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.

rigeld2 wrote:

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

Yes

Since I'm still missing what you mean, would you please elaborate and honor the rest of us by allowing us to bask in your brilliance?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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?

Nope....a=/=b, b=/=c, c=a.

nuff said.

Except the word "Dreadnought" can only ever mean "3 different units" according to you.
So "Dreadnought" can always mean "Ironclad Dreadnought" so the army list entry for "Dreadnought" must be allowed to be used for "Ironclad Dreadnought" as well.

And seriously, hitting quote and replying isnt that hard.

Nope....a=/=b, b=/=c, c=a.

nuff said.

 Idolator wrote:

Nope....a=/=b, b=/=c, c=a.

nuff said.

Except the word "Dreadnought" can only ever mean "3 different units" according to you.
So "Dreadnought" can always mean "Ironclad Dreadnought" so the army list entry for "Dreadnought" must be allowed to be used for "Ironclad Dreadnought" as well.

And seriously, hitting quote and replying isnt that hard.

Dreadnought means an infinite amount of units with the word Dreadnought in them.

And serioulsy, using good sense and manners isn't that hard.

I've used good manners and tried to explain the quoting to you. Multiple times. The mistakes being made now must be purposeful (I can tell because I'm correcting them and you're removing [ quote ] tags to break things).

That's an interesting assertion. If it means all of those, then any option an Ironclad Dreadnought has can be taken on a Dreadnought?

rigeld2 wrote:
I've used good manners and tried to explain the quoting to you. Multiple times. The mistakes being made now must be purposeful (I can tell because I'm correcting them and you're removing [ quote ] tags to break things).

That's an interesting assertion. If it means all of those, then any option an Ironclad Dreadnought has can be taken on a Dreadnought?

Nah, not purposeful, I really don't get it. I don't post over 9,000 time in 18 months. I didn't even know that I was removing anything. This is not intuitive!

And my assertion is not interesting (it is, but not in the frame of whcih you put it.). I corrected my post and changed it to this.

A=B A=C A=D, B=/=C B=/=D, C=/=D

There.

If you need me to break it down further. number= 1,2,3 1=/=2 1=/=3, 2=/=3.

There is a much more complex algebraic equation that coul dbe put here. But, seriously, why bother, You insist that a single word is a definition.

Right, so Ironclad Dreadnought == Dreadnought.

That means that they're equal.
That means Dreadnought == Ironclad Dreadnought, right?

You're not arguing super/sub sets, you're arguing equalities.

rigeld2 wrote:
Right, so Ironclad Dreadnought == Dreadnought.

That means that they're equal.
That means Dreadnought == Ironclad Dreadnought, right?

You're not arguing super/sub sets, you're arguing equalities.

Nope, you got it wrong. False attribtions again. Take a math class. And make sure to pick up the remaining 26 codexes that you need.

If A = B, B must = A.
Which is exactly what I said in my post, and you said that's wrong.

Congrats on quoting correctly btw!

rigeld2 wrote:
If A = B, B must = A.
Which is exactly what I said in my post, and you said that's wrong.

Congrats on quoting correctly btw!

That is not what you stated.
Breaking it down in an even simpler form.

Dreadnought= Venerable Dreadnought, Dreadnought=Dreadnought, Dreadnought= Ironclad Dreadnought. Venerable Dreadnough=/=Dreadnought , Venerable Dreadnought=/= Ironclad Dreadnought, Dreadnought=/=Ironclad Dreadnought

Here's another case: Space Marine=Techmarine, Space Marine= Scout Sergeant, Space Marine=Space Marine. Techmarine=/=Scout Sergeant, Techmarine =/= Spacemarine, Scout Sergeant =/= Space Marine.

Thanks. And congratulations on showing some semblance of civility.

You chaps should have a look at set theory, though I'm not sure GW studied it before they designed the rules.

Anyway, please be polite when arguing.

FWIW, the new Dark Angels Codex lists both the Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as Unit Composition: 1 Dreadnought.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You chaps should have a look at set theory, though I'm not sure GW studied it before they designed the rules.

Anyway, please be polite when arguing.

Honestly, I've tried. It is for only so long, that one can stand that slings and arrows, before throwing them back. I honestly can't believe that someone who has transgressed the tenets as much as this guy has over the last 3 days, has been active for over 18 months. Heck, I've reported him at least twice for insulting behavior. I assumed that his form of posting was allowed.

I don't post much. When I do, I'm serious about it. I come from how I see it. I don't argue to argue and when I'm wrong or mistaken, I admit it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 puma713 wrote:
FWIW, the new Dark Angels Codex lists both the Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as Unit Composition: 1 Dreadnought.

I know...... And he knows.

 puma713 wrote:
FWIW, the new Dark Angels Codex lists both the Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as Unit Composition: 1 Dreadnought.

Indicating that there is a difference between Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as far as Codex: SM is concerned

That is not what you stated.

rigeld2 wrote:Right, so Ironclad Dreadnought == Dreadnought.

That means that they're equal.
That means Dreadnought == Ironclad Dreadnought, right?

You're not arguing super/sub sets, you're arguing equalities.

rigeld2 wrote:
If A = B, B must = A.
Which is exactly what I said in my post, and you said that's wrong.

Let A = Ironclad Dreadnought.
Let B = Dreadnought.

I said that A=B and B=A. Literally, that's what I said.

Dreadnought= Ironclad Dreadnought, Dreadnought=/=Ironclad Dreadnought

And with that you cannot be correct.

Thanks. And congratulations on showing some semblance of civility.

Excuse me - which one of us has been patronizing, insisting that anyone with a certain idea is "special" and needs to wear a helmet, and has literally ignored an answer because they chose to? I'm done. Welcome to ignore.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
FWIW, the new Dark Angels Codex lists both the Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as Unit Composition: 1 Dreadnought.

Indicating that there is a difference between Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as far as Codex: SM is concerned

Isn't that also indicating that the C:SM is technically outdated? I mean, if a new C:SM came out tomorrow, it would likely be worded like the CA and there would be no discussion necessary here since it would say that all dreadnoughts are dreadnoughts instead of being mostly obvious save for a select few. Which would be great, since this discussion is pretty pants-on-head....

 beigeknight wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
FWIW, the new Dark Angels Codex lists both the Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as Unit Composition: 1 Dreadnought.

Indicating that there is a difference between Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as far as Codex: SM is concerned

Isn't that also indicating that the C:SM is technically outdated? I mean, if a new C:SM came out tomorrow, it would likely be worded like the CA and there would be no discussion necessary here since it would say that all dreadnoughts are dreadnoughts instead of being mostly obvious save for a select few. Which would be great, since this discussion is pretty pants-on-head....

Also, C:BA lists them as "1 Dreadnought". C: GK lists them as "1 Venerable Dreadnought" and "1 Dreadnought" respectively. So no, it's not an issue of "outdatedness".

This exact (literally) same situation existed in the Codex: Tyranids - Doom of Malantai and Warp Field (specifies Zoanthropes), Ymgarl Genestealers and Brood Telepathy (specifies Genestealers), the Swarmlord and Hive Tyrant Psychic Powers, Old One Eye and Living Battering Ram (Specifies Carnifexes), Deathleaper and Chameleonic Skin/Pheormone Trail (specify Lictor).

Those units had to have an FAQ. Pretending that this situation is any different is just that - pretending.

As above.

It isnt pants on head, it is trying to determine what the rules actually say, as opposed to what people think they say.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
FWIW, the new Dark Angels Codex lists both the Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as Unit Composition: 1 Dreadnought.

Indicating that there is a difference between Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as far as Codex: SM is concerned

again, you completly ignore the FACT, on purpose I assume

that special rules for the reinforced Aegis, in both the venerable dreads description and Dreadnaughts,

refer to the unit they are on as specifically "Dreadnaught"

thats a "rule" not fluff, to break it is to break the rule.,

/thread

easysauce wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
FWIW, the new Dark Angels Codex lists both the Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as Unit Composition: 1 Dreadnought.

Indicating that there is a difference between Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as far as Codex: SM is concerned

again, you completly ignore the FACT, on purpose I assume

that special rules for the reinforced Aegis, in both the venerable dreads description and Dreadnaughts,

refer to the unit they are on as specifically "Dreadnaught"

thats a "rule" not fluff, to break it is to break the rule.,

/thread

This exact (literally) same situation existed in the Codex: Tyranids - Doom of Malantai and Warp Field (specifies Zoanthropes), Ymgarl Genestealers and Brood Telepathy (specifies Genestealers), the Swarmlord and Hive Tyrant Psychic Powers, Old One Eye and Living Battering Ram (Specifies Carnifexes), Deathleaper and Chameleonic Skin/Pheormone Trail (specify Lictor).

No, actually - that example is one I'm referring to when I say "exact (literally) same situation". Or perhaps you'd like to ignore the FAQ or explain how the situation is different?

rigeld2 wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
FWIW, the new Dark Angels Codex lists both the Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as Unit Composition: 1 Dreadnought.

Indicating that there is a difference between Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as far as Codex: SM is concerned

Isn't that also indicating that the C:SM is technically outdated? I mean, if a new C:SM came out tomorrow, it would likely be worded like the CA and there would be no discussion necessary here since it would say that all dreadnoughts are dreadnoughts instead of being mostly obvious save for a select few. Which would be great, since this discussion is pretty pants-on-head....

Also, C:BA lists them as "1 Dreadnought". C: GK lists them as "1 Venerable Dreadnought" and "1 Dreadnought" respectively. So no, it's not an issue of "outdatedness".

This exact (literally) same situation existed in the Codex: Tyranids - Doom of Malantai and Warp Field (specifies Zoanthropes), Ymgarl Genestealers and Brood Telepathy (specifies Genestealers), the Swarmlord and Hive Tyrant Psychic Powers, Old One Eye and Living Battering Ram (Specifies Carnifexes), Deathleaper and Chameleonic Skin/Pheormone Trail (specify Lictor).

Those units had to have an FAQ. Pretending that this situation is any different is just that - pretending.

Would that mean that in a C:GK army list one could not use a Stormraven to transport a "Venerable Dreadnought"?

 beigeknight wrote:
Would that mean that in a C:GK army list one could not use a Stormraven to transport a "Venerable Dreadnought"?

As written, yes.
As Intended it's obviously not correct and I don't know of anyone that would try to enforce RAW in this situation.

rigeld2 wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
FWIW, the new Dark Angels Codex lists both the Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as Unit Composition: 1 Dreadnought.

Indicating that there is a difference between Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as far as Codex: SM is concerned

Isn't that also indicating that the C:SM is technically outdated? I mean, if a new C:SM came out tomorrow, it would likely be worded like the CA and there would be no discussion necessary here since it would say that all dreadnoughts are dreadnoughts instead of being mostly obvious save for a select few. Which would be great, since this discussion is pretty pants-on-head....

Also, C:BA lists them as "1 Dreadnought". C: GK lists them as "1 Venerable Dreadnought" and "1 Dreadnought" respectively. So no, it's not an issue of "outdatedness".

This exact (literally) same situation existed in the Codex: Tyranids - Doom of Malantai and Warp Field (specifies Zoanthropes), Ymgarl Genestealers and Brood Telepathy (specifies Genestealers), the Swarmlord and Hive Tyrant Psychic Powers, Old One Eye and Living Battering Ram (Specifies Carnifexes), Deathleaper and Chameleonic Skin/Pheormone Trail (specify Lictor).

Those units had to have an FAQ. Pretending that this situation is any different is just that - pretending.

The reason that Codex: BA and Codex: GK had to have them defined as 1 Dreadnought is because of the Stormraven, I would say. Codex: SM didn't have a Stormraven. So, their 5th Edition codex was plunged into a 6th Edition Compendium and we're expected to simply make it work.

Pure RAW, I agree with nosferatu and rigeld2. But the Dark Angel Codex clearly shows the intent of 6th Edition rules moving forward. And if we are to extrapolate what we know about the dreadnoughts from there and apply it to a codex that was written for 5th, given a new unit and updated for 6th, I think we can all see what the correct ruling would be.

rigeld2/nos: Are you of the opinion that the new SM codex will be written differently than the new DA codex?

Easysauce - I have you on ignore, so I am ignoring you, not any facts you present, if I do not respond to you. I only know you quoted me because of Rigelds quoting of your response

Also given your "fact" is in "fact" the same issue Rigeld and I agree on, it only "/thread" on the "yay" side of the argument. There IS a difference between COdex Marine Dreadnoughts and Venerable Dreadnoughts, the same as between Doom and a normal Zoanthrope - the later required a FAQ, same as this does

rigeld2 wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:
Would that mean that in a C:GK army list one could not use a Stormraven to transport a "Venerable Dreadnought"?

As written, yes.
As Intended it's obviously not correct and I don't know of anyone that would try to enforce RAW in this situation.

With that being said we can agree that even though strict RAW says no, we all know what's intended and pretty much nobody would have an issue putting an Ironclad Dreadnought in the back of a Stormraven? I know the intention of this board is to viciously dissect RAW but like 7 pages of back and forth despite the fact that almost everyone agrees on the intent is what's pants-on-head here.

 puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
FWIW, the new Dark Angels Codex lists both the Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as Unit Composition: 1 Dreadnought.

Indicating that there is a difference between Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought as far as Codex: SM is concerned

Isn't that also indicating that the C:SM is technically outdated? I mean, if a new C:SM came out tomorrow, it would likely be worded like the CA and there would be no discussion necessary here since it would say that all dreadnoughts are dreadnoughts instead of being mostly obvious save for a select few. Which would be great, since this discussion is pretty pants-on-head....

Also, C:BA lists them as "1 Dreadnought". C: GK lists them as "1 Venerable Dreadnought" and "1 Dreadnought" respectively. So no, it's not an issue of "outdatedness".

This exact (literally) same situation existed in the Codex: Tyranids - Doom of Malantai and Warp Field (specifies Zoanthropes), Ymgarl Genestealers and Brood Telepathy (specifies Genestealers), the Swarmlord and Hive Tyrant Psychic Powers, Old One Eye and Living Battering Ram (Specifies Carnifexes), Deathleaper and Chameleonic Skin/Pheormone Trail (specify Lictor).

Those units had to have an FAQ. Pretending that this situation is any different is just that - pretending.

The reason that Codex: BA and Codex: GK had to have them defined as 1 Dreadnought is because of the Stormraven, I would say. Codex: SM didn't have a Stormraven. So, their 5th Edition codex was plunged into a 6th Edition Compendium and we're expected to simply make it work.

GK and BA are not the same. BA uses "Dreadnought" as the UC for all the walkers, GK does not.

Pure RAW, I agree with nosferatu and rigeld2. But the Dark Angel Codex clearly shows the intent of 6th Edition rules moving forward. And if we are to extrapolate what we know about the dreadnoughts from there and apply it to a codex that was written for 5th, given a new unit and updated for 6th, I think we can all see what the correct ruling would be.

rigeld2/nos: Are you of the opinion that the new SM codex will be written differently than the new DA codex?

I doubt it. And I never disagreed that the RAI was obvious and said that I would never play that way.

Puma - I would expect something similar to the CA entry, unless they again feel the need to differentiate between the types of dreadnought by giving them a different classification, as they have done in the current book.

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2/nos: Are you of the opinion that the new SM codex will be written differently than the new DA codex?

I doubt it. And I never disagreed that the RAI was obvious and said that I would never play that way.

I feel that this entire thread, then, is breaking Tenet 4 of YMDC. One side is arguing RAW while the other is arguing RAI. On this issue, those two planes shall never meet.

The OP has the answer: Stormravens in Codex: SM technically cannot carry any other dreadnought other than the vanilla Dreadnought, but other 5th Edition codices that contain Stormravens and the 6th Edition Dark Angels codex lend themselves to explain why they can moving forward. And applying a 6th Edition Compendium to a book written without knowledge of the Stormraven or 6th Edition forces us to make decisions about how to read the old material.

Well, only one half of the thread is breaking the tenet, as they are stating their position as "RAW" when no rules back their position up, and are not saying they are arguing RAI at any point

rigeld2 wrote:
If A = B, B must = A.
Which is exactly what I said in my post, and you said that's wrong.

Let A = Ironclad Dreadnought.
Let B = Dreadnought.

I said that A=B and B=A. Literally, that's what I said.

Dreadnought= Ironclad Dreadnought, Dreadnought=/=Ironclad Dreadnought

And with that you cannot be correct.

 aka_mythos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:If A = B, B must = A.
Which is exactly what I said in my post, and you said that's wrong.

Let A = Ironclad Dreadnought.
Let B = Dreadnought.

I said that A=B and B=A. Literally, that's what I said.

Dreadnought= Ironclad Dreadnought, Dreadnought=/=Ironclad Dreadnought

And with that you cannot be correct.

The failure of this analysis is that a venerable dreadnought is simply a dreadnought and more.

That is to say A=B+C. Where as long as A is a function of B and C, on occaision that C = 0, A=B, but not always.

The definition of a Dreadnought is broader than the definition of a Venerable dreadnought. To look at it another way, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square, and thus the statement that a rectangle is simply a four sided figure comprised of right angles holds true to both, even though they aren't equal. In that same way a Venerable Dreadnought can be a Dreadnought without being only a "Dreadnought."

And that's great.
That is explicitly not what he said. He stated equality. I understand what a super/subset is. He wasn't using that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2/nos: Are you of the opinion that the new SM codex will be written differently than the new DA codex?

I doubt it. And I never disagreed that the RAI was obvious and said that I would never play that way.

I feel that this entire thread, then, is breaking Tenet 4 of YMDC. One side is arguing RAW while the other is arguing RAI. On this issue, those two planes shall never meet.

I agree. Except I was arguing RAW and he was asserting his point as RAW.

The OP has the answer: Stormravens in Codex: SM technically cannot carry any other dreadnought other than the vanilla Dreadnought, but other 5th Edition codices that contain Stormravens and the 6th Edition Dark Angels codex lend themselves to explain why they can moving forward. And applying a 6th Edition Compendium to a book written without knowledge of the Stormraven or 6th Edition forces us to make decisions about how to read the old material.

Well, this also breaks Drop Pods, and C:GK also breaks. So it's not an edition or codex issue - it's a wording issue.