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.

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"

By saying this you've proven you don't actually understand my argument at all.
Let's start at the beginning:

What is allowed to embark on a Transport?

rigeld2 wrote:

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".

When you apply your rules interpretation to the Ork codex it invalidates Mob rule and Waaagh!

Transports are only listed as "can carry 10 models" no unit has model listed in its unit entry.

If I wanted to I bet that I could dozens more examples. The argument that the Unit Composition terminology determines if a type of model can embark doesn't work.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

What is allowed to embark on a Transport?

Infantry Models, None of the Unit composition list units as infantry or models.

rigeld2 wrote:

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"

By saying this you've proven you don't actually understand my argument at all.
Let's start at the beginning:

What is allowed to embark on a Transport?

why are you now jumping around to unit type? you kept insisting unit type had nothing to do with anything, now you are brining it up as the core to your arguement.

obviously infantry types can embark,

special permission is given to dreads for embarking in storm ravens(not a unit type in any respect, dreads are dreads because they are so named, there is no unit type "dread")

 Idolator wrote:
Transports are only listed as "can carry 10 models" no unit has model listed in its unit entry.

Is model defined anywhere?

If I wanted to I bet that I could dozens more examples. The argument that the Unit Composition terminology determines if a type of model can embark doesn't work.

Right, so you aren't understanding my argument either.

rigeld2 wrote:
What is allowed to embark on a Transport?

Infantry Models, None of the Unit composition list units as infantry or models.

Bolded the only relevant portion.

Great - now, Are Infantry and Models defined somewhere?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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"

By saying this you've proven you don't actually understand my argument at all.
Let's start at the beginning:

What is allowed to embark on a Transport?

why are you now jumping around to unit type? you kept insisting unit type had nothing to do with anything, now you are brining it up as the core to your arguement.

It'll become clear later (I hope). I'm honestly trying to explain and not being antagonistic at all. I'd appreciate the same respect.

obviously infantry types can embark,

Infantry Models. Are those words defined in the BRB?

special permission is given to dreads for embarking in storm ravens(not a unit type in any respect, dreads are dreads because they are so named, there is no unit type "dread")

Is "Dreadnaught" defined anywhere?

Great - now, Are Infantry and Models defined somewhere?

Yes, they are. However The listing for Stormravens, Does it allow Jump Infantry to embark? Those aren't infantry.

Is Space Marine defined anywhere? The rules for infantry include all types of foot soldier, whether Human or Alien. Unless you can find a definition that lists them as Human or Alien then they wouldn't be allowed to embark on anything. Ratlings and Ogryns are abhumans not humans or aliens. In fact, I can't even find a definition for human or alien. Guardsmen are called human in the fluff, but you won't accept fluff as rules.

A Space Marine Captain on a Bike has his Unit type listed as "Infantry" , So do Biker Nobs. According to you they would be able to embark on a transport.

Your argument, this entire time, has been: the Unit Profile of a Stormraven lists that it can carry a Dreadnaught, since Venerable and Ironclad list their unit compositions as "Venerable Drreadnaught" and "Ironclad Dreadnaught" instead of just "Dreadnaught" they are not permitted to embark.

You have been using the Unit Composition as the only determining factor. The argument that no unit can embark on a transport because they do not have the word "Model" in their unit composition is an even better argument in this regard since, at least, the Ironclad and Venerable use the word Dreadnaught.

 Idolator wrote:

Great - now, Are Infantry and Models defined somewhere?

Yes, they are. However The listing for Stormravens, Does it allow Jump Infantry to embark? Those aren't infantry.

So Infantry and Models are defined - so we know what is allowed to embark.

Storm Ravens specifically allow Jump Infantry (It really should be Infantry (Jump) in 6th, but that's just an edition change). We know those are defined in the BRB. So we know Infantry (Jump) can embark.
Storm Ravens specifically allow Dreadnaughts to embark. Are Dreadnaughts defined anywhere?

I snipped the rest of your post because I'm asking these questions for a reason. Please don't bother arguing until I'm done.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

Great - now, Are Infantry and Models defined somewhere?

Yes, they are. However The listing for Stormravens, Does it allow Jump Infantry to embark? Those aren't infantry.

So Infantry and Models are defined - so we know what is allowed to embark.

Storm Ravens specifically allow Jump Infantry (It really should be Infantry (Jump) in 6th, but that's just an edition change). We know those are defined in the BRB. So we know Infantry (Jump) can embark.
Storm Ravens specifically allow Dreadnaughts to embark. Are Dreadnaughts defined anywhere?

I snipped the rest of your post because I'm asking these questions for a reason. Please don't bother arguing until I'm done.

Well, It's been 11 minutes, I assume that you're done. I also assume that you snipped the rest because those facts cause your argument to fall apart. I'm not going to answer any of your questions until my points are adressed.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

Great - now, Are Infantry and Models defined somewhere?

Yes, they are. However The listing for Stormravens, Does it allow Jump Infantry to embark? Those aren't infantry.

So Infantry and Models are defined - so we know what is allowed to embark.

Storm Ravens specifically allow Jump Infantry (It really should be Infantry (Jump) in 6th, but that's just an edition change). We know those are defined in the BRB. So we know Infantry (Jump) can embark.
Storm Ravens specifically allow Dreadnaughts to embark. Are Dreadnaughts defined anywhere?

I snipped the rest of your post because I'm asking these questions for a reason. Please don't bother arguing until I'm done.

there is nothing in the rule book to support unit composition (aside from # of models) affects transport eligibility, only unit type

there is no unit type dreadnought, there are only units with the name dreadnaught in them.

dreadnoughts are defined in the same place "space marine" "ork" ect are defined, IE the realm of common sense.


a unit of grey knight terminators, by your definition, does not contain any grey knights, since the unit compositions is simply "terminator" and "terminator justicar"

your definition would aso mean that a "grey knight terminator" is NOT a grey knight either, since only composition "grey knights" are grey knights,
hence justicars, knights of the flame, purifiers, ect are not "grey knights" since their unit composition says something else.

same with orks, same with every single race


GW does not define how we are supposed to roll dice either, does this mean we abandon common sense and argue that one can simply roll a dice over to the next side manually and control the number that comes up?

there is nothing saying we cannot after all, and GW does not define how we roll dice,


answer questions please.

now, where in the rule book does it say that adding a descriptor to something changes what class it is?

just like all power axes are power weapons, but not all power weapons are power axes,

all special dreadnoughts are dreadnaoughts, but not all dreadnaughts are special

where in the rule book does it state unit composition, not type, is the criteria for eligibilty for transport?

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

Great - now, Are Infantry and Models defined somewhere?

Yes, they are. However The listing for Stormravens, Does it allow Jump Infantry to embark? Those aren't infantry.

So Infantry and Models are defined - so we know what is allowed to embark.

Storm Ravens specifically allow Jump Infantry (It really should be Infantry (Jump) in 6th, but that's just an edition change). We know those are defined in the BRB. So we know Infantry (Jump) can embark.
Storm Ravens specifically allow Dreadnaughts to embark. Are Dreadnaughts defined anywhere?

I snipped the rest of your post because I'm asking these questions for a reason. Please don't bother arguing until I'm done.

Well, It's been 11 minutes, I assume that you're done. I also assume that you snipped the rest because those facts cause your argument to fall apart. I'm not going to answer any of your questions until my points are adressed.

Poor assumption. I snipped them because the fact that you're arguing means you don't understand my point.. I'm trying to explain, not be confrontational.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
there is nothing in the rule book to support unit composition (aside from # of models) affects transport eligibility, only unit type

there is no unit type dreadnought, there are only units with the name dreadnaught in them.

Right, so according to you no Walker can embark.

a unit of grey knight terminators, by your definition, does not contain any grey knights, since the unit compositions is simply "terminator" and "terminator justicar"

Seriously, context is important. You are absolutely not understanding my argument at all. Meaning any time you say "by your definition" and "according to you" you're probably wrong.

Poor assumption. I snipped them because the fact that you're arguing means you don't understand my point.. I'm trying to explain, not be confrontational.

Negative, You have consistently ignored points and questions that make your argument fall to pieces.

If I don't understand your point, then clarify it. Why are Ironclad and Venerable Draednaughts not allowed to be transported in a Stormraven? If your answer is "because they aren't Dreadnaughts, then what precludes them from being Dreadnaughts?

Those are two simple questions.

 Idolator wrote:

Poor assumption. I snipped them because the fact that you're arguing means you don't understand my point.. I'm trying to explain, not be confrontational.

Negative, You have consistently ignored points and questions that make your argument fall to pieces.

No - those points you keep raising have absolutely nothing to do with my argument.

If I don't understand your point, then clarify it.

Well, that's what I'm trying to do. I've said that a few times now. Those questions I've been asking have been leading up to this.
I'm seriously being non-confrontational. I'd appreciate the same respect.

Why are Ironclad and Venerable Draednaughts not allowed to be transported in a Stormraven?

They are not Infantry models. I assume we agree on that.
They are not Infantry (Jump) models. I assume we agree on that.
The only thing left is "Dreadnaught". We know that cannot be a Unit Type. I assume we agree on that.

Where is "Dreadnaught" defined in C:SM?

rigel you keep ignoring questions, despite having your own answered,

you simply keep asserting that you are right, and we are wrong,

despite you not taking the time to answer our queries, we have answered, and rebuked your points

this is not a debate, you are simply putting earmuffs on and repeating over and over that we are wrong and you are right

answer the question, what stops a XXXX dreadnaought from being a dreadnought?

you keep talking about context, well venerable deadnoughts are talked about in the context of being dreadnaughts,

is there some other context that lead you to think they are not dreads? if so where is it?

because every other contextual definition (ie terminators in the GK codex are in fact grey knights, because in the context of codex grey knights, what else would they be?)

in the same way, XXXX dreads are dreads, because they are always talked about in the same context as dreads

so where is the rule book speaking about XXXX dread in the context that it is not a dread naught?

Yeah, that wasn't an answer. It was more questions.

Why are Ironclad Dreadnaughts and Venerable Dreadnaughts not considered Dreadnaughts? Easy question. It's the whole crux of your argument. Should be simple to answer.

rigeld2 wrote:
Where is "Dreadnaught" defined in C:SM?

"Dreadnought" is on Page 65 in the SM codex.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Where is "Dreadnaught" defined in C:SM?

"Dreadnought" is on Page 65 in the SM codex.

He considers that "fluff" so it's not admissible. It is the second paragraph, and it referes to how a Dreadnaught is made. I consider a definition.

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Where is "Dreadnaught" defined in C:SM?

"Dreadnought" is on Page 65 in the SM codex.

He considers that "fluff" so it's not admissible. It is the second paragraph, and it referes to how a Dreadnaught is made. I consider a definition.

That's a lie - please cite where I've said that.

There are two definitions of "Dreadnaught" on that page - the general one and the specific one. Which one is the Storm Raven referencing?

rigeld2 wrote:
There are two definitions of "Dreadnaught" on that page - the general one and the specific one. Which one is the Storm Raven referencing?

You still haven't answered. What determines that an Ironclad Dreadnaught isn't a Dreadnaught?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
That's a lie - please cite where I've said that.

There are two definitions of "Dreadnaught" on that page - the general one and the specific one. Which one is the Storm Raven referencing?

Do you consider fluff as admissible rules? Plus, you had stated that the unit enrty bears no relevance.

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
There are two definitions of "Dreadnaught" on that page - the general one and the specific one. Which one is the Storm Raven referencing?

You still haven't answered. What determines that an Ironclad Dreadnaught isn't a Dreadnaught?

Context. And I'm getting there.

rigeld2 wrote:
That's a lie - please cite where I've said that.

There are two definitions of "Dreadnaught" on that page - the general one and the specific one. Which one is the Storm Raven referencing?

Do you consider fluff as admissible rules?

It can be. It depends.

Do you consider fluff as admissible rules?

It can be. It depends.

I'm curious, Idoator, easysauce, et al. Do you consider a Furioso Librarian to be a Librarian? Why or why not?

 Idolator wrote:
People are going to have fun with this answer. When would that be?

When the rules say they are. For example, Eldar Avatar's immunity to fire weapons, Plasma Siphon...

Still no answer on "Why is an Ironclad not to be considered a dreadnaught?"

Still no answer on

There are two definitions of "Dreadnaught" on that page - the general one and the specific one. Which one is the Storm Raven referencing?

Note - my answer to you depends on an answer to that.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
People are going to have fun with this answer. When would that be?

When the rules say they are. For example, Eldar Avatar's immunity to fire weapons, Plasma Siphon...

That would be a rule, not fluff.

Still no answer on "Why is an Ironclad not to be considered a dreadnaught?"

Still no answer on

There are two definitions of "Dreadnaught" on that page - the general one and the specific one. Which one is the Storm Raven referencing?

Note - my answer to you depends on an answer to that.

I only see one definition. So 'll have to go by what you say.

 Idolator wrote:
I only see one definition. So 'll have to go by what you say.

There's the fluff definition and the unit named "Dreadnaught" as a definition. Do we agree?

 Happyjew wrote:
I'm curious, Idoator, easysauce, et al. Do you consider a Furioso Librarian to be a Librarian? Why or why not?

I don't have thoe rules and have never encountered one on the table. Any point that I make would be ill informed. It's the one that's also a dreadnaught?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
I only see one definition. So 'll have to go by what you say.

There's the fluff definition and the unit named "Dreadnaught" as a definition. Do we agree?

No, a word in and of itself is not a definition. I can't find the definition of definition in the RAW, but I got this from the dictionary: definition: the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word.

Also, saying that fluff is a rule onlywhen it's in the rules, means that fluff is not rules.

Still awaiting how an Ironclad is not be considered a Dreadnaught.

you need to actually answer the question,


what specifically excludes a XXXX dreadnaught from being a dreadnaught,

answer that one specific question,

easysauce wrote:
you need to actually answer the question,


what specifically excludes a XXXX dreadnaught from being a dreadnaught,

answer that one specific question,

I don't think that information will be forthcoming.

easysauce wrote:
you need to actually answer the question,


what specifically excludes a XXXX dreadnaught from being a dreadnaught,

answer that one specific question,

What excludes a Furioso Librarian from being a Librarian?

easysauce wrote:
you need to actually answer the question,


what specifically excludes a XXXX dreadnaught from being a dreadnaught,

answer that one specific question,

I've answered it. Context.

Is a dreadnaught allowed to have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?

 Happyjew wrote:

easysauce wrote:
you need to actually answer the question,


what specifically excludes a XXXX dreadnaught from being a dreadnaught,

answer that one specific question,

What excludes a Furioso Librarian from being a Librarian?

Nothing ?
It is also a Dreadnaught you know... and can fly in the Stormraven

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
you need to actually answer the question,


what specifically excludes a XXXX dreadnaught from being a dreadnaught,

answer that one specific question,

I've answered it. Context.

Is a dreadnaught allowed to have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?

"Context" is not an answer to the question. If that's the case then you've been proven wrong because of words and language.

Still waiting for an explaination.

It's easy here's an example. If A, B and C are letters in the English Alphabet then A,B and C are all letters. 1,2 and 3 are not letters in the alphabet, because they are numbers and therefore they are not letters. Numbers are sybols used to quantify an amount while letters are used to symbolize sounds in the English language.

Really easy.

Coming in and stating that someone is wrong without giving specifics to your reasoning is bad form,Sir! Where do I get that information: Tenets of YMDC. I believe that would be the most important one!