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.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
GW is actually kinda famous making "FAQ" questions that really are errata, as if they didn't want to admit they messed up the rules that badly.

In any case, if there was a unit called "crazy ghost dreadnought" guess what, it's a dreadnought. Just like the old Greater demon from CSM was demon, even though no one bothered ot give it a "demon" rule type. (and mandrakes for good measure)

grow up.

That's been my standing the whole time. That an Ironclad Dread is in fact a Dreadnought. I've been trying to figure out what would cause someone to consider them as anything else!

No one is claiming that they are not Dreadnoughts from a fluff standpoint. I'm fairly certain that most of the people who voted No voted No because that is what the RAW is. I voted No, because RAW they cannot. HIWPI is completely different.

Since FAQs do not change the rules, does that mean my Farseers can cast Guide/Fortune/Doom while embarked? Furthermore, since an Ironclad Dreadnought is a Dreadnought (from a fluff standpoint at least) then from a fluff standpoint, Dark Eldar are Eldar and can therefore have Guide and Fortune casted upon them.

Being a dreadnought "from a fluff" standpoint would be if it said it was a dreadnought somewhere in the flavor text. Like a Hell brute for instance.

If it has "dreadnought" in damn name of the unit, that's not "in the fluff", that makes it a freaking dreadnought.

Furthermore, Demons are demons. Mandrakes, whose great great grandmaw thought a demon was cute once, are demons. Pulse rifles are plasma weapons as per the PLasma Siphon FAQ. So truly, fluff is rules for GW.

You have literally no leg to stand on here.

In that case since Dark Eldar has then name Eldar in it they are Eldar for the purposes of Farseer Psychic Powers. It would also mean that Heavy Flamers are Heavy Weapons since they have the word Heavy in it (and Assault Cannons are Assault Weapons for the same reason).

There are only three times (I can think of) when GW has said fluff==rules: The Avatar's "Molten Body", Daemons for the purposes of Grey Knights, and Plasma Siphon. Of course none of this apparently matters since those were all FAQs and not Errata and thus are not actual rules.

 Happyjew wrote:
It would also mean that Heavy Flamers are Heavy Weapons since they have the word Heavy in it (and Assault Cannons are Assault Weapons for the same reason).

No.....it would mean Heavy Flamers were also a flamer, which they are. There are rules which affect flamers as a class, heavy flmaers fall under them. If there were a rule that affected "cannons" assault cannons would fall under it.

I feel like you're being obstinate just to be obstinate. It says "dreadnought" in the name, therefore, it is, by the rules, not fluff, a dreadnought.

93% of people disagree with you. This is done now.

 Happyjew wrote:

No one is claiming that they are not Dreadnoughts from a fluff standpoint. I'm fairly certain that most of the people who voted No voted No because that is what the RAW is. I voted No, because RAW they cannot. HIWPI is completely different.

Since FAQs do not change the rules, does that mean my Farseers can cast Guide/Fortune/Doom while embarked? Furthermore, since an Ironclad Dreadnought is a Dreadnought (from a fluff standpoint at least) then from a fluff standpoint, Dark Eldar are Eldar and can therefore have Guide and Fortune casted upon them.

FAQ's do not change a rule, they give a definetive way in which a rule should be read, without actualy changing anything. If someone understood it a different way, then the fault lies with the reader.

Your second point. What do the rules in the codex say? What does the Errata say? What do the Amendments say? What do the FAQ's say. I don't have that codex. I could look up the Errata and FAQ but not the codex. Once again, any answer that I give would be ill informed. I don't have the Dark Eldar codex either.

I've got Guard, Orks, C:SM and Tau. Those questions I can answer.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
It would also mean that Heavy Flamers are Heavy Weapons since they have the word Heavy in it (and Assault Cannons are Assault Weapons for the same reason).

No.....it would mean Heavy Flamers were also a flamer, which they are. There are rules which affect flamers as a class, heavy flmaers fall under them. If there were a rule that affected "cannons" assault cannons would fall under it.

I feel like you're being obstinate just to be obstinate. It says "dreadnought" in the name, therefore, it is, by the rules, not fluff, a dreadnought.

93% of people disagree with you. This is done now.

Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.

 Happyjew wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
It would also mean that Heavy Flamers are Heavy Weapons since they have the word Heavy in it (and Assault Cannons are Assault Weapons for the same reason).

No.....it would mean Heavy Flamers were also a flamer, which they are. There are rules which affect flamers as a class, heavy flmaers fall under them. If there were a rule that affected "cannons" assault cannons would fall under it.

I feel like you're being obstinate just to be obstinate. It says "dreadnought" in the name, therefore, it is, by the rules, not fluff, a dreadnought.

93% of people disagree with you. This is done now.

Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.

And every Ork in the Ork codex hopes you're wrong!

 Idolator wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

No one is claiming that they are not Dreadnoughts from a fluff standpoint. I'm fairly certain that most of the people who voted No voted No because that is what the RAW is. I voted No, because RAW they cannot. HIWPI is completely different.

Since FAQs do not change the rules, does that mean my Farseers can cast Guide/Fortune/Doom while embarked? Furthermore, since an Ironclad Dreadnought is a Dreadnought (from a fluff standpoint at least) then from a fluff standpoint, Dark Eldar are Eldar and can therefore have Guide and Fortune casted upon them.

FAQ's do not change a rule, they give a definetive way in which a rule should be read, without actualy changing anything. If someone understood it a different way, then the fault lies with the reader.

Your second point. What do the rules in the codex say? What does the Errata say? What do the Amendments say? What do the FAQ's say. I don't have that codex. I could look up the Errata and FAQ but not the codex. Once again, any answer that I give would be ill informed. I don't have the Dark Eldar codex either.

I've got Guard, Orks, C:SM and Tau. Those questions I can answer.

C:Eldar; Guide and Fortune - Nominate an Eldar unit within X"...
Eldar FAQ: Errata and Amendments says nothing on this matter. Do Dark Eldar allies count as Eldar for the Farseer psychic powers Fortune and Guide? No.

Furthermore:
Q: The Farseer Psychic Powers rules state that they do not require the
Eldar Psyker to have line of sight to the target. Does this mean that they
can be used by an Eldar psyker embarked on a Transport? (p28)
A: No.

How is that how a rule is supposed to be read, when a psychic power that does require LoS can be used while embarked?

Why isn't this thread locked yet? 2 pages talking about what an FAQ is for Throne's sake.

 Happyjew wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
It would also mean that Heavy Flamers are Heavy Weapons since they have the word Heavy in it (and Assault Cannons are Assault Weapons for the same reason).

No.....it would mean Heavy Flamers were also a flamer, which they are. There are rules which affect flamers as a class, heavy flmaers fall under them. If there were a rule that affected "cannons" assault cannons would fall under it.

I feel like you're being obstinate just to be obstinate. It says "dreadnought" in the name, therefore, it is, by the rules, not fluff, a dreadnought.

93% of people disagree with you. This is done now.

Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.

Seriously, are there any rules prohibiting you from casting beneficial spells onto Dark Eldar? They are battle brothers and I do believe that you can do that. Once again, I don't know. My opinion is ill informed.

 puma713 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
It would also mean that Heavy Flamers are Heavy Weapons since they have the word Heavy in it (and Assault Cannons are Assault Weapons for the same reason).

No.....it would mean Heavy Flamers were also a flamer, which they are. There are rules which affect flamers as a class, heavy flmaers fall under them. If there were a rule that affected "cannons" assault cannons would fall under it.

I feel like you're being obstinate just to be obstinate. It says "dreadnought" in the name, therefore, it is, by the rules, not fluff, a dreadnought.

93% of people disagree with you. This is done now.

Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.

And every Ork in the Ork codex hopes you're wrong!

Sure, you could transport an ork Dreanought.....if you could get in an ally's transport, which you can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:


Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.

You didn't, actually.

 Idolator wrote:
Seriously, are there any rules prohibiting you from casting beneficial spells onto Dark Eldar? They are battle brothers and I do believe that you can do that. Once again, I don't know. My opinion is ill informed.

Only the FAQ that says that Dark Eldar are not Eldar for the purposes of Guide and Fortune.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:


Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.

You didn't, actually.

Yes I did. I mentioned Dark Eldar and Heavy Flamers (and Assault Cannons, however I grouped the two weapons together).

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.

And every Ork in the Ork codex hopes you're wrong!

Sure, you could transport an ork Dreanought.....if you could get in an ally's transport, which you can't.

I was referring to his "the name does not make the thing." statement, as there are no "orks" in the ork codex (save for Boyz) if you're to follow unit composition.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:


Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.

You didn't, actually.

Are all bolters bolters?
If I have a unit equipped with "a twink linked bolter" what weapon profile is that?

Sir Prometheus in case you missed it (which I'm not sure how, since you quoted part of it, here it is again, with the two mentioned underlined.

 Happyjew wrote:
In that case since Dark Eldar has then name Eldar in it they are Eldar for the purposes of Farseer Psychic Powers. It would also mean that Heavy Flamers are Heavy Weapons since they have the word Heavy in it (and Assault Cannons are Assault Weapons for the same reason).

There are only three times (I can think of) when GW has said fluff==rules: The Avatar's "Molten Body", Daemons for the purposes of Grey Knights, and Plasma Siphon. Of course none of this apparently matters since those were all FAQs and not Errata and thus are not actual rules.

That point is moot, because for every "so a flamer is a heavy flamer and a bolter is a vulcan mega-bolter" argument, there is a counter "so a Loota is not an ork and a Scout Sergeant is not a space marine" argument.

 Happyjew wrote:

C:Eldar; Guide and Fortune - Nominate an Eldar unit within X"...
Eldar FAQ: Errata and Amendments says nothing on this matter. Do Dark Eldar allies count as Eldar for the Farseer psychic powers Fortune and Guide? No.

Furthermore:
Q: The Farseer Psychic Powers rules state that they do not require the
Eldar Psyker to have line of sight to the target. Does this mean that they
can be used by an Eldar psyker embarked on a Transport? (p28)
A: No.

How is that how a rule is supposed to be read, when a psychic power that does require LoS can be used while embarked?

I'll completely set aside the fact that you are comparing two different codexes to address your point. It appears that GW and their crack editing team have forgotten to put the amendments in Eldar updates that relegate the special powers to units from within that particular codex.

Secondly, the FAQ, clarifies that you are not to read Dark Eldar as Eldar, because they aren't Eldar and have an entire book dedicated to how they aren't Eldar.

Then.

How do the powers that do not require a line of sight work? Do Eldar transports have firepoints? (I haven't played against them in years and I don't think that they do.)

Eldar Farseers have 2 PSA, these cannot be used out of transports due to no Fire Points. Doom is more akin to a malediction and Fortune/Guide are akin to Blessings. Per the Psyker rules to use a psychic power you have to pick a target (which must be in LoS unless otherwise specified, which Farseer powers do). If the power requires LoS an embarked psyker can only choose himself, his unit, or the transport. Doom/Guide/Fortune do not require LoS. Per GW's FAQ a Farseer cannot even cast them on a unit he does have LoS to while embarked.

when you have to argue against
GW,
t


90+% of dakka,

and use things like "the definition of dreadnaught is dreadnaught"

and state that basically almost every special rule on every unit, in every codex, does not affect that unit because no unit is composed of "orks" "grey knights" ect

argue against those special rules like aegis, that are on venerable dreads, and refer to them as simple "Dreadnaught"

you are doing it wrong,

thread should have been locked ages ago,

meta is obviously Dreads go in SR's,

90%+ of people on dakka also read the RAW as allowing this

easysauce wrote:
90%+ of people on dakka also read the RAW as allowing this

So the poll (which does not specify RAW or HYWPI) must be referring to RAW? Citation required please. As the people who voted no and spoke up all said that they would play they can, I agree that this thread needs to be locked.

So what you're trying to say is. . . . you two agree on something!

 puma713 wrote:
So what you're trying to say is. . . . you two agree on something!

Only that this thread is no longer going anywhere and needs to be locked. I believe that at least some of the people who voted voted based on how they would play it, not what the rules actually state.

 Happyjew wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
So what you're trying to say is. . . . you two agree on something!

Only that this thread is no longer going anywhere and needs to be locked. I believe that at least some of the people who voted voted based on how they would play it, not what the rules actually state.

I would say almost all of them voted that way. Generally, that is the way most people think. They're not here to debate with you what the rules say - but how it applies to them, their army and the tabletop. Once they have that settled, they can then discuss what the rules say, as it no longer really matters, because they have the concensus of what will be expected of them during gameplay.

Yes, we have people bizarrely claiming that rules are not changed in FAQs, when we have literal examples of this occurring all the time (not an interpretation, a literal alteration to the actual written rules, with no way to get from the written rule to the changed rule at all) and people still claiming that the name defines the thing, despite having numerous examples otherwise

Prometheus - What gives you permission to break up a proper noun? Rules citation please, to determine that a proper noun is actually a set and subset. You cannot do this, but please, try.

 Happyjew wrote:
Eldar Farseers have 2 PSA, these cannot be used out of transports due to no Fire Points. Doom is more akin to a malediction and Fortune/Guide are akin to Blessings. Per the Psyker rules to use a psychic power you have to pick a target (which must be in LoS unless otherwise specified, which Farseer powers do). If the power requires LoS an embarked psyker can only choose himself, his unit, or the transport. Doom/Guide/Fortune do not require LoS. Per GW's FAQ a Farseer cannot even cast them on a unit he does have LoS to while embarked.

Apparently, There seems to be some rule that prevents the use of embarked Psykers from using their powers on units that are not also embarked. With the exception of Witchfire powers. I noticed that this was mentioned in another FAQ in the BRB entry.

I haven't found it yet, because I am a bit unfamilliar (comparitively) with Psyker rules. I don't usualy play them. I only have one Space marine Librarian, a psyker battle squad, and a weird boy. The last two have very limited abilities and rules. I'll update you once I find it.

Update!! found it. page 67 BRB second collumn 1st paragraph. A psyker embarked on a transport must target himself, his vehicle or another unit embarked on the same vehicle as the psyker. That would explain the FAQ answer, it didn't change any rules, it just answered a dumb question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, we have people bizarrely claiming that rules are not changed in FAQs, when we have literal examples of this occurring all the time (not an interpretation, a literal alteration to the actual written rules, with no way to get from the written rule to the changed rule at all) and people still claiming that the name defines the thing, despite having numerous examples otherwise

Prometheus - What gives you permission to break up a proper noun? Rules citation please, to determine that a proper noun is actually a set and subset. You cannot do this, but please, try.

George Washington was a Washington. See no permission needed. It's true.

So you are saying that the proper noun is not a compound noun then?

Any proof of that in the actual rules? As per the tenets of this forum? Simple question.

Your "interpretation" then means Heavy Flamers ARE Heavy - after all, you separate the two words, because you have said you can do so, even though "Heavy Flamer" is a compound noun when applied to this actual game.

Assault Cannons are also Assault, Fire Dragons are on fire AND reptiles, and so on.

Or, and this is a long shot - that isnt how the English language works. Venerable Dreadnought is a compound proper noun, because that is how English works. Try again

 puma713 wrote:
That point is moot, because for every "so a flamer is a heavy flamer and a bolter is a vulcan mega-bolter" argument, there is a counter "so a Loota is not an ork and a Scout Sergeant is not a space marine" argument.

The latter aren't "counter-arguments". They're more examples of poor writing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you are saying that the proper noun is not a compound noun then?

Any proof of that in the actual rules? As per the tenets of this forum? Simple question.

Your "interpretation" then means Heavy Flamers ARE Heavy - after all, you separate the two words, because you have said you can do so, even though "Heavy Flamer" is a compound noun when applied to this actual game.

Assault Cannons are also Assault, Fire Dragons are on fire AND reptiles, and so on.

Or, and this is a long shot - that isnt how the English language works. Venerable Dreadnought is a compound proper noun, because that is how English works. Try again

I am saying that a title doesn't detract from the nature of a thing. An Ironclad Dreadnought is a Dreadnought. For some odd reason GW always capitolizes the names of all of it's models even though they aren't proper names. I don't think Fire Dragons are on fire, i believe that they cause them, or use fire in some way. Firemen aren't on fire.

I'm sure that Heavy Flamers are weighty and put out a heavy blast of flame, so yes they are Heavy. Are they considered Heavy for rules purposes?? What to the rules for heavy flamers say. I believe that they are assault wepons when used by the models in the game.

Assault Cannons ar used for Assaulting. What are the rules. It's heavy when used by models on the table.

Is all of this really just to prove that a type of Dreadnought isn't really a Dreadnought and therefore cannot ride in a Drop Pod or Storm Raven?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
That point is moot, because for every "so a flamer is a heavy flamer and a bolter is a vulcan mega-bolter" argument, there is a counter "so a Loota is not an ork and a Scout Sergeant is not a space marine" argument.

The latter aren't "counter-arguments". They're more examples of poor writing.

They're all examples of poor writting.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Seriously, are there any rules prohibiting you from casting beneficial spells onto Dark Eldar? They are battle brothers and I do believe that you can do that. Once again, I don't know. My opinion is ill informed.

Only the FAQ that says that Dark Eldar are not Eldar for the purposes of Guide and Fortune.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:


Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.

You didn't, actually.

Yes I did. I mentioned Dark Eldar and Heavy Flamers (and Assault Cannons, however I grouped the two weapons together).

And I told you why you were wrong. I'd give it you on eldar and dark eldar....except that a codex name is pretty different than a unit name.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:


Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.

You didn't, actually.

Are all bolters bolters?
If I have a unit equipped with "a twink linked bolter" what weapon profile is that?

See now, I think know the point you are trying to make......but you picked a horrible example. Because a twinlinked bolter is in fact, a bolter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Prometheus - What gives you permission to break up a proper noun? Rules citation please, to determine that a proper noun is actually a set and subset. You cannot do this, but please, try.

See now, not only does this not make sense (I don't think you know what a proper noun is, fyi), but it also is not relevant in any way.

Is a Vulcan Mega Bolter a bolter?

I'll break this down so it is a bit easier.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Seriously, are there any rules prohibiting you from casting beneficial spells onto Dark Eldar? They are battle brothers and I do believe that you can do that. Once again, I don't know. My opinion is ill informed.

Only the FAQ that says that Dark Eldar are not Eldar for the purposes of Guide and Fortune.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:


Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.

You didn't, actually.

Yes I did. I mentioned Dark Eldar and Heavy Flamers (and Assault Cannons, however I grouped the two weapons together).

And I told you why you were wrong. I'd give it you on eldar and dark eldar....except that a codex name is pretty different than a unit name.

You claim that because Venerble Dreadnought has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I make the same claim with something else, and I am wrong?

rigeld2 wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:


Your argument is because it has Dreadnought in the name it must be a Dreadnought. I've provided 2 different examples which show that the name does not make the thing.

You didn't, actually.

Are all bolters bolters?
If I have a unit equipped with "a twink linked bolter" what weapon profile is that?

See now, I think know the point you are trying to make......but you picked a horrible example. Because a twinlinked bolter is in fact, a bolter.

And what is a bolter? According to GW it is also known as a boltgun which encompasses 5 weapons who have exactly one thing in common, their ammunition. Since a Vulcan mega-bolter is a boltgun and Space Marines are armed with boltguns...

rigeld2 wrote:
Is a Vulcan Mega Bolter a bolter?

It is a bolter. It is not a boltgun=bolter, bolter. This is why GW started referring to "bolters" as boltguns, btw.

Look, you KNOW what the RAI on this is. I know that not a dingle one of you wonders what the FAQ would say if GW bothered to FAQ it. so why are we still discussing it? That's my point.