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.

The unit data sheet for the Venerable Dreadnought is "Venerable Dreadnoughts" not "Venerable Dreadnought". Much like the Captain in Terminator Armor (a unit data sheet that does not exist), the 1 Venerable Dreadnought is a specific entry.

Do you have any rules to support your assumption? Where can I find the unit data sheet for the Venerable Dreadnought? What options does it have?

@ casvalremdeikun:
"That doesn't matter because that's being overly pedantic and you can ignore that and still be playing completely RAW."

The above was col_impact's argument when I brought up the exact same thing.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
@ casvalremdeikun:
"That doesn't matter because that's being overly pedantic and you can ignore that and still be playing completely RAW."

The above was col_impact's argument when I brought up the exact same thing.

My point was that it only allows a single Dreadnought because the entry in the formation does not say 1 Venerable Dreadnoughts(the Unit Data Sheet entry), but 1 Venerable Dreadnought(a specific entry).

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
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.

I am not dodging anything. I am simply upgrading which the rules allow me to do.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
@ casvalremdeikun:
"That doesn't matter because that's being overly pedantic and you can ignore that and still be playing completely RAW."

The above was col_impact's argument when I brought up the exact same thing.

My point was that it only allows a single Dreadnought because the entry in the formation does not say 1 Venerable Dreadnoughts(the Unit Data Sheet entry), but 1 Venerable Dreadnought(a specific entry).

Can you point to rules which back your assumption?

The Formation rules specify that you access UNITS and ALE.

So I will follow the Formations rules which are RAW.

I know, I agree with you.

It's just that col_impact will most likely give you the same response he gave me, "that you're being too pedantic".

That or he'll bring up the fact that RAW Formation only refer to ALEs and not individual models (Even though that fact breaks his argument being solely RAW like he claims... but whatever).

Called it!

@ col_impact:
You literally (again) dodged the 'why?' part of the question in your response that you are not dodging anything...

Again, 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?

I'll keep asking the same question until you answer it. I need a reason agree with you. A statement without an argument behind it does not give me a reason.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I know, I agree with you.

It's just that col_impact will most likely give you the same response he gave me, "that you're being too pedantic".

That or he'll bring up the fact that RAW Formation only refer to ALEs and not individual models (Even though that fact breaks his argument being solely RAW like he claims... but whatever).

Called it!

@ col_impact:
You literally (again) dodged the 'why?' part of the question in your response that you are not dodging anything...

Again, 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?

I'll keep asking the same question until you answer it. I need a reason agree with you. A statement without an argument behind it does not give me a reason.

Already answered

To be fair to col_impact he has a point that saying Venerable Dreadnought doesn't apply to the datasheet Venerable Dreadnoughts is some what overly pedantic. Where the rules do explicitly state that Formations list ALE rather than model names. If GW wanted you to only take 1 Ven Dread then the formation needs to list Ven Dreads with a restriction that the unit can only comprise of 1 model. So we are left with either GW not writing the rules in a consistent manner (likely) or they have typo'd and missed an "s" off their unit name (also likely).

col's interpretation does follow the written rules as close as is possible.

@ col_impact:

No, that's a statement that you satisfy the listing.

Why do you satisfy the listing? That is what I've been asking.

Why does a Caption without Terminator armour not equal a Captain with Terminator armour while 3 Venerable Dreadnoughts equal 1 Venerable Dreadnought?

If you add 2 dreadnoughts to 1 Venerable Dreadnoughts, then you have 3 Venerable Dradnoughts not 1. thats basic math

 CrownAxe wrote:
If you add 2 dreadnoughts to 1 Venerable Dreadnoughts, then you have 3 Venerable Dradnoughts not 1. thats basic math

1 Venerable Dreadnought that opts for the 2 additional Dreadnought upgrade satisfies the 1 Dreadnought requirement. That's basic logic.

Ok, but why?

To everyone else in this tread it does not. Explain to us with your basic logic why it does.

If 3 Dreads = 1, then QED 1 Captain w/o Termi armour = 1 Captain w/ it.
His Termi armour is an option, and sure the listing specifies it, but that doesn't overrule his ALE which gives me the choice to not take it.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Ok, but why?

To everyone else in this tread it does not. Explain to us with your basic logic why it does.

If 3 Dreads = 1, then QED 1 Captain w/o Termi armour = 1 Captain w/ it.
His Termi armour is an option, and sure the listing specifies it, but that doesn't overrule his ALE which gives me the choice to not take it.

A Formation that lists '1 unit of warriors' is satisfied by 1 unit of Warriors that takes the option of a Ghost Ark unit (even though 2 units does not equal 1 unit?!)

A Formation that list '1 unit of Warriors in a Ghost Ark' is not satisfied by 1 unit of Warriors alone. The warriors must take the option of the Ghost Ark unit.

In each case the listing is satisfied and legal options are purchased on top of that per the ALE.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
If you add 2 dreadnoughts to 1 Venerable Dreadnoughts, then you have 3 Venerable Dradnoughts not 1. thats basic math

1 Venerable Dreadnought that opts for the 2 additional Dreadnought upgrade satisfies the 1 Dreadnought requirement. That's basic logic.

No it doesn't and no its not.

Here's a simple question. If you added 2 dreadnoughts to the dreadnought, how many dreadnoughts do you have in the formation?

@ col_impact:

Wait, but 'Warriors in a Ghost Ark' isn't an ALE.

So I'll use RAI to use the closest entry possible - the Warriors entry - and see that the Ghost Ark is only optional. The Formation entry doesn't override the ALE, therefore I won't take the Ghost Ark. This is allowed because RAW I don't have to take the Ghost Ark.

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
If you add 2 dreadnoughts to 1 Venerable Dreadnoughts, then you have 3 Venerable Dradnoughts not 1. thats basic math

1 Venerable Dreadnought that opts for the 2 additional Dreadnought upgrade satisfies the 1 Dreadnought requirement. That's basic logic.

No it doesn't and no its not.

Here's a simple question. If you added 2 dreadnoughts to the dreadnought, how many dreadnoughts do you have in the formation?

I have as many as the ALE has given permission to add on top of the 1 dreadnaught already purchased for the Formation.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
If you add 2 dreadnoughts to 1 Venerable Dreadnoughts, then you have 3 Venerable Dradnoughts not 1. thats basic math

1 Venerable Dreadnought that opts for the 2 additional Dreadnought upgrade satisfies the 1 Dreadnought requirement. That's basic logic.

No it doesn't and no its not.

Here's a simple question. If you added 2 dreadnoughts to the dreadnought, how many dreadnoughts do you have in the formation?

I have as many as the ALE has given permission to add on top of the 1 dreadnaught already purchased for the Formation.

The formation doesn't say "1 ALE Venerable Dreadnought" it says "1 Venerable Dreadnought"

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
If you add 2 dreadnoughts to 1 Venerable Dreadnoughts, then you have 3 Venerable Dradnoughts not 1. thats basic math

1 Venerable Dreadnought that opts for the 2 additional Dreadnought upgrade satisfies the 1 Dreadnought requirement. That's basic logic.

No it doesn't and no its not.

Here's a simple question. If you added 2 dreadnoughts to the dreadnought, how many dreadnoughts do you have in the formation?

I have as many as the ALE has given permission to add on top of the 1 dreadnaught already purchased for the Formation.

The formation doesn't say "1 ALE Venerable Dreadnought" it says "1 Venerable Dreadnought"

In effect the rules do indeed say "1 ALE Venerable Dreadnought" as the rules explicitly state that Formations list ALEs.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
@ col_impact:

Wait, but 'Warriors in a Ghost Ark' isn't an ALE.

So I'll use RAI to use the closest entry possible - the Warriors entry - and see that the Ghost Ark is only optional. The Formation entry doesn't override the ALE, therefore I won't take the Ghost Ark. This is allowed because RAW I don't have to take the Ghost Ark.

Sorry. You are not satisfying the listing. You purchase to satisfy the listing and can opt to add upgrades on top of that (unless the Formation explicitly restricts those upgrades). If the ALE allowed you to add Grot Oilers as well you could satisfy the listing of '1 unit of warriors in a ghost ark' with '1 unit of warriors, 1 Ghost Ark, and 1 Grot Oiler'

Let's try some rules...

From 'Formations' in the rulebook:

"Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain."

And then from 'Army List Entries':

"Regardless of where this information is found, it is known as an Army List Entry. Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel miniatures..."

This establishes the default position of what a formation datasheet lists as being the a unit of what is listed per its datasheet or army list entry.

It may be intended that only a single model should be taken, however as it stands RAW does not restrict from filling out the unit per its datasheet.

col_impact wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
@ col_impact:

Wait, but 'Warriors in a Ghost Ark' isn't an ALE.

So I'll use RAI to use the closest entry possible - the Warriors entry - and see that the Ghost Ark is only optional. The Formation entry doesn't override the ALE, therefore I won't take the Ghost Ark. This is allowed because RAW I don't have to take the Ghost Ark.

Sorry. You are not satisfying the listing. You purchase to satisfy the listing and can opt to add upgrades on top of that (unless the Formation explicitly restricts those upgrades). If the ALE allowed you to add Grot Oilers as well you could satisfy the listing of '1 unit of warriors in a ghost ark' with '1 unit of warriors, 1 Ghost Ark, and 1 Grot Oiler'

How so? I've just used RAI to be able to purchase the unit in the first place and RAW to not purchase a Ghost Ark.

I mean sure, full RAI would require me to buy the Ghost Ark, but that doesn't matter, in the same way full RAI would require me to not purchase 2 additional Ven Dreads.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
@ col_impact:

Wait, but 'Warriors in a Ghost Ark' isn't an ALE.

So I'll use RAI to use the closest entry possible - the Warriors entry - and see that the Ghost Ark is only optional. The Formation entry doesn't override the ALE, therefore I won't take the Ghost Ark. This is allowed because RAW I don't have to take the Ghost Ark.

Sorry. You are not satisfying the listing. You purchase to satisfy the listing and can opt to add upgrades on top of that (unless the Formation explicitly restricts those upgrades). If the ALE allowed you to add Grot Oilers as well you could satisfy the listing of '1 unit of warriors in a ghost ark' with '1 unit of warriors, 1 Ghost Ark, and 1 Grot Oiler'

How so? I've just used RAI to be able to purchase the unit in the first place and RAW to not purchase a Ghost Ark.

I mean sure, full RAI would require me to buy the Ghost Ark, but that doesn't matter, in the same way full RAI would require me to not purchase 2 additional Ven Dreads.

As stated already, you satisfy the Formation listing and then can add any additional options/upgrades on top of that. The listing of '1 unit of warriors in a ghost ark' means you purchase 1 unit of warriors and 1 ghost ark. If the ALE allows you to add additional stuff on top of that then you are free to do so (unless the Formation lists restrictions). That is RAW.

Yes, but the clear RAI is that you can't add more Venerable Dreadnoughts. The intent is plain as day. You can't deny that.

If you're going to use RAI to take the Captain then you should do the exact same for the Ven Dread, not pick and choose where it suits you.

Whether it works RAW or not doesn't matter when it's clear as day what the RAI is meant to be, otherwise the game would cease to function every time a Psychic phase occurred.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Yes, but the clear RAI is that you can't add more Venerable Dreadnoughts. The intent is plain as day. You can't deny that.

If you're going to use RAI to take the Captain then you should do the exact same for the Ven Dread, not pick and choose where it suits you.

I use RAW each case. It's clear as day following the Formation rules and the ALE that I can add additional Venerable Dreadnoughts to the unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnought. If GW wanted to restrict the number they would have done so in the Formation Restrictions. Real straightforward.

I didn't realise 'Captain in Terminator armour' was an ALE...

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I didn't realise 'Captain in Terminator armour' was an ALE...

Overly pedantic.

Is there a Captain ALE? Yes.

Is Terminator armour an option on the Captain ALE? Yes

Is it possible to use any other ALE besides that one? No.

So even if its somewhat loose in pedantic terms, RAW clearly points to only one ALE and it's that ALE that I use.

wat

Are you actually claiming that RAW you can use the Captain ALE instead of an ALE called 'Captain in Terminator armour'? And that it's overly pedantic to say that it isn't one?

wat

This isn't a case where you could argue it's a typo and they forgot an s. 3 whole words have been added to it.



Also I just remembered that one of your previous arguments was that in order to be forbidden from taking 2 additional models in the unit it'd have to be listed in the Restrictions. Therefore the Captain doesn't need to take Terminator armour RAW (assuming he can be taken RAW in the first place, which he can't) as the Restrictions don't say he has to. But hang on, didn't you saw he has to take Terminator armour RAW?

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
wat

Are you actually claiming that RAW you can use the Captain ALE instead of an ALE called 'Captain in Terminator armour'? And that it's overly pedantic to say that it isn't one?

wat

This isn't a case where you could argue it's a typo and they forgot an s. 3 whole words have been added to it.



Also I just remembered that one of your previous arguments was that in order to be forbidden from taking 2 additional models in the unit it'd have to be listed in the Restrictions. Therefore the Captain doesn't need to take Terminator armour RAW (assuming he can be taken RAW in the first place, which he can't) as the Restrictions don't say he has to. But hang on, didn't you saw he has to take Terminator armour RAW?

As stated already, it is loose in pedantic terms, but the listing is 'Captain in Terminator Armour' which points to the Captain ALE with the Terminator Armour option. Once you satisfy the listing any additional upgrades can be purchased for the Captain (digital weapons, etc.) as long as they are legal and a legal combination with what is already purchased.

GW is loose with its conventions but RAW it still can only point to Captain ALE with the Terminator Armour option. If you don't include the Terminator Armour you aren't satisfying the listing.

col_impact wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I didn't realise 'Captain in Terminator armour' was an ALE...

Overly pedantic. .

For someone who claims RAW. This statement means you cannot defeat his argument and are diverting. You cannot play it both ways, its either strict RAW or you admit your using RAI.

@ col_impact:

RAW it points to a ALE that doesn't exist.
RAI it points to a Captain that takes the Terminator armour option.

You are actually calling RAI RAW.


Also 'GW is loose with its conventions' actually hurts your argument, as that means you can only take 1 Venerable Dreadnought and no more because GW consistently uses this terminology when they want you to not take additional models in a 1-model unit, even though conventionally you are able to because Formations refer to ALEs not individual models.

Also if you haven't noticed most RAW arguments ARE pedantic, because they have to follow the rules as close as possible. I can accept forgetting an s on the end of Venerable Dreadnoughts as being too pedantic, but mentioning the fact that 3 whole words have been added to the end of Captain? There is no way I can see that as being too pedantic to be RAW.

Fragile wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I didn't realise 'Captain in Terminator armour' was an ALE...

Overly pedantic. .

For someone who claims RAW. This statement means you cannot defeat his argument and are diverting. You cannot play it both ways, its either strict RAW or you admit your using RAI.

There is a difference between RAW and 'overly pedantic RAW'. I choose RAW.

An example of 'overly pedantic RAW' is someone who claims that '1 Canoptek Spyder (pg. 93)' for the Canoptek Harvest does not refer to the ALE on page 93 which is 'Canoptek Spyders'.

RAW the Necron codex is without a doubt pointing exactly to the ALE on page 93 in the case of the '1 Canoptek Spyder'. Getting hung up on the missing 's' is indeed overly pedantic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
GW consistently uses this terminology when they want you to not take additional models in a 1-model unit, even though conventionally you are able to because Formations refer to ALEs not individual models.

That is quite an assumption you are making there. Do you have any rules at all backing up your claim that GW "consistently uses this terminology when they want you to not take additional models in a 1-model unit" or are you just trying to throw an assumption around as if it was an explicit GW rule? You are just throwing assumption around with no actual rule support


Do you have any rule at all to say that '1 Venerable Dreadnaught' means '1 Venerable Dreadnaught with its option of adding additional Dreadnaughts taken away'?


RAW reads entirely different. I see Formation rules that require you to treat '1 Venerable Dreadnaught' as a 'unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnaught' and upgrade options on the ALE that are in no way restricted.