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.

harkequin wrote:

RAI The writer intended "1 venerable dreadnaught" to mean "1 venerable dreadnaught"

Can you refute the underlined part?



Sure. The writer intended "1 venerable dreadnaught" to mean "unit of 1 venerable dreadnaught using the Venerable Dreadnaught ALE" because if its not a unit using an ALE it is not playable in 40k.

Or are you saying that the writer intended you to play the Venerable Dreadnaught as scenery?

How are you possibly arguing that the person who wrote

"1 venerable dreadnaught" did not mean "1 venerable dreadnaught"

To make sure im not mistaken, I actually copy/pasted those, they are identical.
1 means 1
apple means apple
ostrich means ostrich.

They are all identical pairs, they mean themselves.


Oh and,

Again. You are being overly pedantic and throwing up your arms and claiming something is unplayable . . .

AND THEN using that line of reasoning to come up with a way to play that makes up rules, breaks existing rules, and attempts to field illegal items. That is rules abuse.

Here's what the formation says,

"1 captain in terminator armour"
"1 venerable dreadnaught"

My formation

"1 captain in terminator armour"
"1 venerable dreadnaught"

yours
"1 captain in terminator armour"
"3 venerable dreadnaughts"

And I'm the one abusing rules?

I'm not being pedantic, im using RAW because as discussed earlier, RAW is like that.

RAW = unplayable.
I can't stress this enough, that's why we use RAI, because RAW doesn't work all the time. This is one of those times.

If you claim to use RAW, you can never use the defense, "you're being pedantic" , instead say, "you're very thorough, that is what's written there!"

@ col_impact:
The problem is things like Wounds and all that can be tracked because the rules tell us how to determine which model(s) suffer them.

Same with other stat changes.

The Canoptek Harvest Formation does no such thing, so you made up rules in order to determine which Spyder was 'the Spyder'

Not to mention you also made up a rule at one point that 'allowed' 1 Spyder to be a member of the Formation while at the same time having its squad mates NOT be a part of the Formation and be detachment-less. And again you claimed it to be RAW (before you then dropped it, presumably because you realised that it wasn't RAW).


Ok, so I'm making up rules for the Ven Dread? Well yes, that's kinda what you have to do with RAI, otherwise you can't play the game. I'm making up just as many rules as you are to be able to legally field the Captain in the Formation. Again, hypocrisy on your part.

And one again the rules DO function when fielding a single model directly, as single models are also considered units.

Under the rules, scenery are not actual models, they're terrain.

1 Venerable Dreadnaught can only refer to 'a unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnaught using the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE'. Otherwise you have made up a rule that allows Formations to list models. And you are overlooking the fact that fielding a model directly in 40k means you are fielding scenery that will not be able to interact with any of the 40k rules for units (moving, shooting, assaulting, etc.)

and 1 captain in terminator armour can only refer to a unit of 1 captain, using the captain ALE.Otherwise you have made up a rule that allows Formations to list models. And you are overlooking the fact that fielding a model directly in 40k means you are fielding scenery that will not be able to interact with any of the 40k rules for units (moving, shooting, assaulting, etc.)

Yet you disagree with the captain getting a shiny bike and artificer armour.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
@ col_impact:
The problem is things like Wounds and all that can be tracked because the rules tell us how to determine which model(s) suffer them.

Same with other stat changes.

The Canoptek Harvest Formation does no such thing, so you made up rules in order to determine which Spyder was 'the Spyder'

Not to mention you also made up a rule at one point that 'allowed' 1 Spyder to be a member of the Formation while at the same time having its squad mates NOT be a part of the Formation and be detachment-less. And again you claimed it to be RAW (before you then dropped it, presumably because you realised that it wasn't RAW).


Ok, so I'm making up rules for the Ven Dread? Well yes, that's kinda what you have to do with RAI, otherwise you can't play the game. I'm making up just as many rules as you are to be able to legally field the Captain in the Formation. Again, hypocrisy on your part.

And one again the rules DO function when fielding a single model directly, as single models are also considered units.

Under the rules, scenery are not actual models, they're terrain.

Point to the ALE that you are required to have. At present you have a model with no rules associated with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

harkequin wrote:

1 Venerable Dreadnaught can only refer to 'a unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnaught using the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE'. Otherwise you have made up a rule that allows Formations to list models. And you are overlooking the fact that fielding a model directly in 40k means you are fielding scenery that will not be able to interact with any of the 40k rules for units (moving, shooting, assaulting, etc.)

and 1 captain in terminator armour can only refer to a unit of 1 captain, using the captain ALE.Otherwise you have made up a rule that allows Formations to list models. And you are overlooking the fact that fielding a model directly in 40k means you are fielding scenery that will not be able to interact with any of the 40k rules for units (moving, shooting, assaulting, etc.)

Yet you disagree with the captain getting a shiny bike and artificer armour.

Agreed that 1 captain in terminator armour can only refer to a unit of 1 captain using the captain ALE. Equipping it with Terminator armour is required to satisfy the Formation listing. You can then add any additional upgrades from the ALE as you like as long as the Terminator armour stay on there. If the ALE allowed you to add additional Captains you could do that too.

RAW? An ALE that doesn't exist. Ah well.

RAI? The Ven Dread ALE. However RAI you can only have 1 as it refers to a single Ven Dread, not multiple Ven Dreads.

Same thing with the Captain.

RAW? An ALE doesn't exist. Ah well.

RAI? The Captain ALE. However, RAI you have to give him Terminator armour as it refers to a Captain in Terminator armour.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
RAW? An ALE that doesn't exist. Ah well.

RAI? The Ven Dread ALE. However RAI you can only have 1 as it refers to a single Ven Dread, not multiple Ven Dreads.

Same thing with the Captain.

RAW? An ALE doesn't exist. Ah well.

RAI? The Captain ALE. However, RAI you have to give him Terminator armour as it refers to a Captain in Terminator armour.

How do you know what is RAI? Can you read the writer's mind?

The ALE we have for the Venerable Dreadnaught requires it to be fielded as a unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnaught. The ALE allows for it to be upgraded. The listing does not say that it cannot be upgraded with additional Venerable Dreadnaughts. You are making up a restriction where there is none.

If the writer had intended for the Venerable Dreadnaught to be restricted in number he would have included that restriction in the Formations Restrictions. He did not so the intent is very clear.

You read the text and determine from that.

We know that when you're able to take models normally they phrase it as 'N units of X' (where N is a number and X is a unit of some description whose models have the same name as the unit itself). From this we can conclude that when they simply say '1 X' they only want us to take 1 model from that unit with no squad mates.


The whole "How do you know what is RAI? Can you read the writer's mind? " defence is a fallacy.

This line of thought also apply to the Captain. How do we know they meant for us to take a Captain with the Termainator armour upgrade from the Captain ALE? If they wanted us to they'd have included the Terminator armour requirement in the REstrictions and told us to take 1 Captain. They did not so the intent is very clear - they meant for us to take a 'Captain in Terminator armour' from the 'Captain in Terminator armour' ALE. Any other interpretation is attempting to read the writer's mind which no one can do.

How do you know what is RAI? Can you read the writer's mind?

Can you?
Are you playing it RAW?
Are you using the "captain in terminator armour" ALE?

or are you assuming the writer intended it to be playable?

If the writer had intended for the Venerable Dreadnaught to be restricted in number he would have included that restriction in the Formations Restrictions. He did not so the intent is very clear.

Or y'know , if he meant "one venerable dreadnaught" he'd write " one venerable dreadnaught" , just a thought.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
You read the text and determine from that.

We know that when you're able to take models normally they phrase it as 'N units of X' (where N is a number and X is a unit of some description whose models have the same name as the unit itself). From this we can conclude that when they simply say '1 X' they only want us to take 1 model from that unit with no squad mates.

Do you have some rule which supports this assumption on your part? Otherwise you are making up a rule based on wild guessing.

I have rules in the ALE for the Venerable Dreadnaught that says I can add additional Dreadnaughts. You are lacking a rule that restricts that granted permission. My rule trumps your made up guess.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

harkequin wrote:

How do you know what is RAI? Can you read the writer's mind?

Can you?
Are you playing it RAW?
Are you using the "captain in terminator armour" ALE?

or are you assuming the writer intended it to be playable?

If the writer had intended for the Venerable Dreadnaught to be restricted in number he would have included that restriction in the Formations Restrictions. He did not so the intent is very clear.

Or y'know , if he meant "one venerable dreadnaught" he'd write " one venerable dreadnaught" , just a thought.

Point to the ALEs which the rules require to use.

Well yes, it's an assumption.
That's what RAI is. If it was literal from the rules themself it would be RAW

You have a rule that allows you to add additional Ven Dreads in the 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' ALE. What rule allows you to use the 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' ALE?

Or:

You have a rule that allows you to take Terminator armour for the 'Captain' ALE. You don't have to take it though. What rule allows you to use the 'Captain' ALE for the Firespear Task Force?

Point to the ALEs which the rules require to use.

How about you point them out. Show us RAW which ALEs we are meant to use. Not RAI - that's our side - but RAW.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Well yes, it's an assumption.
That's what RAI is. If it was literal from the rules themself it would be RAW

You have a rule that allows you to add additional Ven Dreads in the 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' ALE. What rule allows you to use the 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' ALE?

Or:

You have a rule that allows you to take Terminator armour for the 'Captain' ALE. You don't have to take it though. What rule allows you to use the 'Captain' ALE for the Firespear Task Force?

Point to the ALEs which the rules require to use.

How about you point them out. Show us RAW which ALEs we are meant to use. Not RAI - that's our side - but RAW.

You have to have an ALE or else you have no rules for your unit. So point to the ALEs you are using.

Well, the Formation rules (RAW, obviously) tell you what ALEs to use.
If the ALE doesn't exist, oh well. According to you we can never use RAI because we can't read the writers' minds, therefore we can only use ALEs that don't exist. Since they don't exist, we can't use them. Ergo, we can't use the Formation.

So sad.


This is what your current argument says happens. If you disagree, why?

If you say we can use the 'Captain' and 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' ALEs without RAI, show us the rule that allows us to.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Well, the Formation rules (RAW, obviously) tell you what ALEs to use.
If the ALE doesn't exist, oh well. According to you we can never use RAI because we can't read the writers' minds, therefore we can only use ALEs that don't exist. Since they don't exist, we can't use them. Ergo, we can't use the Formation.

So sad.


This is what your current argument says happens. If you disagree, why?

If you say we can use the 'Captain' and 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' ALEs without RAI, show us the rule that allows us to.

I am asking you to point to the ALEs that your argument is using. If you can't point to an ALE you have no argument since the rules require you to use an ALE. So which ones are you using?

RAI? the 'Captain' and 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' ALEs, with the additional restriction of forcing the Captain to have Terminator armour and the Venerable Dreadnought to not purchase and squad-mates.

RAW? 2 ALEs they don't have any rules. Warhammer 40,000: The Rules just says they can only refer to ALEs, it doesn't say those ALEs have to have any rules. So obviously (RAW) the ALEs 'Captain in Terminator armour' and 'Venerable Dreadnough' exist, they just lack any rules or points costs.

Point to the ALEs which the rules require to use.

Not my argument mate. That's yours.
If you are so keen to argue that you only use RAW, then without any RAI at all, tell me what ALEs to use.

Tell me what ALEs to use , and where you get permission to use ALEs that are not listed in the formation.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
RAI? the 'Captain' and 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' ALEs, with the additional restriction of forcing the Captain to have Terminator armour and the Venerable Dreadnought to not purchase and squad-mates.

So you are wildly making up a restriction.

The ALE that you are using has a very clear rule that grants a very clear permission.



You cannot wildly make up a rule that goes directly counter an established rule.

The writer of the rule would have been very familiar with the permission granted on the ALE to add additional Dreadnaughts and chose not to restrict that permission.

Therefore, RAI and RAW, you can add additional dreadnaughts. The permission is right there on the ALE and nowhere is that permission revoked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

harkequin wrote:

Point to the ALEs which the rules require to use.

Not my argument mate. That's yours.
If you are so keen to argue that you only use RAW, then without any RAI at all, tell me what ALEs to use.

Tell me what ALEs to use , and where you get permission to use ALEs that are not listed in the formation.

The rules require you to use an ALE. So if you cannot point to an ALE you have no argument.

So you have no argument then as RAW you can't point to an ALE to use?

Thank god this thread can finally finish.

And I already explained the RAI section.

We know that when you're able to take models normally they phrase it as 'N units of X' (where N is a number and X is a unit of some description whose models have the same name as the unit itself). From this we can conclude that when they simply say '1 X' they only want us to take 1 model from that unit with no squad mates.

It's obvious that RAI you can't take 2 additional Ven Dreads.
You can't say that you can RAW, because then you can't even use the ALE in the first place. Either way you don't get 2 additional Ven Dreads, it's just the RAW way also means you can't field the Formation without the game breaking during the list building stage.

harkequin wrote:

Point to the ALEs which the rules require to use.



Not my argument mate. That's yours.
If you are so keen to argue that you only use RAW, then without any RAI at all, tell me what ALEs to use.

Tell me what ALEs to use , and where you get permission to use ALEs that are not listed in the formation.



The rules require you to use an ALE. So if you cannot point to an ALE you have no argument.

EXACTLY!
RAW you can point to no ALE, so you have no argument.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
So you have no argument then as RAW you can't point to an ALE to use?

Thank god this thread can finally finish.

And I already explained the RAI section.

We know that when you're able to take models normally they phrase it as 'N units of X' (where N is a number and X is a unit of some description whose models have the same name as the unit itself). From this we can conclude that when they simply say '1 X' they only want us to take 1 model from that unit with no squad mates.

It's obvious that RAI you can't take 2 additional Ven Dreads.
You can't say that you can RAW, because then you can't even use the ALE in the first place. Either way you don't get 2 additional Ven Dreads, it's just the RAW way also means you can't field the Formation without the game breaking during the list building stage.

It's obvious RAI that you can take additional Dreadnaughts. The permission to do so is right there on the ALE that you required use. The writer would have been fully aware that that permission is granted. If he wanted to take that granted permission away he would have done so in a restriction.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

harkequin wrote:

harkequin wrote:

Point to the ALEs which the rules require to use.



Not my argument mate. That's yours.
If you are so keen to argue that you only use RAW, then without any RAI at all, tell me what ALEs to use.

Tell me what ALEs to use , and where you get permission to use ALEs that are not listed in the formation.



The rules require you to use an ALE. So if you cannot point to an ALE you have no argument.

EXACTLY!
RAW you can point to no ALE, so you have no argument.

I have pointed in my argument to the ALEs I am required to use. You have to point to the ALEs that you are using in your argument. Otherwise you have no argument. The game requires ALEs.

It's obvious RAI that you can take additional Dreadnaughts. The permission to do so is right there on the ALE that you use. The writer would have been fully aware that that permission is granted.

Don't change the subject. You said you only used RAW, not RAI. We've been discussing this for pages, you said you're argument was RAW.

If you want to argue RAI, we can move on to it, given that you agree we are no longer arguing RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I have pointed in my argument to the ALEs I am required to use. You have to point to the ALEs that you are using in your argument. Otherwise you have no argument. The game requires ALEs.

What RAW ALEs did you point to, because the ALEs im pointing to are
"captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".

It's up to you to show the RAW why we can use ALEs that aren't "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".

So 1 Dread = 3 Dreads?

I didn't realise that RAI maths don't exist the way they do in real life. It specifies a single model. By the rules of the game (page 9), single models are always considered a unit.



Also I can give the Captain artificer armour and a bike, permission is right there on his ALE that you use (or rather, don't use RAW, but whatever). The writer would have been fully aware that that permission is granted. He did not restrict it in the restrictions.

Looks like that if RAW you could take a Captain in the first place you can choose to not give him Terminator armour.

you pointed to "captain" and "venerable dreadnaughts" which are not the same as "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".

harkequin wrote:

It's obvious RAI that you can take additional Dreadnaughts. The permission to do so is right there on the ALE that you use. The writer would have been fully aware that that permission is granted.

Don't change the subject. You said you only used RAW, not RAI. We've been discussing this for pages, you said you're argument was RAW.

If you want to argue RAI, we can move on to it, given that you agree we are no longer arguing RAW.

I have fully fleshed out my argument based consistently on RAW. I don't need to discuss RAI.

You have failed to produce a full argument. You have failed to point to an ALE.

Your particular RAI argument fails because you are trying to make up a rule out of nowhere that goes against a permission clearly granted on the ALE you are required to use. The writer of the rule would have been fully aware of the permission granted on the ALE and chose not to restrict it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
So 1 Dread = 3 Dreads?

I didn't realise that RAI maths don't exist the way they do in real life. It specifies a single model. By the rules of the game (page 9), single models are always considered a unit.



Also I can give the Captain artificer armour and a bike, permission is right there on his ALE that you use (or rather, don't use RAW, but whatever). The writer would have been fully aware that that permission is granted. He did not restrict it in the restrictions.

Looks like that if RAW you could take a Captain in the first place you can choose to not give him Terminator armour.

What are you going to do about this rule on the ALE?



That rule defeats your whole RAI argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

harkequin wrote:
you pointed to "captain" and "venerable dreadnaughts" which are not the same as "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".

What ALEs are you going to point to in your argument and use when you are playing the Captain and Venerable Dreadnaught?

If you cannot come forth and simply state this you have no argument

And RAI the Formation clearly specifies a single model.3 models aren't 1.

have fully fleshed out my argument based consistently on RAW.

If this was true you would be arguing that you can't use the Firespear Task Force as it refers to 2 ALEs without rules.

harkequin wrote:
you pointed to "captain" and "venerable dreadnaughts" which are not the same as "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".



What ALEs are you going to point to in your argument and use when you are playing the Captain and Venerable Dreadnaught?

If you cannot come forth and simply state this you have no argument

You haven't answered me yet.
Where is your permission to use "captain" and "venerable dreadnaught" ALEs , using only RAW

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
And RAI the Formation clearly specifies a single model.3 models aren't 1.

The Formation lists 1 model that can be upgraded with 2 additional models. It's right there on the rules. You purchase the 1 model satisfying the Formation and then are free to upgrade 2 more models.

Are you saying that the permission clearly granted on the ALE is somehow restricted?? If so please point to the rule that restricts that permission. Failure to do so means that that permission is freely exercisable by the player.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

have fully fleshed out my argument based consistently on RAW
If this was true you would be arguing that you can't use the Firespear Task Force as it refers to 2 ALEs without rules.

My RAW argument is not an overly pedantic one.

The Formation rules require us to use units and ALEs. As long as we are not overly pedantic we can easily find the ALEs. It's not even debatable which ALEs to use.

The only possible ALE that 1 Venerable Dreadnaught can refer to is the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE.

The only possible ALE that 1 Captain in Terminator armour can refer to is the Captain ALE.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

harkequin wrote:

harkequin wrote:
you pointed to "captain" and "venerable dreadnaughts" which are not the same as "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".



What ALEs are you going to point to in your argument and use when you are playing the Captain and Venerable Dreadnaught?

If you cannot come forth and simply state this you have no argument

You haven't answered me yet.
Where is your permission to use "captain" and "venerable dreadnaught" ALEs , using only RAW

Already answered many times.



So which ALEs are you going to use or are you conceding that you have no argument?

My RAW argument is not an overly pedantic one.

The Formation rules require us to use units and ALEs. As long as we are not overly pedantic we can easily find the ALEs. It's not even debatable which ALEs to use.

The only possible ALE that 1 Venerable Dreadnaught can refer to is the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE.

The only possible ALE that 1 Captain in Terminator armour can refer to is the Captain ALE.

You are making an assumption, that is not RAW.

Show me where it gives you written permission to use ALEs that are NOT "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"

If you can present this permission in the rules as written then it is not RAW.

"Overly pendantic RAW" is what RAW is col_impact

I treat negligible reference problems as negligible

That is literally RAI.
Literally the exact opposite of RAW.

You use the intent of a rule because the letter of the law makes no sense.

This is not RAW. If you make an assumption, it's not RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

So which ALEs are you going to use or are you conceding that you have no argument?

What argument am i making?
I'm saying that you are not using RAW. You have to show me the rules.

All i'm arguing is that you are not using RAW, I don't need to use ALEs to point out the holes in your argument.

RAW the formation is unusable.

ALEs we are told to use,
"captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".

RAW you may only use these ALEs
If you want to use the formation, it's up to you to present them to me.

RAW without any asssumptions at all, how are you fielding 2 ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught" ?

 CrownAxe wrote:
"Overly pendantic RAW" is what RAW is col_impact

Nope. Overly pedantic RAW allows itself to intentionally get hung up on negligible technical details.

It's not debatable that we have to use ALEs. It's not debatable which ALEs to use. It's patently obvious and noncontroversial which ALEs to use.

So it's clear that the RAW is to use ALEs and to use the patently obvious ones (Venerable Dreadnaughts, Captain)

It's also clear that any rules on those ALEs need to be followed. That includes the permission to add additional Dreadnaughts unless that permission is somehow taken away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

harkequin wrote:

I treat negligible reference problems as negligible

That is literally RAI.
Literally the exact opposite of RAW.

You use the intent of a rule because the letter of the law makes no sense.

This is not RAW. If you make an assumption, it's not RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

So which ALEs are you going to use or are you conceding that you have no argument?

What argument am i making?
I'm saying that you are not using RAW. You have to show me the rules.

All i'm arguing is that you are not using RAW, I don't need to use ALEs to point out the holes in your argument.

RAW the formation is unusable.

ALEs we are told to use,
"captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".

RAW you may only use these ALEs
If you want to use the formation, it's up to you to present them to me.

RAW without any asssumptions at all, how are you fielding 2 ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught" ?

So your argument is that you cannot play that Formation?