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.

Yes, and should be yours too if you're arguing RAW as that is what is written in the rules.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Yes, and should be yours too if you're arguing RAW as that is what is written in the rules.

Nope. My RAW argument is not an overly pedantic one. It's not controversial which ALEs to use. Can you even point to other ALEs as options?

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.

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.

You still haven't answered.
Show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".

Saying "it's clear", amounts to , "because i said so"

So your argument is that you cannot play that Formation?

Precisely.

More clearly i'm trying to highlight to you that RAI is an important part of the rules.

When we brought up RAI you said "can you read their mind?"
So I'm pointing out that using pure RAW (Which you claim to use) you can't do what you want (field the formation).

However with RAI we can (safely) assume the designers intended it to be playable, therefore we can assume they intended us to use the closest ALEs

If you don't accept RAI this discussion can't continue.

Put simply.
YOU ARE USING RAI



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nope. My RAW argument is not an overly pedantic one.

then its not RAW, it's RAI , that's what seperates them

harkequin wrote:

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.

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.

You still haven't answered.
Show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".

Saying "it's clear", amounts to , "because i said so"

So your argument is that you cannot play that Formation?

Precisely.

More clearly i'm trying to highlight to you that RAI is an important part of the rules.

When we brought up RAI you said "can you read their mind?"
So I'm pointing out that using pure RAW (Which you claim to use) you can't do what you want (field the formation).

However with RAI we can (safely) assume the designers intended it to be playable, therefore we can assume they intended us to use the closest ALEs

If you don't accept RAI this discussion can't continue.

Put simply.
YOU ARE USING RAI

So you are saying it's patently obvious and noncontroversial which ALEs to use?

Yea, my RAW argument doesn't bother getting hung up on things that are patently obvious and noncontroversial. That's what not being overly pedantic means.

So you are saying it's patently obvious and noncontroversial which ALEs to use?

No.

did you read my argument?
I'm not arguing which to use, im arguing that RAW doesn't let you field this.

Yea, my RAW argument doesn't bother getting hung up on things that are patently obvious and noncontroversial. That's what not being overly pedantic means

So you are ignoring part of what's written?
So you are not using the rules as they are written?
then it is not RAW


Now you still haven't answered me...

Show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".

making no assumptions, using only RAW, which i remind you, means Rules as written , you don't get to assume anything, use only whats written. Because this is RAW

harkequin wrote:

So you are saying it's patently obvious and noncontroversial which ALEs to use?

No.

did you read my argument?
I'm not arguing which to use, im arguing that RAW doesn't let you field this.

Yea, my RAW argument doesn't bother getting hung up on things that are patently obvious and noncontroversial. That's what not being overly pedantic means

So you are ignoring part of what's written?
So you are not using the rules as they are written?
then it is not RAW


Now you still haven't answered me...

Show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".

making no assumptions, using only RAW, which i remind you, means Rules as written , you don't get to assume anything, use only whats written. Because this is RAW

It's patently obvious and noncontroversial which ALEs to use. No other tenable options can be put forward. Therefore we don't even need to argue because its negligible. That's what a RAW argument does that is not overly pedantic. It does not get hung up with patently obvious and noncontroversial and negligible things.

It's patently obvious and noncontroversial which ALEs to use. No other tenable options can be put forward. Therefore we don't even need to argue because its negligible.

So you have no RAW argument then,
If it's obvious that they intended which ALEs to use, its RAI

otherwise
Show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".

harkequin wrote:

It's patently obvious and noncontroversial which ALEs to use. No other tenable options can be put forward. Therefore we don't even need to argue because its negligible.

So you have no RAW argument then,
If it's obvious that they intended which ALEs to use, its RAI

otherwise
Show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught".

There is no need for any argument. It's patently obvious which ALEs we use. We don't need to resort to any overly pedantic line of reasoning. Are there any other tenable ALEs to use?

There is no need for any argument. It's patently obvious which ALEs we use. Are there any other tenable ALEs to use?

There is need for an argument, you claim its RAW, then Show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"

otherwise admit you are not using RAW to determine which ALEs to use.

The answer "it's obvious, i dont need to back it up with what's written, might be acceptable if you weren't arguing that everything you said was backed up by what's written.

harkequin wrote:

There is no need for any argument. It's patently obvious which ALEs we use. Are there any other tenable ALEs to use?

There is need for an argument, you claim its RAW, then Show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"

otherwise admit you are not using RAW to determine which ALEs to use.

The answer "it's obvious, i dont need to back it up with what's written, might be acceptable if you weren't arguing that everything you said was backed up by what's written.

My argument is RAW. It just refrains from arguing in an overly pedantic manner. All proper RAW arguments should refrain from overly pedantic arguments that are intent on breaking the rules so no one plays.

Using the RAW to argue against patently obvious and noncontroversial items is rules abuse. An overly pedantic argument that claims that the formation cannot be played RAW is rules abuse. I refrain from rules abuse.



So we are agreed about which ALEs to use. That item is put to rest. What's the next item to address?

You still havent answered me...

Show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"

Show me this one simple rule, and you win.
Don't keep saying it's obvious , or pedantic.

You're the one arguing it's RAW , so use it.

If it really is the rules as written then it should be easy to copy paste.

I'm off for the night, take your time, reply whenever you can show me the permission to use ALEs that aren't "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"

harkequin wrote:
You still havent answered me...

Show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"

Show me this one simple rule, and you win.
Don't keep saying it's obvious , or pedantic.

You're the one arguing it's RAW , so use it.

If it really is the rules as written then it should be easy to copy paste.

I'm off for the night, take your time, reply whenever you can show me the permission to use ALEs that aren't "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"

My argument is RAW. And I have always made clear that it is not an overly pedantic RAW. The game of 40k is not infallible so an overly pedantic RAW means you don't get to play. so in order to play you have to not sweat the obvious stuff like 'a Formation is meant to be played'. By arguing RAW I mean using RAW to sort out controversial, non-obvious things worth arguing about and only resorting to RAI when RAW offers no solution about those controversial things.

The Formation rules require you to use units and ALEs so you are required to find an ALE to use to play and you are required to field the Formation listing as a unit.

Any line of reasoning that thinks you can field models directly goes against all of the rules in 40k.

Any line of reasoning that thinks you do not require ALEs for your models goes directly against RAW and is practically untenable because doing so means you lack the rules to field the unit.

So the rules direct us to find ALEs for '1 Venerable Dreadnaught' and 'Captain in Terminator armour'

It's patently obvious and noncontroversial which ALEs to use for Venerable Dreadnaught and Captain in Terminator armour so we use those ALEs (Venerable Dreadnaughts, Captain). If the Formation is going to be played at all its obvious which ALEs will be used.

The controversial thing we are trying to sort out is if multiple dreadnaughts can be taken in the Firespear Task Force.

On the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE there is this rule.



So we have permission to add 2 Dreadnaughts.

col_impact wrote:
My argument is RAW. And I have always made clear that it is not an overly pedantic RAW.

This is just silly. You're making an assumption on how you think the rules should function because the explicit wording does not function by itself, yet claim you are not making a RAI argument.

Simply drop the "OMG I'M SO RAW" attitude and accept that RAI is okay.

It's okai to be RAI *hug*

The game of 40k is not infallible so an overly pedantic RAW means you don't get to play so in order to play you have to not sweat the obvious stuff like 'a Formation is meant to be played'. By arguing RAW I mean using RAW to sort out controversial, non-obvious things worth arguing about.

The Formation rules require you to use units and ALEs so you are required to find an ALE to use to play and you are required to field the Formation listing as a unit.

Any line of reasoning that thinks you can field models directly goes against all of the rules in 40k.

Any line of reasoning that thinks you do not require ALEs for your models goes directly against RAW and is practically untenable because doing so means you lack the rules to field the unit.

So the rules direct us to find ALEs for '1 Venerable Dreadnaught' and 'Captain in Terminator armour'

It's patently obvious and noncontroversial which ALEs to use for Venerable Dreadnaught and Captain in Terminator armour so we use those ALEs (Venerable Dreadnaughts, Captain). If the Formation is going to be played at all its obvious which ALEs will be used.

On the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE there is this rule.

Spoiler:

OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model

So we have permission to add 2 Dreadnaughts.

You're assuming the formation's rules were intended to be read as "1 (unit of) (')Venerable Dreadnought(s')".

It's entirely possible the formation's rules were intended to be read as "(unit of) 1 Venerable Dreadnought (from 'Venerable Dreadnoughts')".

Either way requires making an assumption, which there is nothing wrong with.

The reason I think it's more likely the latter is the formation being part of the Start Collecting Space Marines box, which comes with a Captain in Terminator Armour, a Tactical Squad and a Venerable Dreadnought.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

You're assuming the formation's rules were intended to be read as "1 (unit of) (')Venerable Dreadnought(s')".

It's entirely possible the formation's rules were intended to be read as "(unit of) 1 Venerable Dreadnought (from 'Venerable Dreadnoughts')".

Either way requires making an assumption, which there is nothing wrong with.

The reason I think it's more likely the latter is the formation being part of the Start Collecting Space Marines box, which comes with a Captain in Terminator Armour, a Tactical Squad and a Venerable Dreadnought.

I have always argued that the Formation rules, which require units, make the listing read as "(unit of) 1 Venerable Dreadnaught (from 'Venerable Dreadnoughts')".

This rule works the same either way.



There is nothing restricting that rule.

col_impact wrote:

There is nothing restricting that rule.

Except the Firespear Task Force formation which explicitly points out:

1 Venerable Dreadnought

Col - your argument cannot be raw. Because you are NOT using the rules as written

The rule as written requires you to use the "captain in terminator armour" ALE. This is impossible for you to disagree with, using rules as written. This is a truth, and if you were arguing honestly you would not deny this.

By your own admission, by using "obvious" as a determiner, you cannot be using raw. We know this, and you know this.

Just stop. Your argument is flawed, and has been for five pages.

RAW, the formation cannot be used. RAI you use the Ben dread ale and the captain ALE and restrict the, to one model and to wearing terminator armour on the captain.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Col - your argument cannot be raw. Because you are NOT using the rules as written

The rule as written requires you to use the "captain in terminator armour" ALE. This is impossible for you to disagree with, using rules as written. This is a truth, and if you were arguing honestly you would not deny this.

By your own admission, by using "obvious" as a determiner, you cannot be using raw. We know this, and you know this.

Just stop. Your argument is flawed, and has been for five pages.

RAW, the formation cannot be used. RAI you use the Ben dread ale and the captain ALE and restrict the, to one model and to wearing terminator armour on the captain.

Do my eyes deceive me? Nos promoting playing RaI ? But also and mainly QFT!!!

My argument is RAW.

cool, then using whats written, show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"

If it's RAW , that means it's rules as written , therefore it's written, so copy paste it.

 FlingitNow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Col - your argument cannot be raw. Because you are NOT using the rules as written

The rule as written requires you to use the "captain in terminator armour" ALE. This is impossible for you to disagree with, using rules as written. This is a truth, and if you were arguing honestly you would not deny this.

By your own admission, by using "obvious" as a determiner, you cannot be using raw. We know this, and you know this.

Just stop. Your argument is flawed, and has been for five pages.

RAW, the formation cannot be used. RAI you use the Ben dread ale and the captain ALE and restrict the, to one model and to wearing terminator armour on the captain.

Do my eyes deceive me? Nos promoting playing RaI ? But also and mainly QFT!!!

Nope, however it isnt a new position. I use RAW to detemine the base position, then work from there. Like knowing the rules never let models without eyes shoot up until 7th ed, but still shot with my bezerkers with helmets.

Col is likely behaving like something often found under a bridge here. As soon as they stated this supposed difference between "pedantic" RAW, as if you can have a Rule-as-written-but-not-actually-whats-written and still call it RAW, and actual RAW, which means using the rule as written (oddly enough) gthey are either deliberately winding people up, or frankly do not understand the term RAW.

Its RAW when its in his favor (aka Pylon Death Ray) but its Pedantic when its not (Spyders, etc.)

I am still waiting for someone to show a controversy or debate over which ALEs to use. If there is no controversy we don't need to argue about it if it's patently clear which ALEs we use.

Unless someone shows a controversy, we can stick to debating what is controversial, namely the number of Dreadnaughts in the Formation and the presence of a rule which grants clear permission to add additional Dreadnaughts and the absence of any rule which restricts that permission.



The counter argument seems to be proposing that if you have to fix some pedantic typographical reference problems to get the rules to match up exactly you get free reign make up all sorts of rules and to ignore all rules. That is rules abuse.

And yet there is a rule quite evident on the ALE that you have to use that grants full permission to add additional Dreadnaughts and no rule which takes away that permission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
Its RAW when its in his favor (aka Pylon Death Ray) but its Pedantic when its not (Spyders, etc.)

In the case of Spyders, the ALE to use is EXACTLY referenced by page number in the printed codex, which is more than enough to address any reference problems between 'Canoptek Spyder' and 'Canoptek Spyders'. There is absolutely full justification in the RAW over which ALE to use. Reference by page number leaves absolutely no doubt.

Only a person intent on committing rules abuse in their favor would claim that the 1 Canoptek Spyder in the formation does not use the Canoptek Spyders ALE.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

harkequin wrote:

My argument is RAW.

cool, then using whats written, show me RAW where it says to use the ALEs that are not "captain in terminator armour" and "venerable dreadnaught"

If it's RAW , that means it's rules as written , therefore it's written, so copy paste it.

Show me how this is even debatable what ALEs you have to use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

X078 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

There is nothing restricting that rule.

Except the Firespear Task Force formation which explicitly points out:

1 Venerable Dreadnought

Show me a rule that says I cannot add to the unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnought with the Options to add additional Dreadnaughts rule I have free unrestricted access to.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


RAW, the formation cannot be used. RAI you use the Ben dread ale and the captain ALE and restrict the, to one model and to wearing terminator armour on the captain.

Agreed that you use the Ven Dread ALE and the Captain ALE but it cannot be RAI to restrict to one model if there is a rule on the ALE that grants full permission to add additional Dreads on the ALE. The writer would have been fully aware of the permission that is explicitly granted and no where is that restriction explicitly taken away.

You are trying to use a small reference problem in the RAW to justify wholesale making up of rules to go directly against rules clearly present on the ALE.



You need to point to a rule that restricts this permission. Otherwise you have no RAI argument and have committed rules abuse.

I would compare the formation with e.g. the recent Tau formations and come to the conclusion that 1 unit of riptides equals multiples whereas 1 venerable dreadnought equals 1 venerable dreadnought.

Naw wrote:
I would compare the formation with e.g. the recent Tau formations and come to the conclusion that 1 unit of riptides equals multiples whereas 1 venerable dreadnought equals 1 venerable dreadnought.

Do you have a rule to back up that wild guess at intent?

This rule is clearly present on the ALE that you are required to use



Nothing is preventing the rule from being used.

Can't believe this is still going on. It's like fething ground hog day in here.

col_impact wrote:

Naw wrote:
I would compare the formation with e.g. the recent Tau formations and come to the conclusion that 1 unit of riptides equals multiples whereas 1 venerable dreadnought equals 1 venerable dreadnought.

Do you have a rule to back up that wild guess at intent?

This rule is clearly present on the ALE that you are required to use

Spoiler:

OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model

Nothing is preventing the rule from being used.

I would agree with you if it wasn't a formation.

Col - the debate is there is NO ALE called captain in terminator armour.

Therefore raw you cannot fulfill the formation requirements.

You cannot , honestly, disagree with this position. Do you agree or disagree?

nos, he already said he agrees, but that stance is being pedantic, he plays RAW, not pedantic RAW.

Whatever that means.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Col - the debate is there is NO ALE called captain in terminator armour.

Therefore raw you cannot fulfill the formation requirements.

You cannot , honestly, disagree with this position. Do you agree or disagree?

Nobody is saying there is an ALE called exactly "Captain in Terminator armour".

The Formation rules require you to use units and ALEs; therefore you must find an ALE in the SM codex.

It is patently obvious which ALE we are to use for the Captain in Terminator armour. There are no tenable alternatives than the Captain ALE

There is no need to argue one way or the other using RAI or RAW if it's obvious. Arguing over it is arguing over pedantics. Someone will need to present an actual alternative ALE to use for it to be worth arguing over.

However, there is a need to argue over how many dreadnaughts are allowed in the unit of 1 Venerable Dreadnaught (from the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE).

There is a rule on the Venerable Dreadnaughts ALE . . .



and there is nothing restricting that rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Naw wrote:
I would compare the formation with e.g. the recent Tau formations and come to the conclusion that 1 unit of riptides equals multiples whereas 1 venerable dreadnought equals 1 venerable dreadnought.

Do you have a rule to back up that wild guess at intent?

This rule is clearly present on the ALE that you are required to use

Spoiler:

OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Venerable Dreadnoughts…125 pts/model

Nothing is preventing the rule from being used.

I would agree with you if it wasn't a formation.

Do you have a Formation rule that backs up what you claim? As it is now, the only thing you have backing you up is your own wild guess at intent whereas I have an actual rule in the book. My rule trumps your guess.

This thread needs to be locked. It isn't going anywhere and will never go anywhere.

Here is the reality of the situation...

The rules for Formation tell us that a given Formation will list the Army List Entries required. Army List Entries have names. In a perfect world, GW would follow their own rules and list out the names of the Army List Entries required. Any restrictions (e.g. only 1 Venerable Dread model in the Venerable Dread unit) would be listed in the Restrictions section of the Formation.

This isn't a perfect world. GW frequently lists things that definitely AREN'T Army List Entries. They appear to occasionally list individual models... something the rules don't cover. They are incredibly inconsistent.

Looking for a RaW answer is a fool's errand. Even if you COULD find a RaW anwer, it would probably not agree with RaI. The RaW answer most of the time will be "there is no ALE called XXX, hence the Formation can't be taken".

The answer... as is frequently the case with this game, is to use common sense. Everyone KNOWS that the Canoptek Harvest is supposed to have a single Spyder model. Everyone KNOWS that you're only supposed to have a single Venerable Dread model. Everyone KNOWS that the Captain in Terminator Armour is really just a Captain ALE with the Terminator Armour upgrade.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled bickering.

 Kriswall wrote:
Everyone KNOWS that you're only supposed to have a single Venerable Dread model.

Wholly incorrect. Formation rules do not allow the direct fielding of models. The rules of 40k do not support models that are directly fielded (no moving, shooting, or assaulting among other things) . Nice bit of scenery you have there.

What rule are you invoking to restrict someone's access to this rule?



If there is no restriction, then the player can simply upgrade the unit of 1 Venerable Dread with 2 additional Venerable Dreads.