear that different dreads have. In the army list it lists which specific ones have which. This isn't rocket science.

And each Dread has a different unit type, unlike the C:BA.

Can carry a dreadnought, what's a dreadnought, its on that page with 3 different flavours of dreadnoughts. Bam. Done.

Bam. Wrong. Wow, it's easy to say things without proving them, isn't it?

If you genuinely believe otherwise, try stopping someone from doing it at a tournament and see how far you get. Okay so tournament judges aren't the all seeing oracles of 40k rules but I'd be amazed if you could find one to agree with at an event.

Straw man. Please read my posts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Nothing equates furioso and dreadnought to be equal.
HOWEVER, furioso dreadnought, dc dreadnought and dreadnoughts are all dreadnoughts.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/508636.page#5304899
Read the last sentences in that post please.

rigel,

you need to prove there are not different types of deads still,

and you have not,

you have yet to provide any evidence to prove a venerable dreadnaught is not a dreadnaught,

the rules state there are various types of dreads many times,
lucious drop pods rules have then mention that there are various types of dreads in the various codexes,

the rule specifically banning contemptors from storm ravens also is an actual rule that identifies that there are in fact different types of dreads.

easysauce wrote:
we are not saying venerable, ironclads are the same as normal dreads stat wise,

they are all under the same unit entry though,

Unit Entry doesn't help you. Because if you're trying to use that to show they're all the same base then they all have access to the same upgrades...

all dreads are walkers/vehicles

all dreadnaughts are listed under a SINGLE unit entry titled "dreadnaught"

Indisputable fact - not like I've ever argued against it.

all entries under "dreadnaught" are dreadnaughts,

The Army List disagrees.

find the non dreadnaught unit entry for ironclads or venerables,

If unit entry mattered one iota I'd care.

no too mention contemptors specifically state they are NOT allowed in storm ravens,

FW != GW when it comes to rules writing. What they allow or deny has no precedent.

it is deliberate obfuscation to deny that a red ball is a ball,

it is the same to deny a venerable dreadnaught is a dreadnaught

No, it's not.

You have balls. You have red balls. You have red and blue balls. Red balls can be used to enter the playground.
If you have a red and blue ball can you enter the playground? It may still be a ball, but its completely different from the allowed one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

easysauce wrote:
rigel,

you need to prove there are not different types of deads still,

The Army List entries do that for me.

you have yet to provide any evidence to prove a venerable dreadnaught is not a dreadnaught,

That's a lie.

the rules state there are various types of dreads many times,
lucious drop pods rules have then mention that there are various types of dreads in the various codexes,

the rule specifically banning contemptors from storm ravens also is an actual rule that identifies that there are in fact different types of dreads

Lucious pods and Contemptor rules have zero bearing on non-IA rules. And really, all that does is enforce the obvious intent.

rigeld2 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Nothing equates furioso and dreadnought to be equal.
HOWEVER, furioso dreadnought, dc dreadnought and dreadnoughts are all dreadnoughts.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/508636.page#5304899
Read the last sentences in that post please.

Well I missed that part of your post. I cannot keep up with your adding to your comments.

I'm sorry - your post was 5 minutes after my final edit. I can't help it if you need more time than that.

Let's get down to brass tacks here. Why is it, that you say, Ironclad and Venerable Dreadnaughts are not allowed to be placed on a Stormraven? Things were truly convoluted and there was more than a bit of snark.

Seriously, What are the specifics of the argument?

 Idolator wrote:
Let's get down to brass tacks here. Why is it, that you say, Ironclad and Venerable Dreadnaughts are not allowed to be placed on a Stormraven? Things were truly convoluted and there was more than a bit of snark.

Seriously, What are the specifics of the argument?

Their Unit Type is not "1 Dreadnaught" which is what it would have to be.

Normally, it is Infantry only. To allow generic Walkers (ie all Dreadnaughts forevermore) it would need to allow Walkers, not Dreadnaughts. Specifying "Dreadnaught" restricts it to a named unit (Reference Thunderfire Cannon) or unit composition. Since a Venerable Dreadnaught fits neither, it's not allowed.

Reference the Blood Angels codex where all the various Dreads have "1 Dreadnaught" as their Unit Composition as more evidence.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Let's get down to brass tacks here. Why is it, that you say, Ironclad and Venerable Dreadnaughts are not allowed to be placed on a Stormraven? Things were truly convoluted and there was more than a bit of snark.

Seriously, What are the specifics of the argument?

Their Unit Type is not "1 Dreadnaught" which is what it would have to be.

Normally, it is Infantry only. To allow generic Walkers (ie all Dreadnaughts forevermore) it would need to allow Walkers, not Dreadnaughts. Specifying "Dreadnaught" restricts it to a named unit (Reference Thunderfire Cannon) or unit composition. Since a Venerable Dreadnaught fits neither, it's not allowed.

Reference the Blood Angels codex where all the various Dreads have "1 Dreadnaught" as their Unit Composition as more evidence.

Ok, we know that sub types of unit are considered to be of that unit. Both subtypes of Dreadnaught are still Dreadnaughts. Just like Commisar Yarrick is a commisar.

The entry for Drop Pods and Storm Ravens only reference Dreadnaught, not the specific type of Dreadnaught. The Rules for each provide an exception for Dreadnaughts to embark, taking precedence. meaning all dreadnaughts fall within this category.

The rules for transports only allow unit type: infantry to embark upon a transport. Two notable exceptions are Storm Raven and Drop Pod. Both allow Dreadnaughts to embark. It's been established that a transport does indeed guarantee models can embark unless forbiden to do so.

Using the logic, that a Venerable Dreadnaught is not a Dreadnaught will cause almost all codexes to begin to unravel. I'll point out that MOB RULE again. It states that you use the number of ORKS in the mob to determine the units leadership. According to the list in the back, Lootas, Burnas, Nobz and many others do not contain any ORKS. The listing for Lootas is thus.

Heading. LOOTAS
Terms used in the little box: Lootas, Mek
Unit Composition 5-15 Lootas

No orks in that unit at all. By your reasoning they wouldn't benefit from the MOB RULE. Once you begin placing restrictions that don't technicaly exist, it begins to shoot holes in the remaining rules.

Any rule in the Space Marine codex that uses the word Space Marine would no longer apply to scouts, Legion of the Damned, or any named character.

Plus, the Rhino and Razorback unit entries list that they can carry 10 models and 6 models respectively. The rules for transports allow infantry models to embark on transports. Which unit has the unit type "MODEL". I haven't found one.

Seriously, It can only transport models. Has anyone out there has seen this unit type,unit compsition or anywhere in a unit profile that lists them as "MODELS". Anyone, anyone......Bueller?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

find the non dreadnaught unit entry for ironclads or venerables,

If unit entry mattered one iota I'd care.

HUH? You've been arguing the point that a Unit entry is all that matters!

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Let's get down to brass tacks here. Why is it, that you say, Ironclad and Venerable Dreadnaughts are not allowed to be placed on a Stormraven? Things were truly convoluted and there was more than a bit of snark.

Seriously, What are the specifics of the argument?

Their Unit Type is not "1 Dreadnaught" which is what it would have to be.

Normally, it is Infantry only. To allow generic Walkers (ie all Dreadnaughts forevermore) it would need to allow Walkers, not Dreadnaughts. Specifying "Dreadnaught" restricts it to a named unit (Reference Thunderfire Cannon) or unit composition. Since a Venerable Dreadnaught fits neither, it's not allowed.

Reference the Blood Angels codex where all the various Dreads have "1 Dreadnaught" as their Unit Composition as more evidence.

Ok, we know that sub types of unit are considered to be of that unit. Both subtypes of Dreadnaught are still Dreadnaughts. Just like Commisar Yarrick is a commisar.

I don't own the IG codex. Does it state that?

The entry for Drop Pods and Storm Ravens only reference Dreadnaught, not the specific type of Dreadnaught. The Rules for each provide an exception for Dreadnaughts to embark, taking precedence. meaning all dreadnaughts fall within this category.

Rules citation please. What is a Dreadnaught?

The rules for transports only allow unit type: infantry to embark upon a transport. Two notable exceptions are Storm Raven and Drop Pod. Both allow Dreadnaughts to embark. It's been established that a transport does indeed guarantee models can embark unless forbiden to do so.

Um, no. All models are forbidden to embark (the very basis of a permissive rules set). Infantry and IC (infantry) are allowed to embark in the BRB.

Using the logic, that a Venerable Dreadnaught is not a Dreadnaught will cause almost all codexes to begin to unravel. I'll point out that MOB RULE again. It states that you use the number of ORKS in the mob to determine the units leadership. According to the list in the back, Lootas, Burnas, Nobz and many others do not contain any ORKS. The listing for Lootas is thus.

Irrelevant because they aren't similar issues.

Once you begin placing restrictions that don't technicaly exist, it begins to shoot holes in the remaining rules.

You're assuming the restrictions don't technically exist.

Any rule in the Space Marine codex that uses the word Space Marine would no longer apply to scouts, Legion of the Damned, or any named character.

... And?

Plus, the Rhino and Razorback unit entries list that they can carry 10 models and 6 models respectively. The rules for transports allow infantry models to embark on transports. Which unit has the unit type "MODEL". I haven't found one.

Fortunately "model" is defined in the BRB. Ill leave it to you to find it.

rigeld2 wrote:

find the non dreadnaught unit entry for ironclads or venerables,

If unit entry mattered one iota I'd care.

HUH? You've been arguing the point that a Unit entry is all that matters!

No, I haven't. Unit Entry and Unit Compisition are not the same thing. The latter is what matters.

when 95%+ people can put 1+1 that the so named dreadnoughts are all in fact dreadnaughts, how can GW make different kinds of dreadnought without them being called XXXX dreadnought?


lets say for the sake of argument, that only dreadnoughts with the unit composition specifically worded as simply "dreadnought" (it varies codex to codex, some named dreads are composed of simply a "dreadnought") are actually dreadnoughts and the other ones are not,

so anything is broken in the codex's where they refer to XXXXX dreadnought as being composed of 1 "dreadnought" instead of "xxxx dreadnought". Now all these named dreads that happen to are composed of one "dreadnought" are now the same by your interpretation of the unit composition being referenced as opposed to the units name, or taking the context of the rule into account.

this also means inquisitor karamazov, and the lady special inquisitor, who are unit composition 1(unique) cannot allow you to field a unit of henchmen, they also cannot control servitors because only an unit composition: inquisitor can do that (the ordos ones are specifically listed as unit composition inquisitor)
since by your reading they are not inquisitors,

because special rules references compositions, as opposed to unit names in your interpretation of the rules


then there are also no orks in shoota boyz squads to cause waagh, and other examples of where this way of reading falls apart.

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
we are not saying venerable, ironclads are the same as normal dreads stat wise,

they are all under the same unit entry though,

Unit Entry doesn't help you. Because if you're trying to use that to show they're all the same base then they all have access to the same upgrades... again, i am not saying they are the same base, or that they have access to the same things, thats a lie stop saying I am. I am simply saying both are dreadnoughts, just as variants of the lemen russ are still lemen russ' despite different stat lines, ect

dreadnought is not a unit type, despite there being many different types of dreadnought, the only thing that makes it a dreadnought is that it has dreadnought in its name,

all dreads are walkers/vehicles

all dreadnaughts are listed under a SINGLE unit entry titled "dreadnaught"

Indisputable fact - not like I've ever argued against it.

all entries under "dreadnaught" are dreadnaughts,

The Army List disagrees.

find the non dreadnaught unit entry for ironclads or venerables,

If unit entry mattered one iota I'd care.

no too mention contemptors specifically state they are NOT allowed in storm ravens,

FW != GW when it comes to rules writing. What they allow or deny has no precedent.

it is deliberate obfuscation to deny that a red ball is a ball,

it is the same to deny a venerable dreadnaught is a dreadnaught

No, it's not.

You have balls. You have red balls. You have red and blue balls. Red balls can be used to enter the playground.
If you have a red and blue ball can you enter the playground? It may still be a ball, but its completely different from the allowed one. this makes no sense, and you are misrepresenting my allegory. you seem to not understand hierarchies, red ball, is a subset of ball, if the set ball is allowed then so are its subsets unless prohibited by name. you seem to think that putting another word in front of ball, like red, blue, ect stops it from being one. just like dreads, just because it is a different type of dread, does not stop it from being a dreadnought, or from sticking to its own unit entries options


.

Ok, we know that sub types of unit are considered to be of that unit. Both subtypes of Dreadnaught are still Dreadnaughts. Just like Commisar Yarrick is a commisar.

I don't own the IG codex. Does it state that?

The Unit Entry of a Storm Raven says it can carry Dreadnaughts.

The Unit Composition of a Dreadnaught is 1 Dreadnaught. The Unit Composition of a Venerable Dreadnaught is 1 Venerable Dreadnaught.

Since I can't read light blue on white and I refuse to navigate that mess of misquotes, I don't see much else to respond to.

so you admit you dont consider any GK inquisitors special characters to be inquisitors because their composition is (unique), so an army with inquisitor karamazov cannot take henchmen because it has no inquisitor


very good arguement
"I wont even read what you wrote, im just going to repeat that a ball is a ball, and a red ball is a red ball, but not a ball"

I brought up several issues with using the unit composition as the object of special rules reference, breaking special character inquisitors, and ork mobs,

Bravo. The Dakka Debate Society strikes again! One more thread sidelined by inane rule interpretations where the detractors demand proof while at the same time denying said proof each time its presented. Bravo!

I love the bit about "a Dreadnought is a Dreadnought, but a Venerable Dreadnought is not!" Almost poetic.

Oh! And yes, a Heavy Bolter is a Bolter, per BRB pg. 56, where Heavy Bolter is listed under the "Boltguns" entry. And I'll even quote: "The Boltgun, or bolter, fires small missiles known as 'bolts'." "There are many variations of boltguns, from the short-barreled bolt pistol to the Vulcan mega-bolter often mounted on Titans and other super-heavy vehicles." All boltguns are bolters, as are all weapons that fire ‘bolts’.

Per GW, a Heavy Bolter is a Bolter. Oddly enough, per GW, Venerable Dreadnoughts, Ironclad Dreadnoughts, Furioso Dreadnoughts, Furioso Librarians, and Death Company Dreadnoughts are all "Dreadnoughts" as seen in their specific codex entries (as has been stated, cited, and quoted above). Which you will continue to deny.

So, bravo! Another thread dies at the hands of the Dakka Debate Society.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Bravo. The Dakka Debate Society strikes again! One more thread sidelined by inane rule interpretations where the detractors demand proof while at the same time denying said proof each time its presented. Bravo!

I love the bit about "a Dreadnought is a Dreadnought, but a Venerable Dreadnought is not!" Almost poetic.

Oh! And yes, a Heavy Bolter is a Bolter, per BRB pg. 56, where Heavy Bolter is listed under the "Boltguns" entry. And I'll even quote: "The Boltgun, or bolter, fires small missiles known as 'bolts'." "There are many variations of boltguns, from the short-barreled bolt pistol to the Vulcan mega-bolter often mounted on Titans and other super-heavy vehicles." All boltguns are bolters, as are all weapons that fire ‘bolts’.

Per GW, a Heavy Bolter is a Bolter. Oddly enough, per GW, Venerable Dreadnoughts, Ironclad Dreadnoughts, Furioso Dreadnoughts, Furioso Librarians, and Death Company Dreadnoughts are all "Dreadnoughts" as seen in their specific codex entries (as has been stated, cited, and quoted above). Which you will continue to deny.

So, bravo! Another thread dies at the hands of the Dakka Debate Society.

SJ

You're alright, Dude.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Per GW, a Heavy Bolter is a Bolter.

Cool, so all my Tac Marines can have Heavy Bolters since they come with a Bolter standard?

Ok, we know that sub types of unit are considered to be of that unit. Both subtypes of Dreadnaught are still Dreadnaughts. Just like Commisar Yarrick is a commisar.

I don't own the IG codex. Does it state that?

Yes, in the title Commisar.

Yes he is a Commissar, however only for two situations - "Aura of Dicipline" and "It's For Your Own Good".

It's almost as if the space marine codex was written during a time where they couldn't take Stormravens.

easysauce wrote:
so you admit you dont consider any GK inquisitors special characters to be inquisitors because their composition is (unique), so an army with inquisitor karamazov cannot take henchmen because it has no inquisitor

Yes. And pre-FAQ Doom of Malantai couldn't use Warp Field, etc.

very good arguement
"I wont even read what you wrote, im just going to repeat that a ball is a ball, and a red ball is a red ball, but not a ball"

Note that there's a difference between "cannot" and "will not". I honestly can't see any text where you wrote so I asked my wife to look, she said there was blue text, that's why I responded the way I did.

I brought up several issues with using the unit composition as the object of special rules reference, breaking special character inquisitors, and ork mobs,

Okay.
And?
Words mean things. Have I said that the intent is unclear? That I play things that way?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Bravo. The Dakka Debate Society strikes again! One more thread sidelined by inane rule interpretations where the detractors demand proof while at the same time denying said proof each time its presented. Bravo!

That's a lie. You can take your bias and hurt feelings elsewhere please.

I love the bit about "a Dreadnought is a Dreadnought, but a Venerable Dreadnought is not!" Almost poetic.

Removing it from context makes it sound dumb. It's almost like context is important...

Oh! And yes, a Heavy Bolter is a Bolter, per BRB pg. 56, where Heavy Bolter is listed under the "Boltguns" entry. And I'll even quote: "The Boltgun, or bolter, fires small missiles known as 'bolts'." "There are many variations of boltguns, from the short-barreled bolt pistol to the Vulcan mega-bolter often mounted on Titans and other super-heavy vehicles." All boltguns are bolters, as are all weapons that fire ‘bolts’.

Cool - use fluff for your argument. According to that argument, every space marine is equipped with a Vulcan Mega Bolter. After all, it's a Bolter, is on page 56, and they're all the same thing, right?

Per GW, a Heavy Bolter is a Bolter. Oddly enough, per GW, Venerable Dreadnoughts, Ironclad Dreadnoughts, Furioso Dreadnoughts, Furioso Librarians, and Death Company Dreadnoughts are all "Dreadnoughts" as seen in their specific codex entries (as has been stated, cited, and quoted above). Which you will continue to deny.

I've proven this incorrect (for all but BA Dreads). The Army List entry for all of the "upgraded" Dreads does not say 1 Dreadnaught. Prove otherwise.

So, bravo! Another thread dies at the hands of the Dakka Debate Society.

I'm curious, were you forced to read the thread and reply?
Do you have a rules argument to add, or just wanting to stir up trouble?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nivek5150 wrote:
It's almost as if the space marine codex was written during a time where they couldn't take Stormravens.

And the right way to update it is an FAQ/Errata... Not assumptions based on intent.

And the problem also exists with Drop Pods, FYI.

I voted yes, and decided not to argue it just for the sake of arguing(unlike someone else).

Here are my thoughts on the matter. A dreadnought (ALL of them) has the unit type of vehicle(walker). On page 137 of C:SM you will find that all three types of Dreads have the same unit type. The unit composition gives you the breakdown of what the unit is comprised of, an explanation of what is in said unit. The common word for all three of these vehicle(walker)'s is Dreadnought.

Please check page 128 for this:
2 Unit Composition: Where applicable, this entry lists the number and type of models that make up the basic unit. For example ... blah blah blah

3 Unit Type: This entry refers to the Warhammer 40,000 Unit Type Rules chapter. For example, a unit may be Infantry, Vehicle or Jump Infantry, and be subject to a number of rules .... blah blah blah.

To my mind this clearly indicates that all three of these Dreads ... Normal, Venerable, or Ironclad are all walkers that are able to be carried via the Thunder Guppy.

The problem here isn't with those arguing the point... It's with GW's refusal to use set keywords in their rules. Because unfortunately:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Per GW, a Heavy Bolter is a Bolter. Oddly enough, per GW, Venerable Dreadnoughts, Ironclad Dreadnoughts, Furioso Dreadnoughts, Furioso Librarians, and Death Company Dreadnoughts are all "Dreadnoughts" as seen in their specific codex entries (as has been stated, cited, and quoted above).

...one of these is correct, ruleswise.

GW showed in the Blood Angels codex that they consider all dreadnoughts to be dreadnoughts. But as per the ruling on Special Issue ammo, they don't consider everything with 'bolter' in its name to be a bolter.

Sometimes the class in the name applies, and sometimes it doesn't.


Without the use of hard keywords, technically the RAW crowd is correct: When you have one unit called a 'Dreadnought' and another unit called a 'Venerable Dreadnought' then anything that refers specifically to a 'Dreadnought' should only apply to the former.

In general casual language, though, it's certainly fair enough to assume that any Dreadnought is a Dreadnought. It's just made difficult by the fact that in GW's rules, where casual langauge applies far more often than technical semantics, it only works that way some of the time... and we're generally given no clue ahead of time as to which times that will be.

If the Storm Raven Unit Entry said "Walkers" I'd agree.

It doesn't.

rigeld2 wrote:

I've proven this incorrect (for all but BA Dreads). The Army List entry for all of the "upgraded" Dreads does not say 1 Dreadnaught. Prove otherwise.

incorrect, the unit composition, does not matter, permission is given to anything called a dreadnought,

the bolter argument is completly off topic

marines are armed with bolt guns, there is no profile for bolter, so right there your trading "bolters" for anything is off, and while fluff wise bolters is a broad term for many weapons, and the slang term bolter can apply to pretty much any bolt weapon, rules wise a Heavy bolter is a Heavy bolter,

there are plasma, melta, bolt, las, weapons of the pistol, gun and heavy ect variant,

there are dreadnaughts of the venerable/ironclad/ect type,


one would think the mere existence of different types of dreadnaughts would be enough proof of their existence.

My, this has gotten a bit heated..

Anyway,
My thought on this was guided by chaos.

Specifically, Fabius Bile, and his enhancements.

Khorne Berzerkers, Plaguemarines, and Havoks are all chaos space marines.
FB can only enhance Chaos Space Marines (a named squad type)

So there is precedent for this line of though.

I would point out though, YMDC is all about what the rules say, not how you would play it in reality.

Jeffersonian - yet Bolters are not Storm Bolters, or Heavy Bolters, because SI ammo can only be used in the former, not the latter 2 types of weapon. Making your argument still incorrect.

To those arguing a set or class idea - prove that "Dreadnought" is the set, and not just a proper noun. Because the SM codex treats them all as proper nouns, by stating a Venerable Dreadnought IS of type: Venerable Dreadnought, and not type Dreadnought (Venerable)

When you have capitalised words that often indicates proper nouns, i.e. names. It does not indicate the rules. So Commisar Yarrick is NOT a commisar by virtue of his name "Commisar Yarrick" containing the word "commisar" in it, as you dont have permission to separate the two into title: name - it is all "name"

GW does not write their rules based on keywords, much to the average player's frustration as most rules arguments reduce down to which specific words GW chose to use. One side of these arguments states that general term is a general term unless specifically defined in the rulebook. The other side states that all words are specific words except where otherwise defined.

Example: Dreadnought

GW defines Dreadnoughts as a general unit type as well as a specific unit type, and then refers back to dreadnought in an undefined way as to leave people guessing which one GW meant. Do they mean the general "Dreadnought", or the specific "Dreadnought"?

The answer is: whichever one doesn't break the rule set. If we go with the general term, everything seems to run smoothly in the case of "Dreadnoughts". However, if we go with the specific term "Dreadnought", several other instances become unraveled due to the precedence.

Notice how I did not state "general over specific" or "specific over general". I stated "which ever of the options does not break the rule set". There is no hard set method of solving these issues because GW does not write "tight" rules based on keywords and defined terms. They write "loose" rules that nit together to define a method of playing the game, using some keywords some of the time, and definitions to occasionally define a point.

Another example: Bolters

GW defined 'Bolters" as a generic term for any weapon that fires a 'Bolt'. We the players define 'Bolters" as the specific term Boltgun. To confuse issues further, GW uses the term Bolter and Boltgun interchangeably throughout their rule set. So which 'Bolter" do we use the stat line for GW tells us a specific unit has Bolters?

The answer is whichever one doesn't break the rule set. Sternguard can have Bolters, Combi-Bolters, and Stormbolters, as well as specialty ammunition that can be used with their Bolters. Well, thanks to GW, we have three different Bolter weapons all defined as 'Bolters". Does it break the game to allow Stormbolters to use specialty ammunition? The general consensus is: yes, it does. So Stormbolters are right out. Does it break the game for Combi-Bolters to use specialty ammunition? The general consensus is: maybe. So, Combi-Bolters are in for now.

See where I'm going with this? GW has told us that these rules work, yet they did a poor job of demonstrating how these rules work. So, if we use the primary thought that when GW says you can do something, you can in fact do it, much of these rules arguments boil down to which rules as written work for this specific conflict. Nowhere does the question of which keywords are used, or which definition is used come into play, because GW does not have an all-inclusive list of keywords and definitions. They do have a list of common special rules, as well as lists on specific terms being use for specific portions of the rules such as different weapons or different psychic powers.

In the end, you cannot take any of the rules currently in the game in isolation. Each one of the rules as written in the current 6th edition rulebook are presented with a context that they work, that they work with in a frame work of other rules, and without that frame work the game falls apart. So pointing out that a rule causes the game to fall apart is counter to GW's assurance that the rules do indeed work.

So, which interpretation of the rules as written does not break the game? That is the key to debating 6th edition rules conflicts.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
In the end, you cannot take any of the rules currently in the game in isolation. Each one of the rules as written in the current 6th edition rulebook are presented with a context that they work, that they work with in a frame work of other rules, and without that frame work the game falls apart. So pointing out that a rule causes the game to fall apart is counter to GW's assurance that the rules do indeed work.

Right - that'd be the difference between RAI and RAW. Thank you for pointing that out.

So, which interpretation of the rules as written does not break the game? That is the key to debating 6th edition rules conflicts.

Please explain how my interpretation "breaks the game".

if you go along the thought process of special rules refering to units by their unit composition, instead of refering to things by name,

it breaks half the special characters since they all have special rules that refer to them by name, but they all have the unit composition 1(unique)

it also breaks every unit's rules that say has rules that apply to a type (orks for waagh, there are no "orks" , only boys in the composition, same for many other troop types ect)

I see no precident set for referring to units by their composition, as opposed to by their name.

take for instance, land raiders, in the back of the GK codex, despite haveing three named varients, they are all composed of one "land raider" , yet these "land raiders" have different equiptment, capacity, ect

by your own definition, the unit composition, not the name, or stats, defines what is in the unit, so those "land raider crusaders" must follow the rules for a standard "land raider" since the unit composition says "land raider"

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Jeffersonian - yet Bolters are not Storm Bolters, or Heavy Bolters, because SI ammo can only be used in the former, not the latter 2 types of weapon. Making your argument still incorrect.

The SI ammo entry specificaly states "BoltGUN" not bolter.

Lysander's BOLTER drill allows the rules for any gun with BOLTER in the name.

This point holds no water.