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.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Let's try some rules...

From 'Formations' in the rulebook:

"Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain."

And then from 'Army List Entries':

"Regardless of where this information is found, it is known as an Army List Entry. Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel miniatures..."

This establishes the default position of what a formation datasheet lists as being the a unit of what is listed per its datasheet or army list entry.

It may be intended that only a single model should be taken, however as it stands RAW does not restrict from filling out the unit per its datasheet.

I woke up today, and I hd a lot more answers than I expected! This one though seems like the most logical. So what I think is this: it was intended to only be 1 Dreadnought, but because of GWs inconsistent writing, the rules allow up to 3.

 alleus wrote:

Spoiler:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Let's try some rules...

From 'Formations' in the rulebook:

"Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain."

And then from 'Army List Entries':

"Regardless of where this information is found, it is known as an Army List Entry. Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel miniatures..."

This establishes the default position of what a formation datasheet lists as being the a unit of what is listed per its datasheet or army list entry.

It may be intended that only a single model should be taken, however as it stands RAW does not restrict from filling out the unit per its datasheet.

I woke up today, and I hd a lot more answers than I expected! This one though seems like the most logical. So what I think is this: it was intended to only be 1 Dreadnought, but because of GWs inconsistent writing, the rules allow up to 3.

Not so sure about that since the Formation specifically points out 1 Venerable Dreadnought and in the Army List Entry there is no Venerable Dreadnought entry. However there seems to be for Venereable DreadnoughtS which would allow one to take a unit/squadron if that was the case. That said you could probably take Dedicated transports for your Tactical Marines and possibly even the Dreadnought.

X078 wrote:
Not so sure about that since the Formation specifically points out 1 Venerable Dreadnought and in the Army List Entry there is no Venerable Dreadnought entry. However there seems to be for Venereable DreadnoughtS which would allow one to take a unit/squadron if that was the case. That said you could probably take a Dedicated transport for your Tactical Marines.

Yeah, the formation datasheet doesn't point to anywhere useful per strict RAW without anything to tell us this formation is made up of model profiles instead of or as well as army list entries. Either way we have to make an assumption, and I suspect the more reasonable one is a single Venerable Dreadnought.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

X078 wrote:
Not so sure about that since the Formation specifically points out 1 Venerable Dreadnought and in the Army List Entry there is no Venerable Dreadnought entry. However there seems to be for Venereable DreadnoughtS which would allow one to take a unit/squadron if that was the case. That said you could probably take a Dedicated transport for your Tactical Marines.

Yeah, the formation datasheet doesn't point to anywhere useful per strict RAW without anything to tell us this formation is made up of model profiles instead of or as well as army list entries. Either way we have to make an assumption, and I suspect the more reasonable one is a single Venerable Dreadnought.

Yes, i would agree.

I agree as well. As fun as 3 Dreads sound, 1 is way more reasonable and I do think it was intended.

It just goes to show how poorly GW goes through these rules. All would have been solved if the formation just stated: "1 Unit of Venerable Dreadnoughts" and then in a "Restrictions" window (that most formations have): "The unit of Venerable Dreadnoughts can not exceed 1 Dreadnought". This way, there are no questions and if they wanted you to be able to field more than one, they just change the number in the restriction or remove it all together.

It baffles me how they still are so inconsistant with these things. I know they are a model creating company before a gaming company, but still. Some of these rules are just poorly written..

col_impact wrote:

There is a difference between RAW and 'overly pedantic RAW'. I choose RAW.

Wait... What?
RAW, as I understand it and I assume pretty everyone else by how the term is used, is to refer and follow the rules word by word, exactly as written.
Now by saying one can be "pedantic" with RAW is like saying the water is wet - being pedantic and adhereing to the exact wording of the rule as it is printed/written black on white is the very definition of RAW.
You either go RAW and break the formation because it is not possible to field the "Captain in Terminator Armour" or you go RAI and use the clear intent of fielding the model that comes with the formation rules.
The same goes for the "Venerable Dreadnought" ALE which does not exist. So we, again, retort to RAI to be able to fulfill the requirement and go to "Venerable Dreadnoughts".
Since we used RAI twice already and the intent of the formation is clear in that it should allow the models in the box to be fielded in a bound army, we cannot suddenly switch around and add more dreadnaughts.

You choose one route to go with the Captain and do not suddenly defer to another interpretation because it suits you.
HYWPI - Remain consistent then have a go and field this RAW broken formation with Captain and 1 dread. But if you insist of bringing 2+ Dreads in, I'd call you out on the inconsitancy in your argument and deny you the formation benefits.

To OP: I think it is pretty clear now it is only 1 dreadnought, as we saw with BDC et SFU it is written differently.
I wasn't certain too, but the debate proved it, to my opinion.

col_impact wrote:

There is a difference between RAW and 'overly pedantic RAW'. I choose RAW.

An example of 'overly pedantic RAW' is someone who claims that '1 Canoptek Spyder (pg. 93)' for the Canoptek Harvest does not refer to the ALE on page 93 which is 'Canoptek Spyders'.

RAW the Necron codex is without a doubt pointing exactly to the ALE on page 93 in the case of the '1 Canoptek Spyder'. Getting hung up on the missing 's' is indeed overly pedantic.

.

Thank you for admitting that you are not playing by RAW. Your RAI is noted.

All this talk of ALE is making me thirsty.

I'm just glad there isnt a Required Unit Marking or else I'd be hopeless in here....

Claiming this MUST refer to the ALE, despite 2 pieces of evidnece to the contrary, means you cannot be following RAW. RAW there is no way to fulfill either requirement, as there is no ALE for either.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

X078 wrote:
Not so sure about that since the Formation specifically points out 1 Venerable Dreadnought and in the Army List Entry there is no Venerable Dreadnought entry. However there seems to be for Venereable DreadnoughtS which would allow one to take a unit/squadron if that was the case. That said you could probably take a Dedicated transport for your Tactical Marines.

Yeah, the formation datasheet doesn't point to anywhere useful per strict RAW without anything to tell us this formation is made up of model profiles instead of or as well as army list entries. Either way we have to make an assumption, and I suspect the more reasonable one is a single Venerable Dreadnought.

Formations do not list models. Formations list units and ALE.

If they listed models, you would be fielding models (not in units) directly on the battlefield. All the basic rules would break in 40k (moving, shooting, assault, etc.) since they require units to function. You would basically be left with fielding that model as scenery and with all the capabilities of scenery. The rules only allow for fielding models directly in the case of scenery.

The RAI argument that says the formation is referencing a model is being overly pedantic and using a negligible reference problem to not only go directly against the rules but to do something illegal in the rules (field a model directly). That is rules abuse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:

col_impact wrote:

There is a difference between RAW and 'overly pedantic RAW'. I choose RAW.

An example of 'overly pedantic RAW' is someone who claims that '1 Canoptek Spyder (pg. 93)' for the Canoptek Harvest does not refer to the ALE on page 93 which is 'Canoptek Spyders'.

RAW the Necron codex is without a doubt pointing exactly to the ALE on page 93 in the case of the '1 Canoptek Spyder'. Getting hung up on the missing 's' is indeed overly pedantic.

.

Thank you for admitting that you are not playing by RAW. Your RAI is noted.

Your inability to distinguish overly pedantic RAW from RAW in even the clear cut Canoptek Harvest example has been noted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm just glad there isnt a Required Unit Marking or else I'd be hopeless in here....

Claiming this MUST refer to the ALE, despite 2 pieces of evidnece to the contrary, means you cannot be following RAW. RAW there is no way to fulfill either requirement, as there is no ALE for either.

We do the best to make sense of what ALE to use. And in fact its really not hard to sort out what ALE in each case is to be used. Only an overly pedantic line of argumentation insists that they have to throw up their arms and say the rules break.

Why do we do this? Because the rules that we have require units and ALE. We push forward with those rules and find the ALE that satisfies the formations listing. In fact, it's incredibly easy and clear to determine which ALE to use.

What we don't do is start making up rules and allowances because we encounter an area of pedantic messiness. We don't start suddenly saying the Formation is referencing a model directly. Not only is that making up rules but it is also breaking the rules. The rules of 40k do not allow models to be fielded directly on the battlefield (only scenery is allowed this). So we know with certainty that an argument that says Formations can list models directly is wholly invalid.

I can just see this playing out at a pickup game

"hey I brought the new space marine formation to try out hope you dont mind. I cant wait to use my 3 riflemen dreads for 24 twin linked shots a turn!"

"what, dude thats not how formations work, it says one venerable dreadnaut, even the box comes with and shows only one"

"right, one venerable dreadnauts, thats what I said, so 3 dreadnauts. the formation says one venerable dreadnaught. since one venerable dreadnaught can purchase 2 more dreadnaughts according to its entry, you have one 3 man venerable dreadnaut"

"the entry says one venerable dreadnaut...."

"right, one venerable dreadnaught, who can then buy 2 more venerable dreadnaughts"

"wouldnt that be 3 venerable dreadnaughts?'

"what? Dont be stupid, its one three man venerable dreadnaut!"

" I think ill pass"

this is the future you have chosen for yourself col.

 Orock wrote:
I can just see this playing out at a pickup game

"hey I brought the new space marine formation to try out hope you dont mind. I cant wait to use my 3 riflemen dreads for 24 twin linked shots a turn!"

"what, dude thats not how formations work, it says one venerable dreadnaut, even the box comes with and shows only one"

"right, one venerable dreadnauts, thats what I said, so 3 dreadnauts. the formation says one venerable dreadnaught. since one venerable dreadnaught can purchase 2 more dreadnaughts according to its entry, you have one 3 man venerable dreadnaut"

"the entry says one venerable dreadnaut...."

"right, one venerable dreadnaught, who can then buy 2 more venerable dreadnaughts"

"wouldnt that be 3 venerable dreadnaughts?'

"what? Dont be stupid, its one three man venerable dreadnaut!"

" I think ill pass"

this is the future you have chosen for yourself col.

I am sure you are well aware of how unpopular the rules as written can be but I stick with playing RAW. For example I do not have a problem with a Tau player who plays Hunter Contingent RAW because the rules are exceedingly clear how to play that Formation. Most players will try to argue against the clear Hunter Contingent RAW or cry OP instead of actually seeing how it plays out or if it even is OP.

The way the rules are written, the Firespear Task Force can upgrade the 1 Venerable Dreadnaught with 2 additional Dreadnaughts.

So do your games just stop and cease to function properly when you reach the Psychic phase?
Or can you not use this Formation since 'Captain in Terminator armour' isn't an ALE?

If no to either, you aren't playing completely RAW like you always claim you do.

Heres the thing.

Hunter contingent rules ARE raw, people grasped at straws to try and shut them down. Then when they couldnt they accepted a ruling from a popular format organizer and took it as "good enough"

Multiple dreadnauts are by definition not raw. Because the absolute raw, is how its writeen. One venerable dreadnaut. Not one unit, no permission to upgrade, just one.

Col_impact
just to sum up your argument

Formation
"1 captain in terminator armour"
"1 venerable dreadnaught"

Since neither of these are ALEs we have 2 options.

1 (RAW) stop fielding formation, it doesn't work.
2 (RAI) you argue use the closest ALEs as that was what was intended.

So far, we are not using 100% RAW so we are clear on this. We are using option 2.

Now we use
"1 Captain ALE"
"1 Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE"

Using these ALEs we may upgrade the dreadnaughts to have 2 additional members.
We may also upgrade the captain to have a bike and artificer armour.

This clearly breaks RAI (remember RAW is dead and gone since we chose option 2)

To satisfy RAI we would have
"1 captain in terminator armour" =/= "1 captain on a bike with artificer armour"
"1 venerable dreadnaught"=/= "3 venerable Dreadnaughts"

If you argue that RAI isn't important, and we should use RAW, then you cannot field the formation. By fielding the formation you agree to use the rules as intended.

It is fair to say when they wrote
"1 captain in terminator armour" they meant "1 captain in terminator armour""

And when they wrote "1 venerable dreadnaught" they meant "1 venerable dreadnaught"


So either play by RAW or RAI. if you reply to this, just answer at the very start if you are using RAW or RAI.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
So do your games just stop and cease to function properly when you reach the Psychic phase?
Or can you not use this Formation since 'Captain in Terminator armour' isn't an ALE?

If no to either, you aren't playing completely RAW like you always claim you do.

Nope. I don't play by overly pedantic RAW. I play by RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:
Heres the thing.

Hunter contingent rules ARE raw, people grasped at straws to try and shut them down. Then when they couldnt they accepted a ruling from a popular format organizer and took it as "good enough"

Multiple dreadnauts are by definition not raw. Because the absolute raw, is how its writeen. One venerable dreadnaut. Not one unit, no permission to upgrade, just one.

RAW, the Formation rules require units and ALE. So you use the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE and purchase a unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnaughts. That ALE gives permission to upgrade the unit with 2 additional Venerable Dreadnaughts, so you do. Clear chain of permission and no rule is broken.

You obviously don't play by RAW at all. Which is fine and all (I don't either, I play by RAI so the game can actually function to some degree), just stop trying to convince everyone - including yourself - that you play completely RAW. You don't.

harkequin wrote:
Col_impact
just to sum up your argument

Formation
"1 captain in terminator armour"
"1 venerable dreadnaught"

Since neither of these are ALEs we have 2 options.

1 (RAW) stop fielding formation, it doesn't work.
2 (RAI) you argue use the closest ALEs as that was what was intended.

So far, we are not using 100% RAW so we are clear on this. We are using option 2.

Now we use
"1 Captain ALE"
"1 Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE"

Using these ALEs we may upgrade the dreadnaughts to have 2 additional members.
We may also upgrade the captain to have a bike and artificer armour.

This clearly breaks RAI (remember RAW is dead and gone since we chose option 2)

To satisfy RAI we would have
"1 captain in terminator armour" =/= "1 captain on a bike with artificer armour"
"1 venerable dreadnaught"=/= "3 venerable Dreadnaughts"

If you argue that RAI isn't important, and we should use RAW, then you cannot field the formation. By fielding the formation you agree to use the rules as intended.

It is fair to say when they wrote
"1 captain in terminator armour" they meant "1 captain in terminator armour""

And when they wrote "1 venerable dreadnaught" they meant "1 venerable dreadnaught"


So either play by RAW or RAI. if you reply to this, just answer at the very start if you are using RAW or RAI.

I play by RAW and not by overly pedantic RAW. I treat negligible reference problems as negligible.

The Formation rules absolutely require UNITS and ALE. Any solution we come up with must adhere to known and established rules.

So 1 Venerable Dreadnaught has to point to a unit and an ALE. There is only one option in the codex. We find it easily unless we are being overly pedantic.

That ALE has options on it. Formations allow you to access the options. We do so.


The way you are arguing by RAI involves making up rules and allowances that go directly against existing and established rules and break the game. Going against existing rules and breaking the game cannot be the rules as intended. 40K does not allow the direct fielding of models. None of the rules allow it. So your 1 Venerable Dreadnaught is now scenery that cannot interact with anything except as scenery.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
You obviously don't play by RAW at all. Which is fine and all (I don't either, I play by RAI so the game can actually function to some degree), just stop trying to convince everyone - including yourself - that you play completely RAW. You don't.

I play by RAW. The only thing that is a barrier to game functioning is overly pedantic RAW. Overly pedantic RAW tries to force the game to break on negligible technicalities that require no guesswork to resolve.


What you are doing is using overly pedantic RAW to throw up your arms and claim the rules are hopelessly broken to then try to sneak in broad allowances that go against established rules, that make up rules, and that break the game. Formations do not reference models. The rules of 40k do not permit the direct fielding of models. You have committed rules abuse.

I play by RAW and not by overly pedantic RAW. I treat negligible reference problems as negligible.

No you don't. If you played by RAW you wouldnt play the formation. That is RAW.

You assume it was intended to be playable, so you play it as intended . That is Rules as intended

Since you have decided one venerable dreadnaught means one unit of venerable dreadnauts 1-3 and are andamant thats how it be because it do, mabye you should be having this conversation with your intended opponents. Whatever houserules you have decided to run dosent matter to the public at large. But if your friends or local events tell you otherwise, you may have to live with other peoples logic.

harkequin wrote:

I play by RAW and not by overly pedantic RAW. I treat negligible reference problems as negligible.

No you don't. If you played by RAW you wouldnt play the formation. That is RAW.

You assume it was intended to be playable, so you play it as intended . That is Rules as intended

No. You are being overly pedantic and throwing up your hands and saying a formation is unplayable when 1 Venerable Dreadnaught can only refer to the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE by the rules.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:
Since you have decided one venerable dreadnaught means one unit of venerable dreadnauts 1-3 and are andamant thats how it be because it do, mabye you should be having this conversation with your intended opponents. Whatever houserules you have decided to run dosent matter to the public at large. But if your friends or local events tell you otherwise, you may have to live with other peoples logic.

The rules say that 1 venerable dreadnaught means 1 unit of one venerable dreadnaught that uses the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE.

As already stated, the Formation rules explicitly require units and ALE.

And as already stated, the rules of 40k do not allow the direct fielding of models.

I am still waiting for anyone to show how 1 venerable dreadnaught model on the battlefield does anything more than act as scenery as it is wholly unable to interact in the game.

So we have no choice but to say that 1 venerable dreadnaught means 1 unit of one venerable dreadnaught that uses the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE if we follow the rules.

for 25+ years, it was always "one dreadnaut as scenery" SOMEHOW with one strength higher shots, grey knight singular dreads managed to pull their weight and be considered more than scenery.

And it dosen't matter that you yourself are waiting for someone else to prove you wrong. The rest of the players are waiting for you to prove yourself right. The fact nobody else has agreed with your particular version of reality should clue you in. And again, it dosent matter if you cant convince people you will never meet on some random internet board. But if you cant convince anyone whom you would actually like to play this against, none of trying to twist the english language into your own interpretation will matter.

col_impact wrote:

harkequin wrote:

I play by RAW and not by overly pedantic RAW. I treat negligible reference problems as negligible.

No you don't. If you played by RAW you wouldnt play the formation. That is RAW.

You assume it was intended to be playable, so you play it as intended . That is Rules as intended

No. You are being overly pedantic and throwing up your hands and saying a formation is unplayable when 1 Venerable Dreadnaught can only refer to the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE by the rules.

Unfortunately RAW it can only refer to the non-existent 'Venerable Dreadnought' ALE.
Similarly, RAW the Formation can only refer to the non-existent 'Captain in Terminator armour' ALE.

However it is playable under RAI.
If you play the game with it being playable, you aren't playing RAW.

No. You are being overly pedantic and throwing up your hands and saying a formation is unplayable when 1 Venerable Dreadnaught can only refer to the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE by the rules.

RAW is pedantic, raw isn't a grey matter. RAW is black and white, as written.

You cannot claim that your argument is superior because it's RAW when it isn't. You're argument is RAI, because RAW is unplayable , that's why we are using RAI.

Simply put, if you want to play RAW as you claim. You can play the formation when you show me the datasheet for "captain in terminator armour".

Or we can agree that the game designers intended the formation to be playable, and not just set dressing for the box.

RAI isn't a bad thing. It's obvious the designers intended it to be playable. The point stands it is not RAW, you can pretend it is, but you are still playing something the way it was intended. Not the way it is written.

Now it is clear, that it's RAI. because if you play it at all, it's not RAW, therefore its RAI.
QED.

RAW has no bearing on this argument. At all.

RAI
The writer intended "1 venerable dreadnaught" to mean "1 venerable dreadnaught"

Can you refute the underlined part?

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

col_impact wrote:

harkequin wrote:

I play by RAW and not by overly pedantic RAW. I treat negligible reference problems as negligible.

No you don't. If you played by RAW you wouldnt play the formation. That is RAW.

You assume it was intended to be playable, so you play it as intended . That is Rules as intended

No. You are being overly pedantic and throwing up your hands and saying a formation is unplayable when 1 Venerable Dreadnaught can only refer to the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE by the rules.

Unfortunately RAW it can only refer to the non-existent 'Venerable Dreadnought' ALE.
Similarly, RAW the Formation can only refer to the non-existent 'Captain in Terminator armour' ALE.

However it is playable under RAI.
If you play the game with it being playable, you aren't playing RAW.

Again. You are being overly pedantic and throwing up your arms and claiming something is unplayable . . .

AND THEN using that line of reasoning to come up with a way to play that makes up rules, breaks existing rules, and attempts to field illegal items. That is rules abuse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

harkequin wrote:

RAI The writer intended "1 venerable dreadnaught" to mean "1 venerable dreadnaught"

Can you refute the underlined part?

Sure. The writer intended "1 venerable dreadnaught" to mean "unit of 1 venerable dreadnaught using the Venerable Dreadnaught ALE" because if its not a unit using an ALE it is not playable in 40k.

Or are you saying that the writer intended you to play the Venerable Dreadnaught as scenery?

col_impact wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

col_impact wrote:

harkequin wrote:

I play by RAW and not by overly pedantic RAW. I treat negligible reference problems as negligible.

No you don't. If you played by RAW you wouldnt play the formation. That is RAW.

You assume it was intended to be playable, so you play it as intended . That is Rules as intended

No. You are being overly pedantic and throwing up your hands and saying a formation is unplayable when 1 Venerable Dreadnaught can only refer to the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE by the rules.

Unfortunately RAW it can only refer to the non-existent 'Venerable Dreadnought' ALE.
Similarly, RAW the Formation can only refer to the non-existent 'Captain in Terminator armour' ALE.

However it is playable under RAI.
If you play the game with it being playable, you aren't playing RAW.

Again. You are being overly pedantic and throwing up your arms and claiming something is unplayable . . .

AND THEN using that line of reasoning to come up with a way to play that makes up rules, breaks existing rules, and attempts to field illegal items. That is rules abuse.

But it is unplayable. You said so yourself, the rules can only refer to ALEs. How can it refer to the Captain ALE? That isn't the 'Captain in Terminator armour' ALE? Now that is rules abuse.

Also the fact that your getting pissed at me for 'making up rules' is hilarious, since in all the Canoptek Spyder thread you'd make up rules to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
AND YET STILL claimed your argument was 100% RAW and the most correct.

AND THEN using that line of reasoning to come up with a way to play that makes up rules, breaks existing rules, and attempts to field illegal items.

The hypocrisy is real here.

Matt Kingsley,

you have yet to explain how a Venerable Dreadnaught fielded as a model can do anything at all in the game beyond act as scenery.

Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 9 wrote:a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

But it is unplayable. You said so yourself, the rules can only refer to ALEs. How can it refer to the Captain ALE? That isn't the 'Captain in Terminator armour' ALE? Now that is rules abuse.

Also the fact that your getting pissed at me for 'making up rules' is hilarious, since in all the Canoptek Spyder thread you'd make up rules to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
AND YET STILL claimed your argument was 100% RAW and the most correct.

AND THEN using that line of reasoning to come up with a way to play that makes up rules, breaks existing rules, and attempts to field illegal items.

The hypocrisy is real here.

I made up no rules in the Canoptek Spyder thread and am not a hypocrite. Book-keeping is not a rule.

The rules that we have absolutely require units and ALEs. When a Formation lists a unit that does not exactly letter for letter line up with an ALE in the codex we don't throw up our hands and start wildly making up rules and breaking existing ones. We find the ALE that fits and it is very easy to do so. It's not debatable what ALE to use in the case of the Venerable Dreadnaught or the Captain. There are no other tenable options for the ALE.

1 Venerable Dreadnaught can only refer to 'a unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnaught using the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE'. Otherwise you have made up a rule that allows Formations to list models. And you are overlooking the fact that fielding a model directly in 40k means you are fielding scenery that will not be able to interact with any of the 40k rules for units (moving, shooting, assaulting, etc.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 9 wrote:a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right.

Cool. The rules require you to use an ALE, so point to the ALE that you use. Otherwise where are getting the rules for this Venerable Dreadnaught thing? Nice scenery.