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.

Looks like we are down to "Context determines when a dreadnought is a dreadnought". Excellent!

So, in what context? In the relevant codices, in the unit entries for the different Dreadnought variants, context is provided via the background material (fluff), the characteristic profiles listed (stat line), and further rules associated with the unit (wargear and special rules). Context is provided.

When the Stormraven lists "1 Dreadnought" may be transported, context suggests that the "1 Dreadnought" is the generic term Dreadnought, as the entry does not state "1 standard Dreadnought (no variants)".

Finally, Rigeld2 agrees. It can learn!

SJ

 Happyjew wrote:
An Ironclad Dreadnought is a dreadnought, but is not a Dreadnought.

Depends on Context. Page 65 in C:SM uses the capital a few times iirc.

 Happyjew wrote:
An Ironclad Dreadnought is a dreadnought, but is not a Dreadnought.

While I do see what you did there. I couldn't find any refrences to dreadnaught at all in C:SM. They only have Dreadnaughts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
An Ironclad Dreadnought is a dreadnought, but is not a Dreadnought.

Depends on Context. Page 65 in C:SM uses the capital a few times iirc.

Please answer the question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
It has become obvious that there is no answer to the question: What precludes an Ironclad Dreadnaught from being considered a Dreadnaught.

The last answer that i received contained two qoutes from a fellow stating that he had already answered, but failed to contain the answer.

Stating "Context", "Content", "Words" or "Stuff" is not an answer without page citation and relevant rules. If you cannot point to the "context" to which you are refering or the "stuff" that makes a rule work a certain way, then there is no point of reference.

Give context to the question then. Saying "Context" is not an answer is a flat out lie.
"Were you awake yesterday?" Unless you were awake for a 24 hour period, you cannot answer yes or no. Even then, which "yesterday" are they using - what time zone?
Context matters. Pretending otherwise is absolutely and without caveats incorrect.

edit: So now you're accusing me of not meeting the Tenets?
Please, define the word "a" in the BRB please. Cite page number.

Please answer the question.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
When the Stormraven lists "1 Dreadnought" may be transported, context suggests that the "1 Dreadnought" is the generic term Dreadnought, as the entry does not state "1 standard Dreadnought (no variants)".

I disagree. You are inserting the requirement for it to be general.
It doesn't say "Walker from C:BA" or "Walker from C:GK".
It doesn't say "Any Dreadnaught".

Dreadnaught is not a Unit Type (That'd be Vehicle, Walker).
Dreadnaught, as fluff, is generic.
When used in the Transport rules for a Storm Raven are we directed to look at fluff? I don't believe so - please let me know if I missed any indication.
Dreadnaught as defined on page 65 C:SM is a unit with a specific Composition.
What's the Unit Composition of a Venerable Dreadnaught?

Finally, Rigeld2 agrees. It can learn!

Please don't pretend you know what I'll say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
It has become obvious that there is no answer to the question: What precludes an Ironclad Dreadnaught from being considered a Dreadnaught.

The last answer that i received contained two qoutes from a fellow stating that he had already answered, but failed to contain the answer.

Stating "Context", "Content", "Words" or "Stuff" is not an answer without page citation and relevant rules. If you cannot point to the "context" to which you are refering or the "stuff" that makes a rule work a certain way, then there is no point of reference.

Give context to the question then. Saying "Context" is not an answer is a flat out lie.
"Were you awake yesterday?" Unless you were awake for a 24 hour period, you cannot answer yes or no. Even then, which "yesterday" are they using - what time zone?
Context matters. Pretending otherwise is absolutely and without caveats incorrect.

edit: So now you're accusing me of not meeting the Tenets?
Please, define the word "a" in the BRB please. Cite page number.

Please answer the question.

I answered the question in the post you quoted. Please don't ignore that any further. I'm beginning to think you're trolling.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
When the Stormraven lists "1 Dreadnought" may be transported, context suggests that the "1 Dreadnought" is the generic term Dreadnought, as the entry does not state "1 standard Dreadnought (no variants)".

I disagree. You are inserting the requirement for it to be general.
It doesn't say "Walker from C:BA" or "Walker from C:GK".
It doesn't say "Any Dreadnaught".

Dreadnaught is not a Unit Type (That'd be Vehicle, Walker).
Dreadnaught, as fluff, is generic.
When used in the Transport rules for a Storm Raven are we directed to look at fluff? I don't believe so - please let me know if I missed any indication.
Dreadnaught as defined on page 65 C:SM is a unit with a specific Composition.
What's the Unit Composition of a Venerable Dreadnaught?

Finally, Rigeld2 agrees. It can learn!

Please don't pretend you know what I'll say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
It has become obvious that there is no answer to the question: What precludes an Ironclad Dreadnaught from being considered a Dreadnaught.

The last answer that i received contained two qoutes from a fellow stating that he had already answered, but failed to contain the answer.

Stating "Context", "Content", "Words" or "Stuff" is not an answer without page citation and relevant rules. If you cannot point to the "context" to which you are refering or the "stuff" that makes a rule work a certain way, then there is no point of reference.

Give context to the question then. Saying "Context" is not an answer is a flat out lie.
"Were you awake yesterday?" Unless you were awake for a 24 hour period, you cannot answer yes or no. Even then, which "yesterday" are they using - what time zone?
Context matters. Pretending otherwise is absolutely and without caveats incorrect.

edit: So now you're accusing me of not meeting the Tenets?
Please, define the word "a" in the BRB please. Cite page number.

Please answer the question.

I answered the question in the post you quoted. Please don't ignore that any further. I'm beginning to think you're trolling.

Then report me for trolling. But please answer the question first. What precludes and Ironclad Dreadnaught from being considered a Dreadnaught? You could answer this one instead, but it's gonna send us back to the first one: Why can't an Ironclad Dreadnaught be transported by a vehicle that can transport Dreadnaughts?

Continuing to state that you've answered a question does not prove that you did.
Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.

Does anyone on this board actually own "Death From The Skies"? You know, the thing with the rules for C:SM Stormravens? If not, then this entire conversation is irrelevant.

Nivek5150 wrote:
Does anyone on this board actually own "Death From The Skies"? You know, the thing with the rules for C:SM Stormravens? If not, then this entire conversation is irrelevant.

I can see that point. However, It was brought up that the rules for Drop Pod also only use the term "Dreadnaught". So if one can carry an Ironclad and Venerable, then it would have an effect on the other.
( I was wrong about the screen shot, it was for something else)

 Idolator wrote:
Then report me for trolling. But please answer the question first. What precludes and Ironclad Dreadnaught from being considered a Dreadnaught? You could answer this one instead, but it's gonna send us back to the first one: Why can't an Ironclad Dreadnaught be transported by a vehicle that can transport Dreadnaughts?

Oh look! That second questions gives context to why you're asking! It's like that matters or something!

It doesn't say "Walker from C:BA" or "Walker from C:GK". Agreed?
It doesn't say "Any Dreadnaught". Agreed?

Dreadnaught is not a Unit Type (That'd be Vehicle, Walker). Agreed?
Dreadnaught, as fluff, is generic. Agreed?
Dreadnaught as defined on page 65 C:SM is a unit with a specific Composition. Agreed?

When used in the Transport rules for a Storm Raven are we directed to look at fluff? I don't believe so - please let me know if I missed any indication. Did I miss anything?
edit: Unless a rule dictates otherwise we ignore fluff when determining how rules work. Agreed?
What's the Unit Composition of a Ironclad Dreadnaught in C:SM?

Continuing to state that you've answered a question does not prove that you did.

You're right. Quoting where I answered the question proves that I did.
The right way to respond to an answer that you disagree with is to explain why you disagree. Not ignore the answer and repeatedly (at least 3 times) simply reply with "Please answer the question."

edit: If you disagree with anything I've mentioned above, please don't quote and rant. Quote the exact thing you disagree with and explain why.

rigeld2 wrote:

Dreadnaught as defined on page 65 C:SM is a unit with a specific Composition. Agreed?

No, not agreed. A Dreadnaught is defined in the column containing 5 paragraphs on the left of page 65. It includes descriptions of weapons layouts and venerable. That is where you find the definition of Dreadnaught. The column on the right tells the statistics of each of the three types of Dreadnaught as well as the special rules for all three types of Dreadnaught contained in the definition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

You're right. Quoting where I answered the question proves that I did.
The right way to respond to an answer that you disagree with is to explain why you disagree. Not ignore the answer and repeatedly (at least 3 times) simply reply with "Please answer the question."

The answer that you gave was one word. "Context" according to the tenets this is not an appropriate response and you had made a post claiming to have answered the question, citing only the two other times that you had claimed to answer the question.

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Dreadnaught as defined on page 65 C:SM is a unit with a specific Composition. Agreed?

No, not agreed. A Dreadnaught is defined in the column containing 5 paragraphs on the left of page 65. It includes descriptions of weapons layouts and venerable. That is where you find the definition of Dreadnaught. The column on the right tells the statistics of each of the three types of Dreadnaught as well as the special rules for all three types of Dreadnaught contained in the definition.

Can you show the rule requiring us to use fluff as rules?
Or can you explain what the following rule means?

Should a Dreadnought fall in battle, his brothers will fight with righteous anger to retrieve the shell so that they may lay its occupant to rest with honour and reclaim the suit to house another dying hero who will become an Old One to future generations.

Also - since you asserted there are two definitions (one being the 5 paragraphs on the right, and the other being the unit named Dreadnought), which one is the Drop Pod entry referring to?

Side note - I've been spelling Dreadnought wrong this entire thread and didn't notice until now. Oops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:
[

You're right. Quoting where I answered the question proves that I did.
The right way to respond to an answer that you disagree with is to explain why you disagree. Not ignore the answer and repeatedly (at least 3 times) simply reply with "Please answer the question."

The answer that you gave was one word. "Context" according to the tenets this is not an appropriate response and you had made a post claiming to have answered the question, citing only the two other times that you had claimed to answer the question.

You should go back and re-read what I quoted at least twice. It included the following sentence:

Context determines when an Ironclad Dreadnaught is or is not a Dreadnaught.

That's more than a single word. It's absolutely an appropriate response to the question you asked.

Also - since you asserted there are two definitions (one being the 5 paragraphs on the right, and the other being the unit named Dreadnought), which one is the Drop Pod entry referring to?

Side note - I've been spelling Dreadnought wrong this entire thread and didn't notice until now. Oops.

 Idolator wrote:

Also - since you asserted there are two definitions (one being the 5 paragraphs on the right, and the other being the unit named Dreadnought), which one is the Drop Pod entry referring to?

I have not asserted that there are two definitions of Dreadnought. There is only one, the five paragraphs on the left of the page titled "Dreadnought". It was you tht asserted that there were two definitions and asked me to rectify that. I informed you that I could only see one.

Please don't attribute things to me that I have not posted.

So the Unit named Dreadnought is not a definition of "Dreadnought"?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

Also - since you asserted there are two definitions (one being the 5 paragraphs on the right, and the other being the unit named Dreadnought), which one is the Drop Pod entry referring to?

I have not asserted that there are two definitions of Dreadnought. There is only one, the five paragraphs on the left of the page titled "Dreadnought". It was you tht asserted that there were two definitions and asked me to rectify that. I informed you that I could only see one.

Please don't attribute things to me that I have not posted.

So the Unit named Dreadnought is not a definition of "Dreadnought"?

No, once again, a word is not a definition. The RAW are unclear on this but the dictionary states: Definition: the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word.

Here's a definition for you. Cat: a small domesticated carnivore. Now granted this is just part of the definition, but you get the idea.

So when I ask:
Can a Dreadnought have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?

You cannot answer yes or no, even if I point out the codex entry? As you've stated the only possible definition is all Dreadnoughts.

rigeld2 wrote:
So when I ask:
Can a Dreadnought have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?

You cannot answer yes or no, even if I point out the codex entry? As you've stated the only possible definition is all Dreadnoughts.

Any unit can have anything, as long as the army list entry you are buying it from gives you permission to do so. So when you buy a Dreadnought for your army, which army list entry did you use? Those are the options you can take.

Nivek5150 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So when I ask:
Can a Dreadnought have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?

You cannot answer yes or no, even if I point out the codex entry? As you've stated the only possible definition is all Dreadnoughts.

Any unit can have anything, as long as the army list entry you are buying it from gives you permission to do so. So when you buy a Dreadnought for your army, which army list entry did you use? Those are the options you can take.

Right, but a Dreadnought is defined as any of 3 unit entries.
Which entry do I use for a Dreadnought?

both dread naught types in codex GK have the special rule pg 35 GK "reinforced aegis:psychic test leadership penalties caused by The Aegis are increased to -4 if the target of the psychic power is within 12" of the Dreadnought (or is the Dreadnought itself)"

so the venerable dread also has a special rule, that refers to it specifically as a Dreadnaught (this is a rule, not fluff)


as for context, all the dreadnaught rules are in the context of each other, you cannot get more contextual then "on the same page, in the same section, listed under the same title.


just like every single rule that applies to "grey knights" would useless on models with the composition "terminator" "purifier" ect?

there are more examples, but like i said your just ignoring all this already for some reason

just the aegis rule alone referring to a venerable dread as a "Dreadnaught" should be enough



now, please show where it says that a venerable dread is NOT a dread?







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
Premise 1: A Heavy Bolter is a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Premise 2: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Bolter. Agree or Disagree?
Logical Conclusion: Most Space Marines are equipped with a Heavy Bolter. Agree or Disagree?

100% false

there is not weapon entry for "bolter"
only "bolt gun"

easysauce wrote:

both dread naught types in codex GK have the special rule pg 35 GK "reinforced aegis:psychic test leadership penalties caused by The Aegis are increased to -4 if the target of the psychic power is within 12" of the Dreadnought (or is the Dreadnought itself)"

so the venerable dread also has a special rule, that refers to it specifically as a Dreadnaught (this is a rule, not fluff)


as for context, all the dreadnaught rules are in the context of each other, you cannot get more contextual then "on the same page, in the same section, listed under the same title.


just like every single rule that applies to "grey knights" would useless on models with the composition "terminator" "purifier" ect?

there are more examples, but like i said your just ignoring all this already for some reason

just the aegis rule alone referring to a venerable dread as a "Dreadnaught" should be enough



now, please show where it says that a venerable dread is NOT a dread?

There really is no point to keep going on. We know that Ven and Iron are both Dreads. Unless you like seeing someone twist themselves in knots trying to prove a point that can't be made.

It's hard to argue with someone that thinks the definition of CAT is.... cat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Give context to the question then. Saying "Context" is not an answer is a flat out lie.
"Were you awake yesterday?" Unless you were awake for a 24 hour period, you cannot answer yes or no. Even then, which "yesterday" are they using - what time zone?
Context matters. Pretending otherwise is absolutely and without caveats incorrect.

edit: So now you're accusing me of not meeting the Tenets?
Please, define the word "a" in the BRB please. Cite page number.

Q: Were you awake yesterday? A: context

No it doesn't work there either.

Are you stating that by simply posting the word "context. you really meant "In what context are you refering?" Even then it wouldn't hold up, as the question stood on it's own.

The Example doesn't even work! For many reasons. If you are awake at all in a given day, then you were awake. Yesterday is the day preceding this day. The time zone wouldn't matter at all.

Now, if I were to ask someone if they were awake yesterday and they asked for context, I would immediately suspect. 1) The person was being puposely obtuse 2) the person shouldn't be allowed out of their house without a protective helmet 3) Both 1 and 2. This is true for other questions as well. CAT



Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
I answered the question in the post you quoted. Please don't ignore that any further. I'm beginning to think you're trolling.

How could I be trolling you? I posted on this thread before you did. Kinda hard to troll behind someone when you're out in front.

 Idolator wrote:

easysauce wrote:

both dread naught types in codex GK have the special rule pg 35 GK "reinforced aegis:psychic test leadership penalties caused by The Aegis are increased to -4 if the target of the psychic power is within 12" of the Dreadnought (or is the Dreadnought itself)"

so the venerable dread also has a special rule, that refers to it specifically as a Dreadnaught (this is a rule, not fluff)


as for context, all the dreadnaught rules are in the context of each other, you cannot get more contextual then "on the same page, in the same section, listed under the same title.


just like every single rule that applies to "grey knights" would useless on models with the composition "terminator" "purifier" ect?

there are more examples, but like i said your just ignoring all this already for some reason

just the aegis rule alone referring to a venerable dread as a "Dreadnaught" should be enough



now, please show where it says that a venerable dread is NOT a dread?

There really is no point to keep going on. We know that Ven and Iron are both Dreads. Unless you like seeing someone twist themselves in knots trying to prove a point that can't be made.

It's hard to argue with someone that thinks the definition of CAT is.... cat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Give context to the question then. Saying "Context" is not an answer is a flat out lie.
"Were you awake yesterday?" Unless you were awake for a 24 hour period, you cannot answer yes or no. Even then, which "yesterday" are they using - what time zone?
Context matters. Pretending otherwise is absolutely and without caveats incorrect.

edit: So now you're accusing me of not meeting the Tenets?
Please, define the word "a" in the BRB please. Cite page number.

Q: Were you awake yesterday? A: context

No it doesn't work there either.

Are you stating that by simply posting the word "context. you really meant "In what context are you refering?" Even then it wouldn't hold up, as the question stood on it's own.

The Example doesn't even work! For many reasons. If you are awake at all in a given day, then you were awake. Yesterday is the day preceding this day. The time zone wouldn't matter at all.

Now, if I were to ask someone if they were awake yesterday and they asked for context, I would immediately suspect. 1) The person was being puposely obtuse 2) the person shouldn't be allowed out of their house without a protective helmet 3) Both 1 and 2. This is true for other questions as well. CAT



Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
I answered the question in the post you quoted. Please don't ignore that any further. I'm beginning to think you're trolling.

How could I be trolling you? I posted on this thread before you did. Kinda hard to troll behind someone when you're out in front.

Thats how we go trolling ... I get in the FRONT of the boat, throw the fishin' line out, turn on the TROLLING motor and ..... troll.
I can not believe that a Dreadnought may or may not be a dreadnought.

easysauce wrote:

both dread naught types in codex GK have the special rule pg 35 GK "reinforced aegis:psychic test leadership penalties caused by The Aegis are increased to -4 if the target of the psychic power is within 12" of the Dreadnought (or is the Dreadnought itself)"

so the venerable dread also has a special rule, that refers to it specifically as a Dreadnaught (this is a rule, not fluff)

No, Reinforced Aegis just doesn't work on the Venerable. Just like Warp Field had to be FAQed for the Doom of Malantai, and all the other Tyranid Special models with their respective abilities.

as for context, all the dreadnaught rules are in the context of each other, you cannot get more contextual then "on the same page, in the same section, listed under the same title.

Um. "What context is the word "Dreadnought" read in when reading the Storm Raven Transport rule?" Would be the accurate question, not what you're trying to answer.

there are more examples, but like i said your just ignoring all this already for some reason

I'm not. I've responded to that straw man tangent already.

just the aegis rule alone referring to a venerable dread as a "Dreadnaught" should be enough

Given that GW felt the need to FAQ that literal exact same situation for Tyranids, it actually undermines your argument. Thanks for bringing it up!

now, please show where it says that a venerable dread is NOT a dread?

Wrong way around, friend.

there is not weapon entry for "bolter"
only "bolt gun"

I see you only saw fit to respond to his post that contained an error, and not the follow up that was 100% accurate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:
It's hard to argue with someone that thinks the definition of CAT is.... cat.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Give context to the question then. Saying "Context" is not an answer is a flat out lie.
"Were you awake yesterday?" Unless you were awake for a 24 hour period, you cannot answer yes or no. Even then, which "yesterday" are they using - what time zone?
Context matters. Pretending otherwise is absolutely and without caveats incorrect.

edit: So now you're accusing me of not meeting the Tenets?
Please, define the word "a" in the BRB please. Cite page number.

Q: Were you awake yesterday? A: context

No it doesn't work there either.

Are you stating that by simply posting the word "context. you really meant "In what context are you refering?" Even then it wouldn't hold up, as the question stood on it's own.

It absolutely does not stand on its own.

The Example doesn't even work! For many reasons. If you are awake at all in a given day, then you were awake. Yesterday is the day preceding this day. The time zone wouldn't matter at all.

If you answer, "Yes." without qualification, you are stating you were awake for all of yesterday. And of course the opposite for answering, "No."

Now, if I were to ask someone if they were awake yesterday and they asked for context, I would immediately suspect. 1) The person was being puposely obtuse 2) the person shouldn't be allowed out of their house without a protective helmet 3) Both 1 and 2. This is true for other questions as well. CAT

So if they said, "What time?" they shouldn't be allowed out of the house and need a special hat?
That's interesting. Mind if I go back through your posts on this board and apply that logic to you?

rigeld2 wrote:
I answered the question in the post you quoted. Please don't ignore that any further. I'm beginning to think you're trolling.

How could I be trolling you? I posted on this thread before you did. Kinda hard to troll behind someone when you're out in front.

Yeah, you keep thinking that, friend.

I see you haven't answered my post with my actual argument yet (unless I missed it). Would you mind doing so?

rigeld2 wrote:
I see you haven't answered my post with my actual argument yet (unless I missed it). Would you mind doing so?

What was your last argument? I've not missed responding to anything that you've posted. You may want to look again.

Was it the unit entry has no bearing on this discussion or your later argument that the the discussion is entirely based on the unit entry? Or was it something else?

Or was it something along the lines of : If you ask someone if they ate dinner yesterday and they said yes, that would mean that they had eaten dinner for a 24 hour period?

rigeld2 wrote:
So when I ask:
Can a Dreadnought have dual Twin Linked Autocannons?

You cannot answer yes or no, even if I point out the codex entry? As you've stated the only possible definition is all Dreadnoughts.

This one.

Edit: And I haven't waffled like you're accusing me. You not being able to follow my argument does not mean I'm waffling.

rigeld2 wrote:
[

find the non dreadnaught unit entry for ironclads or venerables,

If unit entry mattered one iota I'd care.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Dreadnaught is not a Unit Type (That'd be Vehicle, Walker).
Dreadnaught, as fluff, is generic.
When used in the Transport rules for a Storm Raven are we directed to look at fluff? I don't believe so - please let me know if I missed any indication.
Dreadnaught as defined on page 65 C:SM is a unit with a specific Composition.
What's the Unit Composition of a Venerable Dreadnaught?

.

Do you understand the differences between Unit Type, Unit Entry, and Unit Composition?
Edit: I'm not asking to imply anything, I'm asking because what you're quoting isn't showing anything about the unit entry mattering.

rigeld2 wrote:
Edit: And I haven't waffled like you're accusing me. You not being able to follow my argument does not mean I'm waffling.

If by claiming that you didn't waffle, I assume you mean that you didn't make a flour batter breaskfast food on a special heated iron.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Do you understand the differences between Unit Type, Unit Entry, and Unit Composition?
Edit: I'm not asking to imply anything, I'm asking because what you're quoting isn't showing anything about the unit entry mattering.

I'm not sure that you do, the unit entry, as established earlier in this thread. Is pg 65.

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Do you understand the differences between Unit Type, Unit Entry, and Unit Composition?
Edit: I'm not asking to imply anything, I'm asking because what you're quoting isn't showing anything about the unit entry mattering.

I'm not sure that you do, the unit entry, as established earlier in this thread. Is pg 65.

And I'm curious - what on page 65 actually matters?
You're using it for your argument, and therefore I'm using it in my argument (to prove you wrong) but I don't need it.

So would you mind answering my question?
Can a Dreadnought be equipped with 2 Twin Linked Autocannons?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Do you understand the differences between Unit Type, Unit Entry, and Unit Composition?
Edit: I'm not asking to imply anything, I'm asking because what you're quoting isn't showing anything about the unit entry mattering.

I'm not sure that you do, the unit entry, as established earlier in this thread. Is pg 65.

And I'm curious - what on page 65 actually matters?
You're using it for your argument, and therefore I'm using it in my argument (to prove you wrong) but I don't need it.

So would you mind answering my question?
Can a Dreadnought be equipped with 2 Twin Linked Autocannons?

Yes

Cool, ill make sure and equip my Ironclads like that next game I play. Thanks for clarifying!

Hey, can you tell me how many points that is? My Codex doesn't show that option but you've assured me it'll work.

rigeld2 wrote:
Cool, ill make sure and equip my Ironclads like that next game I play. Thanks for clarifying!

Hey, can you tell me how many points that is? My Codex doesn't show that option but you've assured me it'll work.

What assurnces did I give? There you go ascribing things that I did not say.

It's not my fault that think that your codex is broken. go out and buy 27 more just to be sure that they concur.

Make sure to equip all of you Space Marines with 2+ armor and a servo harness.


Edit. you've been waiting an entire day to spring that. It wasn't funny the way you expected. It was funny, just not the way that you expected. The truly funny part is... You won't even know what I'm talking about.
I'll give a hint. It's the diference between "at" and "with".

Let's take a poll: Post "at" or "with".

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Do you understand the differences between Unit Type, Unit Entry, and Unit Composition?
Edit: I'm not asking to imply anything, I'm asking because what you're quoting isn't showing anything about the unit entry mattering.

I'm not sure that you do, the unit entry, as established earlier in this thread. Is pg 65.

And I'm curious - what on page 65 actually matters?
You're using it for your argument, and therefore I'm using it in my argument (to prove you wrong) but I don't need it.

So would you mind answering my question?
Can a Dreadnought be equipped with 2 Twin Linked Autocannons?

Yes

This post assured me I can equip a Dreadnought with 2 Twin Linked Autocannons.
According to you, the definition of "Dreadnought" is one of 3 different units.
Since context is a forbidden word and you asked for no clarification, obviously any Dreadnought can be equipped with 2 Twin Linked Autocannons.

Or perhaps "Dreadnought" is not a single definition?