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.

Hello everyone,

So, question for ya, can't find any answers for this anywhere:
Can you take multiple Venerable Dreadnoughts in the Firespear Task Force formation? I ask this because the formation states "1 Venerable Dreadnought", and the codex states that a Venerable Dreadnought can take 1-2 additional Dreadnoughts in the unit.

I would say yes, because when you ask people about Imperial Guard formations that include "1 Tank Commander" for example, then that implies a minimum of 2 tanks, since the codex entry for the Tank Commander states that the Commander has to take an additional tank at minimum. Now, the Venerable Dreadnought doesn't HAVE to take additional Dreadnoughts, but you see my point.

So, if we are going after codex entries, wouldn't that mean that the Firespear Task Force formation would be able to take up to 3 Venerable Dreadnoughts? If that is the case, imagine 3 Venerable Dreadnoughts all with 2 twin-linked Autocannons firing twice each. Now that is a lot of powerful dakka right there!

It is a common debate because GW doesn't write rules consistently. The Canoptek Harvest has the same issue. RaW there is a datasheet called Ven Dread so it works, not everyone will agree though.

Technically, the Formation is telling you that you have to take 1 Vernerable Dreadnought ARMY LIST ENTRY. How many models can you take in a single Army List Entry? Up to 3. Rules as written, you'd be able to take a single unit of 1-3 Dreads. Rules as intended? Who knows.

So two lines above that they're telling you that you have to take 1 Captain in Terminator Armour ARMY LIST ENTRY?

Yes which no longer exists. The formation was written for a previous version of the codex, so is broken RaW.

What evidence do you have that it was written for a previous edition of the codex, considering the entry in the previous codex was 'Terminator Captain, not 'Captain in Terminator Armour'.

Basically GW just sucks at consistency.

The formation says:

1 Venerable Dreadnought

Not unit, not plural but 1. So you can take 1.

Take it together with a Macro Cannon Aquila Strongpoint

 Ghaz wrote:
What evidence do you have that it was written for a previous edition of the codex, considering the entry in the previous codex was 'Terminator Captain, not 'Captain in Terminator Armour'.

Basically GW just sucks at consistency.

Cool then it never worked so you have to houserule it. Also O was mistaken the datasheet is Venerable Dreadnoughts so that is broken too.

X078 wrote:
The formation says:

1 Venerable Dreadnought

Not unit, not plural but 1. So you can take 1.

That's an interesting interpretation. Do you have any rules to back it up?

I see rules on the ALE that let you add Venerable Dreadnoughts and rules that specify that Formations deal in units and ALE.

So the argument that lets you add Venerable Dreadnoughts to the 1 Venerable Dreadnought wins out, since that's the argument that has rules backing it.

col_impact wrote:

X078 wrote:
The formation says:

1 Venerable Dreadnought

Not unit, not plural but 1. So you can take 1.

That's an interesting interpretation. Do you have any rules to back it up?

I see rules on the ALE that let you add Venerable Dreadnoughts and rules that specify that Formations deal in units and ALE.

So the argument that lets you add Venerable Dreadnoughts to the 1 Venerable Dreadnought wins out, since that's the argument that has rules backing it.

If you add Venerable Dreadnaughts to the 1 Venerable Dreadnought, then you aren't taking 1 Venerable Dreadnought and aren't following the formation. Pretty straight forward.

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

X078 wrote:
The formation says:

1 Venerable Dreadnought

Not unit, not plural but 1. So you can take 1.

That's an interesting interpretation. Do you have any rules to back it up?

I see rules on the ALE that let you add Venerable Dreadnoughts and rules that specify that Formations deal in units and ALE.

So the argument that lets you add Venerable Dreadnoughts to the 1 Venerable Dreadnought wins out, since that's the argument that has rules backing it.

If you add Venerable Dreadnaughts to the 1 Venerable Dreadnought, then you aren't taking 1 Venerable Dreadnought and aren't following the formation. Pretty straight forward.

If you add a Ghost Ark to a unit of warriors in a Reclamation Legion then you are not taking a unit of warriors. Pretty straight forward. So Formations allow options to be taken that modify a Formations listing.

If the Formation has a size restriction for a unit, it mentions it in the Formation restrictions section. Pretty straight forward.

Otherwise, the player has full access to the options on the ALE. The ALE provides full permission to access those options.

col_impact wrote:

X078 wrote:
The formation says:

1 Venerable Dreadnought

Not unit, not plural but 1. So you can take 1.

That's an interesting interpretation. Do you have any rules to back it up?

I see rules on the ALE that let you add Venerable Dreadnoughts and rules that specify that Formations deal in units and ALE.

So the argument that lets you add Venerable Dreadnoughts to the 1 Venerable Dreadnought wins out, since that's the argument that has rules backing it.

Too bad RAW there is no such army list entry called 'Venerable Dreadnought'.

So you have to play it RAI and it's very obvious that RAI it's one Ven Dread in total only.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

col_impact wrote:

X078 wrote:
The formation says:

1 Venerable Dreadnought

Not unit, not plural but 1. So you can take 1.

That's an interesting interpretation. Do you have any rules to back it up?

I see rules on the ALE that let you add Venerable Dreadnoughts and rules that specify that Formations deal in units and ALE.

So the argument that lets you add Venerable Dreadnoughts to the 1 Venerable Dreadnought wins out, since that's the argument that has rules backing it.

Too bad RAW there is no such army list entry called 'Venerable Dreadnought'.

So you have to play it RAI and it's very obvious that RAI it's one Ven Dread in total only.

Incorrect. The printed versions of the Codexes provide EXACT page number references to the ALEs. So basically any overly pedantic line of reasoning that says 1 Canoptek Spyder does not use the Canoptek Spyders ALE is defeated.

.. you really want to go back to that argument again.
The argument where you tried to say 2 Spyders could be in a unit with the 1st Spyder and yet also not be a part of the Formation?
Or the argument where you make up rules in order to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder' mentioned by the Formation's special rule?

Also I'm pretty sure the Firespear Strike Force doesn't list a page number, so this new argument doesn't apply to it.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
.. you really want to go back to that argument again.
The argument where you tried to say 2 Spyders could be in a unit with the 1st Spyder and yet also not be a part of the Formation?
Or the argument where you make up rules in order to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder' mentioned by the Formation's special rule?

Also I'm pretty sure the Firespear Strike Force doesn't list a page number, so this new argument doesn't apply to it.

The only ALE that you can use has the Options to add additional Dreadnoughts.

So your choices are you cannot play the formation or you can add additional Dreadnoughts. That is RAW.

RAW, you can add additional Spyders beyond the first in the Canoptek Harvest. Doing so only adds a bookkeeping task of distinguishing the original Spyder versus the 2 upgrade Spyders. No rules are made up.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes which no longer exists. The formation was written for a previous version of the codex, so is broken RaW.

That's a mighty big assumption there. It's pretty clear what the captain in terminator armour is in the codex. A captain, who's paid the extra to be in terminator armour. It's not hard to work out that's what the RAW are and what the RAI to be.

As for the whole dreadnought debate, theres already a distinction made in the marine codex. In the battle Demi company you can take a UNIT of Dreadnoughts, is 1-3 of them. In the Strike Force Ultra detachment, it specifically states 1 Venerable dreadnought.

So if it states 1 Venerable dreadnought, that isn't a unit of multiple numbers of them.

@ col_impact:
RAW you can't as no such ALE exists.

So you have to play RAI, and it's very obvious that RAI you can only take 1 Ven Dread from the 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' ALE.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
RAW you can't as no such ALE exists.

So you have to play RAI, and it's very obvious that RAI you can only take 1.

Point to the ALE you can use. It's very obvious that on the ALE you are forced to point to that there are Options on the ALE that lets you add additional Dreadnoughts. That's the rules on the page right there. No amount of RAI can erase rules on the page.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Kroll wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes which no longer exists. The formation was written for a previous version of the codex, so is broken RaW.

That's a mighty big assumption there. It's pretty clear what the captain in terminator armour is in the codex. A captain, who's paid the extra to be in terminator armour. It's not hard to work out that's what the RAW are and what the RAI to be.

As for the whole dreadnought debate, theres already a distinction made in the marine codex. In the battle Demi company you can take a UNIT of Dreadnoughts, is 1-3 of them. In the Strike Force Ultra detachment, it specifically states 1 Venerable dreadnought.

So if it states 1 Venerable dreadnought, that isn't a unit of multiple numbers of them.

Formations require units and ALE. So it's a unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnought with the option granted by the ALE of adding additional dreadnought. Check the Formation Restrictions to see if there are any restrictions on the unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnought. If there are no Formation Restrictions then the ALE allows you to add additional dreadnoughts. Pretty straightforward RAW right there.

RAW? You can't use any ALE as there is no such ALE called 'Venerable Dreadnought'.

RAI? You can use the 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' ALE. While that option does allow you to take up to 2 additional Ven Dreads, it is also very obvious from a RAI standpoint that you are only meant (and therefore allowed) to take 1.

If your standpoint is that 'no amount of RAI can erase rules from the page', then you believe that in every circumstance RAW overrides RAI. Therefore you can never take the Formation as there is no such ALE as 'Venerable Dreadnought' or 'Captain in Terminator Armour'.

You can't have it both ways and say that in one case RAI overrides the RAW but then doesn't for this other aspect of the issue.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
RAW? You can't use any ALE as there is no such ALE called 'Venerable Dreadnought'.

RAI? You can use the 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' ALE. While that option does allow you to take up to 2 additional Ven Dreads, it is also very obvious from a RAI standpoint that you are only meant (and therefore allowed) to take 1.

If your standpoint is that 'no amount of RAI can erase rules from the page', then you believe that in every circumstance RAW overrides RAI. Therefore you can never take the Formation as there is no such ALE as 'Venerable Dreadnought' or 'Captain in Terminator Armour'.

You can't have it both ways and say that in one case RAI overrides the RAW but then doesn't for this other aspect of the issue.

An argument that insists 1 Venerable Dreadnought cannot use the Venerable Dreadnoughts ALE is dismissed as overly pedantic.

RAW arguments can dismiss overly pedantic lines of reasoning and still claim RAW.

Your argument is trying to take a negligible reference problem to justify erasing permissions obviously granted in the ALE which is rules abuse.

Ok, if you think that's overly perdantic we'll move the focus on to the Captain.

What ALE do I use for him? RAW, none. RAI, I use the Captain ALE.

Do I have to give him Terminator Armour? Sure, the Formation says he does, but in his ALE it's optional.

If you say yes he has to have Terminator armour, why does that specification matter while the '1' for the Dreadnought does not?

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Ok, if you think that's overly perdantic we'll move the focus on to the Captain.

What ALE do I use for him? RAW, none. RAI, I use the Captain ALE.

Do I have to give him Terminator Armour? Sure, the Formation says he does, but in his ALE it's optional.

If you say yes he has to have Terminator armour, why does that specification matter while the '1' for the Dreadnought does not?

The Rules, p121 wrote:Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st Millenium. Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in their games, it is not uncommon for them simply to describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together.

Not all Formation listings are created equal.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Ok, if you think that's overly perdantic we'll move the focus on to the Captain.

What ALE do I use for him? RAW, none. RAI, I use the Captain ALE.

Do I have to give him Terminator Armour? Sure, the Formation says he does, but in his ALE it's optional.

If you say yes he has to have Terminator armour, why does that specification matter while the '1' for the Dreadnought does not?

1 Dreadnought upgraded with 2 additional Dreadnoughts satisfies the 1 Dreadnought requirement.

@ Kan:
That line refers to the Special Rules a Formation gives, and how some are USRs and not explained.

In any case, last I checked Terminator armour wasn't a special rule.

@ col_impact:
So does 1 Captain not upgraded in Terminator armour satisfy the requirement?
Just because you say it does fulfil the requirement, doesn't mean it does. Why do 3 Dreadnoughts = 1? Especially if you replay to this with 1 Captain without Terminator armour =/= 1 Captain with Terminator armour.

col_impact wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Ok, if you think that's overly perdantic we'll move the focus on to the Captain.

What ALE do I use for him? RAW, none. RAI, I use the Captain ALE.

Do I have to give him Terminator Armour? Sure, the Formation says he does, but in his ALE it's optional.

If you say yes he has to have Terminator armour, why does that specification matter while the '1' for the Dreadnought does not?

1 Dreadnought upgraded with 2 additional Dreadnoughts satisfies the 1 Dreadnought requirement.

But that also goes against the formation requirements which are "1 Venerable Dreadnought".

Truthfully, this is less an example of GW's "poor rules writing" and more an example of people trying to game the system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
@ Kan:
That line refers to the Special Rules a Formation gives, and how some are USRs and not explained.

In any case, last I checked Terminator armour wasn't a special rule.

Um, no. That line is referring to the way Formations are set up.
Notably? What units you take that make up a Formation.

In every other instance of how you can take Dreadnoughts, it says stuff like "1 unit of Dreadnoughts". If you compare the Battle Demi-Company to Strike Force Ultra, one allows you to take multiple Dreadnoughts (BDC), the other allows you to take one Dreadnought (SFU). Centurion Siegebreaker Cohort follows the same phrasing.

This is actually a case of GW being consistent on how they write things. If you were able to take more than one Dreadnought, it would say "1 unit of Venerable Dreadnoughts", not 1 Venerable Dreadnought".

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
@ Kan:
That line refers to the Special Rules a Formation gives, and how some are USRs and not explained.

In any case, last I checked Terminator armour wasn't a special rule.

@ col_impact:
So does 1 Captain not upgraded in Terminator armour satisfy the requirement?
Just because you say it does fulfil the requirement, doesn't mean it does. Why do 3 Dreadnoughts = 1? Especially if you replay to this with 1 Captain without Terminator armour =/= 1 Captain with Terminator armour.

Again, 1 Dreadnought upgraded with 2 additional Dreadnoughts satisfies the 1 Dreadnought requirement. I purchase the 1 then add the 2 just as easily as I add a Ghost Ark, Trukk, or Drop Pod to Formations. The ability to do so is listed on the ALE and I break no rule when I access those options.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
In every other instance of how you can take Dreadnoughts, it says stuff like "1 unit of Dreadnoughts". If you compare the Battle Demi-Company to Strike Force Ultra, one allows you to take multiple Dreadnoughts (BDC), the other allows you to take one Dreadnought (SFU). Centurion Siegebreaker Cohort follows the same phrasing.

This is actually a case of GW being consistent on how they write things. If you were able to take more than one Dreadnought, it would say "1 unit of Venerable Dreadnoughts", not 1 Venerable Dreadnought".

Can you point to any rule which supports your assumption?

Dodging questions like a champ.

I'll repeat. Why does it? You can't just say the same statement over and over again without an actual, water-tight argument.

And again, does that mean the Captain doesn't have to take Terminator armour? Y/N Why/Why not and if he does, why is the Ven Dread able to ignore the '1' requirement?

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Dodging questions like a champ.

I'll repeat. Why does it? You can't just say the same statement over and over again without an actual, water-tight argument.

And again, does that mean the Captain doesn't have to take Terminator armour? Y/N Why/Why not and if he does, why is the Ven Dread able to ignore the '1' requirement?

I satisfy the listing when I take the Captain and take Terminator armour.

I satisfy the listing when I take 1 venerable dreadnaught and upgrade with 2 additional dreadnaughts.

Ok, but why?

Why is the Captain listing satisfied only if you take Terminator armour, while the Venerable Dreadnought listing is satisfied if you take 3 Venerable Dreadnoughts instead of 1?

At least you're only dodging part of the question now.