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.

Can any type of dreadnought be embarked on a stormraven? Like an ironclad or contemptor?

From the strictest form of RAW no, but nobody plays it like that.


An Ironclad or Contemptor are both dreadnoughts and anyone that contests that isn't someone you should encourage by playing againgst.

Awesome, thanks for the clarification!

I'm pretty sure fw said no to contemptors somewhere, but since I'm at work I can't dig around. Though, I'd love to drop a c-Mortis off the back...

The answer is No from a Rule as Written perspective, but this is one of those cases where Rule as Written is clearly wrong.

To judge the Authors Intentions, simply flick to the Ironclad Dreadnought Army List Entry. On this entry one would find the option to select a Drop Pod as a Dedicated Transport, which is not surprising as Drop-pod can carry Dreadnoughts. What the Drop Pod entry does not include is the ability to carry any variation of a Dreadnought, it grants us permission to carry more then something called 'Dreadnought' and that is that. There is only two things with that name in the book, one Unit and a Model in that Unit, neither of which includes the Ironclad Dreadnought. So, technically, an Ironclad does not have permission to violate the 'Infantry Only' Restriction found on all Transports because nothing specifically states it can.

We just know this is wrong, because it makes no sense for the Authors to include an option that the purchasing Unit can never make use of....

JinxDragon wrote:
We just know this is wrong, because it makes no sense for the Authors to include an option that the purchasing Unit can never make use of....

On a side note - SM Command Squads can be upgraded to Bikes and take a Drop Pod. Which they then cannot use.

Happyjew,
I can not see why that is relevant...?

The Army List option for the Ironclad Dreadnought Unit is a single selection, given that I was discussion Author Intent it is very clear they intended for this option to be useful for this particular Unit. It is not possible to state the same thing about the Command Squad on Bikes though, as it would be multiple options are being selected and that has completely different Rule Interactions. From an Author Intent stance, as I clearly believe Rule as Written is broken, it is obvious that Command Squads are being given a degree of mobility and are forced to decide between A, B or C.

From the SW book:

TRANSPORT:

• Transport Capacity: Ten models or one Dreadnought. Once a Drop Pod lands, all passengers must disembark and no models can embark for the rest of the game.

The Drop Pod is given the authorization to transport a Dreadnought even though the Transport type normally does not enable that.

Specific > Generic.

What's the link between that and a Stormraven exactly ?


And from the SM book, on the StormRaven:

Transport Capacity:

• Twelve models and/or one Dreadnought

Why would any Dreadnought not be allowed in there ?


I really don't see the issue.


Is a Contemptor a Dreadnought ? Yes it's a Dreadnought, a Contemptor one.

JinxDragonMade is correct - for example, from a RAW perspective the Stormraven or Drop Pod are not allowed to even carry Venerable Dreadnoughts, since they have a different profile. The authors just weren't thinking through the rules very well.

What's the link between that and a Stormraven exactly ?

Because the rules are worded in exactly the same way - they are both given permission to transport a Dreadnought. If the Stormraven cannot carry an Ironclad Dreadnought, then it also implies that a drop pod cannot carry an Ironclad Dreadnought. GW is clearly using the word Dreadnought in a generic sense, but that's not consistent with the way they normally write their rules when it comes to specifying what units can do what.

morgoth wrote:
What's the link between that and a Stormraven exactly ?

I think his point is as follows (and forgive me if I miss-read it):

Stromraven:
Transport Capacity: 12 models and/or one Dreadnought.

Is the Ironclad Dreadnought counted as a Dreadnought? Or is it only the "Dreadnought" that can be carried?

Drop pod:
Transport Capacity: 10 models or one Dreadnought.

Same problem here. Can an Ironclad go in?
Now the Ironclad can take a Droppod as a dedicated transport, which would seem to indicate that "Dreadnought" is the more generic name rather than the specific unit name.

Really if you let an Ironclad into a droppod, you should let in into a StormRaven.

 DanielBeaver wrote:
JinxDragonMade is correct - for example, from a RAW perspective the Stormraven or Drop Pod are not allowed to even carry Venerable Dreadnoughts, since they have a different profile. The authors just weren't thinking through the rules very well.

I wouldn't be so sure about the rules not being clear here.

Can carry "one Dreadnought".

is a Venerable Dreadnought "one Dreadnought", yes it is, a Venerable one at that !


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

Drop pod:
Transport Capacity: 10 models or one Dreadnought.

Same problem here. Can an Ironclad go in?
Now the Ironclad can take a Droppod as a dedicated transport, which would seem to indicate that "Dreadnought" is the more generic name rather than the specific unit name.

Really if you let an Ironclad into a droppod, you should let in into a StormRaven.

Not really.

If you stand by the logic that "One Dreadnought" doesn't mean one Dreadnought, then the Ironclad just got a specific one-time pass on the rule to use a Drop Pod.

That wouldn't do anything about the other Dreadnoughts or "One Dreadnought" mentions in the rest of the books.

No, it isnt. Is a Heavy Flamer a Flamer? No, a Flamer has one profile, a Heavy Flamer another.

Proper names and al that. Same as an Assault Cannon isnt a cannon wit hthe Assault weapon type.

morgoth wrote:
I wouldn't be so sure about the rules not being clear here.

Can carry "one Dreadnought".

is a Venerable Dreadnought "one Dreadnought", yes it is, a Venerable one at that !.

From a rules perspective, a Dreadnought and a Venerable Dreadnought are two different models, as they have different profiles (if you look at the the codex entry, Venerable is not just an upgrade, it actually uses and entirely different profile). This matters in game terms - for example, it's why a tactical squad Space Marine Sergeant can take Melta Bombs, but a Space Marine can't. The rules only give you permission to do that one thing. And in the case of Ironclad and Venerable Dreadnoughts, RAW they don't have permission to use Drop Pods or Stormravens as transports.

 DanielBeaver wrote:

morgoth wrote:
I wouldn't be so sure about the rules not being clear here.

Can carry "one Dreadnought".

is a Venerable Dreadnought "one Dreadnought", yes it is, a Venerable one at that !.

From a rules perspective, a Dreadnought and a Venerable Dreadnought are two different models, as they have different profiles (if you look at the the codex entry, Venerable is not just an upgrade, it actually uses and entirely different profile). This matters in game terms - for example, it's why a tactical squad Space Marine Sergeant can take Melta Bombs, but a Space Marine can't. The rues only give you permission to do that one thing. And in the case of Ironclad and Venerable Dreadnoughts, RAW they don't have permission to use Drop Pods or Stormravens as transports.

From an English perspective, which is what RAW means, a Beautiful Dreadnought, an Unpainted Dreadnought, a Contemptor Dreadnought, a Badass Dreadnought and an Inronclad Dreadnought are all examples of "one Dreadnought".

Venerable, Contemptor, Beautiful, Unpainted, Badass and Ironclad are all adjectives as far as I'm concerned, and therefore do not prevent a match with "one Dreadnought".

They're not adjectives, they're proper names.

I would like to point out, that although Venerable Dreadnought=/= Dreadnought, the unit composition is still "1 Dreadnought".

Additionally, although admittedly an older codex, all Dreadnought variants in the BA codex, have a unit composition of "1 Dreadnought".

So I think the proper question is "When a transport says it can carry "1 Dreadnought", is it referring to the model with the profile "Dreadnought", or is it referring to the unit composition of "Dreadnought"?


Either way, strict RAW, any Dreadnought that is not composed of "1 Dreadnought" would not benefit. Venerable, Furioso, and Death Company Dreads are the only RAW debatable models.

If it is refering to Unit Composition that would rule out the Ironclad from both Stormraven and Droppod, as it's compostion is "1 Ironclad Dreadnought".

 Happyjew wrote:
I would like to point out, that although Venerable Dreadnought=/= Dreadnought, the unit composition is still "1 Dreadnought".

While that is true of Codex Blood Angels, it's not true for the Ironclad Dreadnought in Codex Space Marines whose unit composition is '1 Ironclad Dreadnought'.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I would like to point out, that although Venerable Dreadnought=/= Dreadnought, the unit composition is still "1 Dreadnought".

While that is true of Codex Blood Angels, it's not true for the Ironclad Dreadnought in Codex Space Marines whose unit composition is '1 Ironclad Dreadnought'.

Blood Angels do not currently have Ironclad Dreads. Furthermore, the quote is referring to Venerable Dreads, not Ironclad.

 Ghaz wrote:
They're not adjectives, they're proper names.

They're still qualifying the "Dreadnought".

morgoth wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
They're not adjectives, they're proper names.

They're still qualifying the "Dreadnought".

No. It's a proper name as can be seen in the unit entry.

morgoth wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
They're not adjectives, they're proper names.

They're still qualifying the "Dreadnought".

So an Assault Cannon is an Assault weapon? Oops, no, that isn't how proper names work....

 Ghaz wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
They're not adjectives, they're proper names.

They're still qualifying the "Dreadnought".

No. It's a proper name as can be seen in the unit entry.

me: What kind of Dreadnought is that, Raph ?

Raph: Oh that ? It's a Contemptor.

Which is a part of it's proper name.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
They're not adjectives, they're proper names.

They're still qualifying the "Dreadnought".

So an Assault Cannon is an Assault weapon? Oops, no, that isn't how proper names work....

The better comparison would be "is a Heavy Bolter a Bolter"?

 DanielBeaver wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
They're not adjectives, they're proper names.

They're still qualifying the "Dreadnought".

So an Assault Cannon is an Assault weapon? Oops, no, that isn't how proper names work....

The better comparison would be "is a Heavy Bolter a Bolter"?

Except morgoth would just say that's a modifier.

Assault Cannon is a proper name. The whole thing is the name. Like contemptor dreadnought.