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.

there is a ball

there is a red ball

to interpret that as "a red ball is NOT a ball" makes no sense

and the unit composition is not the cou de gras you think it is,

the unit is composed of a venerable dread, which is in fact a dread,

the rules say nothing about excluding other types of dreads, and the fact that forgeworld specifically lists that contemptor dreadnaughts cannot be transported sets the precident that if they had not banned contemptors from it, that they could be in storm ravens too

you would need to prove that venerable dreads are not dreads, despite being in the army list for dreads, following the rules for them, being walkers ect

There is no unit type "dreadnaught"

rigeld2 wrote:

rossatdi wrote:
Sorry, where does it say this? I've got all the relevant books in front of me, there's no mention in the rulebook about additions to the normal transport capacity rules requiring only army list descriptions. It says that "this will be specified in the unit's entry" (p78) not the unit composition.

The Transport Capacity rules dictate only Infantry and Independent Characters (that are Infantry) can embark.
Exceptions are listed in the Transport's entry.
The Storm Raven has an exception for, in the BA Codex, "a single Dreadnaught".
Since Transport Capacity is measured in numbers of a unit type (which is what Infantry and Independent Character must be referencing) we can only conclude that the word "Dreadnaught" refers to Unit Type.

Please answer the question - what is the Unit Type of a Venerable Dreadnaught?

This still doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Here's another example: MOB RULE for Orks. It states that "Ork mobs may substitute the number of Orks in their mob for their normal leadership value" No unit type includes the word "Ork" anywhere in unit type. They use other terms. (boy, nob, etc) The unit composition for one or two does state "Ork Boys" but this is not the same as "Ork" according to what you're saying.

rigeld2 wrote:

rossatdi wrote:
Sorry, where does it say this? I've got all the relevant books in front of me, there's no mention in the rulebook about additions to the normal transport capacity rules requiring only army list descriptions. It says that "this will be specified in the unit's entry" (p78) not the unit composition.

The Transport Capacity rules dictate only Infantry and Independent Characters (that are Infantry) can embark.
Exceptions are listed in the Transport's entry.
The Storm Raven has an exception for, in the BA Codex, "a single Dreadnaught".
Since Transport Capacity is measured in numbers of a unit type (which is what Infantry and Independent Character must be referencing) we can only conclude that the word "Dreadnaught" refers to Unit Type.

Please answer the question - what is the Unit Type of a Venerable Dreadnaught?

Again, to reiterate.

Rulebook: Exceptions listed in the UNIT ENTRY. That's literally the words written in the rulebook. It does not say unit composition.
BA Codex: Unit Entries in the Angelic Host section.
Stormraven Unit Entry: Dreadnoughts are carried.
Dreadnought Unit Entry: Dreadnought = Furioso/Death Company/Regular Dread

What makes this even clearer is the in the army list, it links back to the Unit Entry on page 38. Every dreadnought in the army list refers back to page 29.

easysauce wrote:
you would need to prove that venerable dreads are not dreads, despite being in the army list for dreads, following the rules for them, being walkers ect

A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is not the same as a Dreadnaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.
A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is not an upgrade of a Drednaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.
A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is a Walker, as is the Dreadnaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.

My Space Marine Codex has separate entries for Venerable, Ironclad, and normal Dreadnaughts. So we know they are not the same unit as far as the army list is concerned.
If you take page 65 of C:SM as the determination for all Dreadnaughts, then they all have the Venerable rule and all share Seismic Hammers and Ironclad Assault Launchers. I assume we agree that's not true.

The only similarities between them is the fact that they're both Walkers and they have one word in the name of the unit that is the same. I assume we agree that's true.

rigeld2 wrote:

Please answer the question - what is the Unit Type of a Venerable Dreadnaught?

It is unit type walker.

Please answer the question - where in the rulebook does it mention unit composition or unit type in what exceptions to normal capacity?

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
you would need to prove that venerable dreads are not dreads, despite being in the army list for dreads, following the rules for them, being walkers ect

A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is not the same as a Dreadnaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.
A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is not an upgrade of a Drednaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.
A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is a Walker, as is the Dreadnaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.

My Space Marine Codex has separate entries for Venerable, Ironclad, and normal Dreadnaughts. So we know they are not the same unit as far as the army list is concerned.
If you take page 65 of C:SM as the determination for all Dreadnaughts, then they all have the Venerable rule and all share Seismic Hammers and Ironclad Assault Launchers. I assume we agree that's not true.

The only similarities between them is the fact that they're both Walkers and they have one word in the name of the unit that is the same. I assume we agree that's true.

Is a Loota an Ork? Is a Scout Sergeant a Space Marine?

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
you would need to prove that venerable dreads are not dreads, despite being in the army list for dreads, following the rules for them, being walkers ect

A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is not the same as a Dreadnaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.
A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is not an upgrade of a Drednaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.
A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is a Walker, as is the Dreadnaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.

My Space Marine Codex has separate entries for Venerable, Ironclad, and normal Dreadnaughts. So we know they are not the same unit as far as the army list is concerned.
If you take page 65 of C:SM as the determination for all Dreadnaughts, then they all have the Venerable rule and all share Seismic Hammers and Ironclad Assault Launchers. I assume we agree that's not true.

The only similarities between them is the fact that they're both Walkers and they have one word in the name of the unit that is the same. I assume we agree that's true.

Space Marine Codex page 137: Each Dreadnought type refers back to page 65. This is the unit entry for (drum roll please) dreadnoughts.

rossatdi wrote:
Again, to reiterate.

Rulebook: Exceptions listed in the UNIT ENTRY. That's literally the words written in the rulebook. It does not say unit composition.
BA Codex: Unit Entries in the Angelic Host section.
Stormraven Unit Entry: Dreadnoughts are carried.
Dreadnought Unit Entry: Dreadnought = Furioso/Death Company/Regular Dread

What makes this even clearer is the in the army list, it links back to the Unit Entry on page 38. Every dreadnought in the army list refers back to page 29.

The literal words in the rulebook are:

BRB Page 78 wrote:Sometimes, there will be constraints on which types of models can embark upon a particular vehicle, and this will be specified in the unit's entry.

That's the only place the words "UNIT ENTRY" are used. In this case, the unit entry being referred to is the transport's unit entry. We know that because of how it references Rhinos and Terminators.
I require a citation for the bolded statement. I'm looking on page 29 of the BA Codex and there is nothing of the sort said. Would you mind telling me where you find it?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

rossatdi wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
you would need to prove that venerable dreads are not dreads, despite being in the army list for dreads, following the rules for them, being walkers ect

A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is not the same as a Dreadnaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.
A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is not an upgrade of a Drednaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.
A Venerable Dreadnaught (the unit) is a Walker, as is the Dreadnaught (the unit). I assume we agree on that.

My Space Marine Codex has separate entries for Venerable, Ironclad, and normal Dreadnaughts. So we know they are not the same unit as far as the army list is concerned.
If you take page 65 of C:SM as the determination for all Dreadnaughts, then they all have the Venerable rule and all share Seismic Hammers and Ironclad Assault Launchers. I assume we agree that's not true.

The only similarities between them is the fact that they're both Walkers and they have one word in the name of the unit that is the same. I assume we agree that's true.

Space Marine Codex page 137: Each Dreadnought type refers back to page 65. This is the unit entry for (drum roll please) dreadnoughts.

Oh, look. I addressed that. I've bolded it for easier reading.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:
Is a Loota an Ork? Is a Scout Sergeant a Space Marine?

Context is important to keep in mind. You're ignoring it.

the "type" for dreads is walker

all dreads are walkers,

and are listed undder the dreadnaught section of the codex, all units in the "dreadnaught" section are, suprise, dreadnaughts,

just like knights of the flame are still purifiers even though composition
says they are a "knight of the flame"
they are under the "purifiers" entry, so are still purifiers

rossatdi wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Please answer the question - what is the Unit Type of a Venerable Dreadnaught?

It is unit type walker.

Page 137 of the Space Marine Codex disagrees with you.

Please answer the question - where in the rulebook does it mention unit composition or unit type in what exceptions to normal capacity?

Page 78, as I've explained.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

easysauce wrote:
and are listed undder the dreadnaught section of the codex, all units in the "dreadnaught" section are, suprise, dreadnaughts,

rigeld2 wrote:If you take page 65 of C:SM as the determination for all Dreadnaughts, then they all have the Venerable rule and all share Seismic Hammers and Ironclad Assault Launchers. I assume we agree that's not true.

So you disagree - IE you believe that statement is true?

just like knights of the flame are still purifiers even though composition
says they are a "knight of the flame"
they are under the "purifiers" entry, so are still purifiers

Um. Citation required. That's not correct.

Page 78 refers to the transport, just clarifying you agree with that Rigeld?

The entry in the BA codex could be either the general term Dreadnaught or the the specific Dreadnaught(ie the vanilla one with no bells or whistles)

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Page 78 refers to the transport, just clarifying you agree with that Rigeld?

It refers to the transport in one area and the embarking unit in another. Clarification required.

The entry in the BA codex could be either the general term Dreadnaught or the the specific Dreadnaught(ie the vanilla one with no bells or whistles)

In the context of an embarking unit, there is no "general term Dreadnaught" defined in the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
[Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:
Is a Loota an Ork? Is a Scout Sergeant a Space Marine?

Context is important to keep in mind. You're ignoring it.

Context is important. Rhinos and Razorback have in their entry "It cannot carry Models in Terminator armor" Therefore all other models would be eligible unless that unit type prevents it from being transported.

Here's the the definetive proof that they can be transported by Stormraven: The unit entry for Drop Pods. "The Drop Pod has a transport capacity of 12 models. It can transport a single Dreadnaught or Thunderfire Cannon."

No mention to the specific type of Dread there!

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
[Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:
Is a Loota an Ork? Is a Scout Sergeant a Space Marine?

Context is important to keep in mind. You're ignoring it.

Context is important. Rhinos and Razorback have in their entry "It cannot carry Models in Terminator armor" Therefore all other models would be eligible unless that unit type prevents it from being transported.

Here's the the definetive proof that they can be transported by Stormraven: The unit entry for Drop Pods. "The Drop Pod has a transport capacity of 12 models. It can transport a single Dreadnaught or Thunderfire Cannon."

No mention to the specific type of Dread there!

How is that proof? It's literally the exact same situation.

I don't think that's their intent and I would never play that way, but there's no rules basis supporting your argument.

rigeld2 wrote:

That's the only place the words "UNIT ENTRY" are used. In this case, the unit entry being referred to is the transport's unit entry. We know that because of how it references Rhinos and Terminators.
I require a citation for the bolded statement. I'm looking on page 29 of the BA Codex and there is nothing of the sort said. Would you mind telling me where you find it?

Look at army list. Top right of every entry there's a mysterious page number. All the units with Dreadnoughts in the title refer to the same page which cover Dreadnoughts.

You can't read the rules in isolation. Army List + entry in the Angelic Host section = the specific rules covering the unit. It is abundantly clear that all Dreadnoughts are Dreadnoughts.

The special rules for the Stormraven refers to Dreadnoughts. I you want to read the army list and ignore that page reference that's printed in the top right of the box, that's your imperative it doesn't stop it being there.

Drop pod is the proof as you have an allowance to buy one for every type of dread. Even though it only says it can carry a dreadnaught.

rossatdi wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

That's the only place the words "UNIT ENTRY" are used. In this case, the unit entry being referred to is the transport's unit entry. We know that because of how it references Rhinos and Terminators.
I require a citation for the bolded statement. I'm looking on page 29 of the BA Codex and there is nothing of the sort said. Would you mind telling me where you find it?

Look at army list. Top right of every entry there's a mysterious page number. All the units with Dreadnoughts in the title refer to the same page which cover Dreadnoughts.

You can't read the rules in isolation. Army List + entry in the Angelic Host section = the specific rules covering the unit. It is abundantly clear that all Dreadnoughts are Dreadnoughts.

The special rules for the Stormraven refers to Dreadnoughts. I you want to read the army list and ignore that page reference that's printed in the top right of the box, that's your imperative it doesn't stop it being there.

I'll go ahead and re-quote this another time because you continue to ignore it.

rigeld2 wrote:If you take page 65 of C:SM as the determination for all Dreadnaughts, then they all have the Venerable rule and all share Seismic Hammers and Ironclad Assault Launchers. I assume we agree that's not true.

Page 65 of C:SM is very similar to page 29 of C:BA.

And you did not cite the phrase I asked you to - I'll requote it here for reference:

rossatdi wrote:Dreadnought Unit Entry: Dreadnought = Furioso/Death Company/Regular Dread

Please cite the reason for that equality.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
[Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:
Is a Loota an Ork? Is a Scout Sergeant a Space Marine?

Context is important to keep in mind. You're ignoring it.

Context is important. Rhinos and Razorback have in their entry "It cannot carry Models in Terminator armor" Therefore all other models would be eligible unless that unit type prevents it from being transported.

Here's the the definetive proof that they can be transported by Stormraven: The unit entry for Drop Pods. "The Drop Pod has a transport capacity of 12 models. It can transport a single Dreadnaught or Thunderfire Cannon."

No mention to the specific type of Dread there!

How is that proof? It's literally the exact same situation.

I don't think that's their intent and I would never play that way, but there's no rules basis supporting your argument.

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

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Drop pod is the proof as you have an allowance to buy one for every type of dread. Even though it only says it can carry a dreadnaught.

Realize that RAW and RAI are different things.
Allowance to buy != allowance to embark.

I buy a Tac Squad with a Rhino and Lysander. Lysander joins the Tac squad and is therefore a member for all rules purposes. The Tac Squad embarks on the Rhino. Legal or Illegal?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

There is a specific restriction on Lysander, there is no clear restriction on any dread hopping aboard a drop pod.
There is a general allowance for dreadnaughts which are described on one page no matter the flavour in the BA codex.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
There is a specific restriction on Lysander, there is no clear restriction on any dread hopping aboard a drop pod.

So you agree that purchasing a transport does not guarantee permission to embark on the transport.

There is a general allowance for dreadnaughts which are described on one page no matter the flavour in the BA codex.

How many times do I need to address this argument?

rigeld2 wrote:If you take page 65 of C:SM as the determination for all Dreadnaughts, then they all have the Venerable rule and all share Seismic Hammers and Ironclad Assault Launchers. I assume we agree that's not true.

Page 65 of C:SM is very similar to page 29 of C:BA.

rigeld2 wrote:

rossatdi wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I'll go ahead and re-quote this another time because you continue to ignore it.

rigeld2 wrote:If you take page 65 of C:SM as the determination for all Dreadnaughts, then they all have the Venerable rule and all share Seismic Hammers and Ironclad Assault Launchers. I assume we agree that's not true.

Page 65 of C:SM is very similar to page 29 of C:BA.

The listed special rules in the unit entry are just that Special rules that you can take for a specific model. Some Dreadnaughts can purchase the Venerable special rule, some can purchase a seismic hammer and Ironclad Assault Launcher upgrades. If you do that you call them Venerable and Ironclad respectively. Doesn't change the fact that they are still dreadnaughts.

Nope cos they clarify the equipment to each of the dread flavours. There is a general name and more specific names under the heading.

General vs specific.

Seriously, the quoting function is not that hard. Click quote, click after all the words in the box, start typing.

The Army List disagrees with you. Venerable and Ironclad are not upgrades, they're separate units.

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
There is a specific restriction on Lysander, there is no clear restriction on any dread hopping aboard a drop pod.

So you agree that purchasing a transport does not guarantee permission to embark on the transport.

No, purchasing a transport does guarantee permission to embark, unless it is expressly forbidden to the models in question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Seriously, the quoting function is not that hard. Click quote, click after all the words in the box, start typing.

The Army List disagrees with you. Venerable and Ironclad are not upgrades, they're separate units.

They have the same unit entry, just like terminators.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Nope cos they clarify the equipment to each of the dread flavours. There is a general name and more specific names under the heading.

General vs specific.

C:SM doesn't do that.

And none of that equates "Furioso" to "Dreadnaught" .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
There is a specific restriction on Lysander, there is no clear restriction on any dread hopping aboard a drop pod.

So you agree that purchasing a transport does not guarantee permission to embark on the transport.

No, purchasing a transport does guarantee permission to embark, unless it is expressly forbidden to the models in question.

All Walkers are experessly forbidden from embarking.
Dreadnaughts are permitted to embark.

Find permission to equate a Furioso or Venerable Dreadnaught to a Dreadnaught.

rigeld2 wrote:
Seriously, the quoting function is not that hard. Click quote, click after all the words in the box, start typing.

The Army List disagrees with you. Venerable and Ironclad are not upgrades, they're separate units.

They have the same unit entry, just like terminators.

No, they don't. Page 137 in C:SM says "1 Venerable Dreadnaught".

Looking at C:BA They're allowed to embark - their unit type is "1 Dreadnaught" for a Furioso and DC Dread. C:GK and C:SM are still limited however.

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.

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.

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

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.

Nothing equates furioso and dreadnought to be equal.
HOWEVER, furioso dreadnought, dc dreadnought and dreadnoughts are all dreadnoughts.

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

they are all under the same unit entry though,

all dreads are walkers/vehicles

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

all entries under "dreadnaught" are dreadnaughts,

end of story,

find the non dreadnaught unit entry for ironclads or venerables,

you need more proof that venerables/ironclads are NOT dreads then "well they are venerable dreads" since that alone states they are dreads,

if it was simply called a "venerable" instead of a venerable dreadnaught, you might have a leg to stand on, but it isnt

you are making a statement akin to:
the ball is a ball,

but the red ball, is not a ball


and that simply defies logic




Automatically Appended Next Post:
no too mention contemptors specifically state they are NOT allowed in storm ravens,

that alone sets precedent that if that exception was not present, then contemptors would be allowed in storm ravens as well,

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