Dreadknight teleporter

[Chairman_woo]

You are infact argueing pure semantics unless you care to challenge Witgenstein and the majority of post-modern linguistic philosophy?

 

If nothing else the "Definitions" you refer to are too often subjective in nature to represent any more than a common consensus of (interpreted) intention. You may have the illusion, when discussing the matter with a like minded group, of objective meaning but no such thing can be said to exist since your terms are meaningless without appeal to a common consensus of assumed meaning. This applies to even the most exhaustive closed semantical systems (like legal contract) so GW's rules have no chance.

 

What you left with is something often called "inference to the best reason" i.e. common sense, and empathy with the intention of the author. RAW is just RAI as applied by a like minded group of individuals who have made certain shaired assumptions. Dosent make it worthless but it does make it a subset of the class RAI being as it is simply a formalised (but certainly not closed or exhaustive) system for determining intent.

 

Words alone carry no concepts by themselves, meaning exists in the mind of the listener/reader.

[yperihitikos]

RAW every model with a personal teleporter is jump infantry. The rule couldn't be more clear than that. If you see a model equiped with a personal teleporter you just follow the rules as you do for any other jump infantry model.

 

The rule doesn't say "they are also jump infantry" or "they are jump infantry too". So, you can't add "jump infantry" next to "monstrous creature" unit type. It is a jump infantry because it has a personal teleporter. If you want a monstrous creature don't take that wargear.

 

The only real question is if a Dreadknight with a personal teleporter should be able to enter Stormravens. The answer is simple, too. Yes, for the same reason 12 models in terminator armour are allowed by the codex to enter a chimera. I personally believe that they shouldn't be allowed but until it is FAQed there is no valid point to support us. We have to accept it or houserule it. If it is an oversight they will FAQ it, if it isn't they will not.

[Chairman_woo]

RAW every model with a personal teleporter is jump infantry. The rule couldn't be more clear than that. If you see a model equiped with a personal teleporter you just follow the rules as you do for any other jump infantry model.

 

The rule doesn't say "they are also jump infantry" or "they are jump infantry too". So, you can't add "jump infantry" next to "monstrous creature" unit type. It is a jump infantry because it has a personal teleporter. If you want a monstrous creature don't take that wargear.

 

The only real question is if a Dreadknight with a personal teleporter should be able to enter Stormravens. The answer is simple, too. Yes, for the same reason 12 models in terminator armour are allowed by the codex to enter a chimera. I personally believe that they shouldn't be allowed but until it is FAQed there is no valid point to support us. We have to accept it or houserule it. If it is an oversight they will FAQ it, if it isn't they will not.

 

It dosen't even begin to exaustively describe how this interacts with a models MC status. You are being selective, as the system you describe is not exhaustive in describing its terms or outlining the nature of how these two classes interact. You can make that arguement but you then disregard the fact that at no point is it explicitly stated anywhere in the rules that becomeing JI in this way overrides any of the MC specific rules.

 

There is no RAW here, only your selective interpretations. The only sane response is one of "common sense" but as common sense is itself just an arguement waiting to happen what you infact have is two sets of "common consensus".

 

You are all argueing RAI in the terms of something else that dosent actually exist i.e. RAW. Unless you want to find me an exhaustive glossary of all possible game terms used in 40k, rigidly defined by a centeral authority then awsome. If not then you will always be simply synchronising interpretation of intentions.

[Brother Valerius]

The units types in Warhammer 40k are DEFINED and ARE AS FOLLOWS! Where in those two pages of DEFINED unit types of Warhammer 40k do you see Monstrous Creature/Jump Infantry? That opening statement and then the specific DEFINED list of unit types is what prevents you from creating a new unit type of MC/JI.

 

Codex GK follows the rules as set by the BRB by saying that a unit with personal teleporters are JI, a DEFINED unit type in Warhammer 40k. Now please, explain how a MC/JI unit is created outside the DEFINED unit types of Warhammer 40k. By all means please do. I have provided the RAW evidence from Codex GK and now the RAW evidence for the DEFINED unit types of Warhammer 40k.

 

If you didn't get the hint, DEFINED!

 

Nothing about this statement says anything about whether or not a unit can have both types simultaneously. That is pure interpretation on your part. There needs to be no definition of a MC/JI type, because this is not a type in and of itself. It is the result from when the rules, as given in the GK codex, say a unit is two types without saying the second replaces the first. That is the point you continue to miss.

 

All your talk of defining another unit type is a strawman, because at no point is a new unit type given. Two unit types are active simultaneously.

[Gentlemanloser]

Two unit types are active simultaneously.

 

So how do you make that work, without a houserule?

 

You must agree then, that a NDK with a PT can embark on a Stormraven?

[Brother Valerius]

"House rule" is a rather inaccurate term IMO, since what you're describing is not changing the rules, but rather, having to decide how a situation works which the rules allow (but do not explain how to handle). In any case, you can't. As I previously mentioned, this is not relevant to the RAW question however. If the rules say something happens, it's RAW whether they explain how it works or not. RAW means "rules as written", not "rules as written unless it makes no sense in which case feel free to disregard".

 

In answer to your second question, I explained earlier what I intend to do if I ever see someone arguing the rule. I intend to claim the best of both unit types, throwing sportsmanship to the wind since they have already done so. They probably won't want to play me any more, but that's fine with me.

[Gentlemanloser]

"House rule" is a rather inaccurate term IMO, since what you're describing is not changing the rules, but rather, having to decide how a situation works which the rules allow (but do not explain how to handle). In any case, you can't. As I previously mentioned, this is not relevant to the RAW question however. If the rules say something happens, it's RAW whether they explain how it works or not. RAW means "rules as written", not "rules as written unless it makes no sense in which case feel free to disregard".

 

And if you don't mix unit types, you don't need to 'house rule' or 'decide' how the rules work. As they work exactly as written in the book. :tu:

 

In answer to your second question, I explained earlier what I intend to do if I ever see someone arguing the rule. I intend to claim the best of both unit types, throwing sportsmanship to the wind since they have already done so. They probably won't want to play me any more, but that's fine with me.

 

I'm not asking how you would personally play it, but rather trying to get you to explain your stance on how mixing unit types actually works. Using the NDK as the prime exale, and not an exagerated hypothetical unit to hammer the point home.

 

If you support mixing of unit types, and earler said there wa sno problem with doing this for the NDK, then how do you explain embarking on a Storm Raven? Either it can (using its JI rules) or it can't (using its MC rules). There's a direct conflict here, that you can only resolve by houseruling (which is what 'decided' how a situation works yourself...).

 

Which is *exactly* the point the mixing units breaks the game.

 

But please, resolve the Storm Raven embarkation issue for the NDK without houseruling, and using RAW only, and I might change my opinion that mixing unit typse fundamentally breaks the game.

[Brother Valerius]

I'm not arguing that mixing unit types doesn't present serious issues. It certainly does, which you have highlighted nicely. I'm arguing that it is irrelevant to the question of "RAW, can a unit simultaneously be MC and JI?" Like I said... RAW means "rules as written", not "rules as written unless it makes no sense in which case feel free to disregard".

[Gentlemanloser]

Problem is, there's no RAW explicitly for, and no RAW explicitly against.

 

But, if we work through both ways, one of them works fine with the RAW, the other breaks the game and requires houserulling.

 

Obviously, the way that breaks the game and involves houserulling can't possibly be the way the game works. So it's out of the question.

 

The NDK *cannot* possibly ever be both MC and JI at the same time, as that breaks the game and requires houserulling to work. Where as swapping MC for JI (which happens in other units throughout the game already - Edit: not necessarily swapping MC, but swapping one distinct unit type for another...) doesn't break the game, requires no houserulling and works perfectly with RAW.

 

There is no basis, no foundation, for anyone claiming mixed unit types exist.

[Brother Valerius]

That's not true, there is RAW explicitly for. It's simply spread across in two places. The rules say it is an MC. The rules then say (if you take the teleporter) that it is JI. Those two statements are both explicit RAW, neither one states that the other is not in effect, and there's no rule in the BRB which says that you can only have one type. That's explicit RAW for having MC/JI simultaneously.

[Gentlemanloser]

It doesn't explicity say they're both, or that the unit types stack.

 

That's just your interpretaiton of how the PT makes units JI works.

[Brother Valerius]

It's not interpretation, it's fundamental logic. If the rules say "A is X", and say in another place "A is Y", logic dictates that A must be both X and Y. Stating in two different places that a unit is two different types is exactly the same as if it were stated in one place that it is both at once.

[yperihitikos]

RAW every model with a personal teleporter is jump infantry. The rule couldn't be more clear than that. If you see a model equiped with a personal teleporter you just follow the rules as you do for any other jump infantry model.

 

The rule doesn't say "they are also jump infantry" or "they are jump infantry too". So, you can't add "jump infantry" next to "monstrous creature" unit type. It is a jump infantry because it has a personal teleporter. If you want a monstrous creature don't take that wargear.

 

The only real question is if a Dreadknight with a personal teleporter should be able to enter Stormravens. The answer is simple, too. Yes, for the same reason 12 models in terminator armour are allowed by the codex to enter a chimera. I personally believe that they shouldn't be allowed but until it is FAQed there is no valid point to support us. We have to accept it or houserule it. If it is an oversight they will FAQ it, if it isn't they will not.

 

It dosen't even begin to exaustively describe how this interacts with a models MC status. You are being selective, as the system you describe is not exhaustive in describing its terms or outlining the nature of how these two classes interact. You can make that arguement but you then disregard the fact that at no point is it explicitly stated anywhere in the rules that becomeing JI in this way overrides any of the MC specific rules.

 

There is no RAW here, only your selective interpretations. The only sane response is one of "common sense" but as common sense is itself just an arguement waiting to happen what you infact have is two sets of "common consensus".

 

You are all argueing RAI in the terms of something else that dosent actually exist i.e. RAW. Unless you want to find me an exhaustive glossary of all possible game terms used in 40k, rigidly defined by a centeral authority then awsome. If not then you will always be simply synchronising interpretation of intentions.

 

There aren't two classes that interact. There is a model that is a monstrous creature and on the other hand there is a model with a personal teleporter that is jump infantry. Two different things with different abilities.

 

Your problem is that the rule as written ignores that the Dreadknight was a monstrous creature. And that is what the rule does. The rule ignores the unit type of the model before. It doesn't matter if its unit type was infantry (interceptors) or monstrous creature (dreadknight). The rule is focused on the result the device has. No matter what was a model before now it is jump infantry because it has a personal teleporter. It's sharp and straight.

[Chairman_woo]

It doesn't explicity say they're both, or that the unit types stack.

 

That's just your interpretaiton of how the PT makes units JI works.

 

And what you are doing isn't an interpretation also?......

[Gentlemanloser]

Sure it is! ( I was waiting for that to be mentioned! ;))

 

But this interpretaiton of the rules doesn't require you to make up hourserules to make the game work. Mixing unit types requires you to create additonal rules, outside those printed, to make the game function.

 

Following the interpretaiton that you can't mix unit types doesn't require this. And allows 40k to be played with just the RAW.

 

For me, that makes it the correct, and only, interpretation. ;)

 

It's not interpretation, it's fundamental logic. If the rules say "A is X", and say in another place "A is Y", logic dictates that A must be both X and Y. Stating in two different places that a unit is two different types is exactly the same as if it were stated in one place that it is both at once.

 

That's not correct. You don't have enough information. You don't know if one replaces the other, or is in addition too.

 

Fro example (this is off the top of my head, so might be rubbish! :D) take 'A' as a bowl of water. With 'X' and 'Y' as two contradictory states, 'Hot' and 'Cold'. If we say the water is hot, and later say the water is cold, logic does not dictate it is Hot and Cold, as they are two contradictory states.

[Grimtooth]

Without writing in int with a crayon or any other writing utensil, show me the unit type MC/Jump Infantry on page 4 and 5 of the BRB, of the defined unit types in Warhammer 40k and you are golden.

 

That right there is your RAW against unit type stacking and a model being two unit types. You can't argue around it without just making rules.

[Brother Valerius]

It's not interpretation, it's fundamental logic. If the rules say "A is X", and say in another place "A is Y", logic dictates that A must be both X and Y. Stating in two different places that a unit is two different types is exactly the same as if it were stated in one place that it is both at once.

 

That's not correct. You don't have enough information. You don't know if one replaces the other, or is in addition too.

 

Fro example (this is off the top of my head, so might be rubbish! :huh:) take 'A' as a bowl of water. With 'X' and 'Y' as two contradictory states, 'Hot' and 'Cold'. If we say the water is hot, and later say the water is cold, logic does not dictate it is Hot and Cold, as they are two contradictory states.

 

Sure, that's true in a lot of cases. However, the rules are assumed to always be complete (ie, if a rule says something, we have to assume that is the extent of the rule), and always correct. That means that, even though the MC/JI state is an apparent contradiction, JI doesn't overwrite MC (otherwise the rule would say so), and it's a situation that has to be worked out somehow (since we can't argue that the RAW is wrong).

 

Without writing in int with a crayon or any other writing utensil, show me the unit type MC/Jump Infantry on page 4 and 5 of the BRB, of the defined unit types in Warhammer 40k and you are golden.

 

That right there is your RAW against unit type stacking and a model being two unit types. You can't argue around it without just making rules.

 

No, it doesn't work that way. You're insisting that MC/JI is theoretically a type in and of itself, but it doesn't have to be, as it's a combination of existing types (albeit one that causes issues). By your logic, a vehicle cannot be a fast skimmer because there's a place that details fast, and a place that details skimmer, but not a place that details fast skimmer. You have no RAW to stand on, none at all.

[Marshal van Trapp]

Without writing in int with a crayon or any other writing utensil, show me the unit type MC/Jump Infantry on page 4 and 5 of the BRB, of the defined unit types in Warhammer 40k and you are golden.

 

That right there is your RAW against unit type stacking and a model being two unit types. You can't argue around it without just making rules.

this just goes to support what i said, because the NDK cannot be both unit types does not mean that the jump infantry overrides the MC status, it simply means that it cannot exist and within the normal rules set is thus an illegal choice, or possibly both (even though that causes the problem in and of itself)...

 

the problem is this situation gets into the problem with the game system as a whole, the codecies OVERRIDE any rules in the main rulebook (this is why prior to being re-written the old DH force weapons worked differently than the USR force weapons) and thus technically any codex written has the a game breaking mechanic, but this is getting too far off topic

 

my ultimate point is thus: until the codex is FAQd, come up with a houserule for your gaming group, if you play with someone who disagrees with your house rule, either do not play them or as simple as this: Don't give it a Personal Teleporter!

 

also i wholly agree with what val is saying as well

[Grimtooth]

It's not interpretation, it's fundamental logic. If the rules say "A is X", and say in another place "A is Y", logic dictates that A must be both X and Y. Stating in two different places that a unit is two different types is exactly the same as if it were stated in one place that it is both at once.

 

That's not correct. You don't have enough information. You don't know if one replaces the other, or is in addition too.

 

Fro example (this is off the top of my head, so might be rubbish! :huh:) take 'A' as a bowl of water. With 'X' and 'Y' as two contradictory states, 'Hot' and 'Cold'. If we say the water is hot, and later say the water is cold, logic does not dictate it is Hot and Cold, as they are two contradictory states.

 

Sure, that's true in a lot of cases. However, the rules are assumed to always be complete (ie, if a rule says something, we have to assume that is the extent of the rule), and always correct. That means that, even though the MC/JI state is an apparent contradiction, JI doesn't overwrite MC (otherwise the rule would say so), and it's a situation that has to be worked out somehow (since we can't argue that the RAW is wrong).

 

Without writing in int with a crayon or any other writing utensil, show me the unit type MC/Jump Infantry on page 4 and 5 of the BRB, of the defined unit types in Warhammer 40k and you are golden.

 

That right there is your RAW against unit type stacking and a model being two unit types. You can't argue around it without just making rules.

 

No, it doesn't work that way. You're insisting that MC/JI is theoretically a type in and of itself, but it doesn't have to be, as it's a combination of existing types (albeit one that causes issues). By your logic, a vehicle cannot be a fast skimmer because there's a place that details fast, and a place that details skimmer, but not a place that details fast skimmer. You have no RAW to stand on, none at all.

 

 

Page 71 under skimmers last sentece:

 

Skimmers follow the normal rules for vehicles, with the additions and exceptions given below.

 

Page 71 under Moving Skimmers, last sentence:

 

A skimmer that is also fast and is moving flat out can move up to 24".

 

Vehicles is a defined unit type. A fast skimmer is a vehicle type. The quoted RAW above shows you how vehicle types within the defined vehicle unit types interact and in your case specific information is given to account for a fast skimmer. You are not given that permission with Monstrous Creature nor are you given that permission with Jump Infantry.

 

A dreadknight with a personal teleporter that is MC/JI is not spoorted by the RAW of the BRB. You are creating a unit type not listed by the defined unit types of the BRB.

 

A dreadknight with a personal teleporter that is jump infantryper the RAW of the GK codex is supported by RAW of the BRB. I can specificallly point to the defined unit type that is created by putting a personal teleporter on a dreadknight. I can turn to the page for the rules regarding putting a personal teleporter on a dreadknight and how it moves, shoots, and assaults.

 

That cannot be done with a created MC/JI unit tupe that does not exist.

[Marshal van Trapp]

It's not interpretation, it's fundamental logic. If the rules say "A is X", and say in another place "A is Y", logic dictates that A must be both X and Y. Stating in two different places that a unit is two different types is exactly the same as if it were stated in one place that it is both at once.

 

That's not correct. You don't have enough information. You don't know if one replaces the other, or is in addition too.

 

Fro example (this is off the top of my head, so might be rubbish! :P) take 'A' as a bowl of water. With 'X' and 'Y' as two contradictory states, 'Hot' and 'Cold'. If we say the water is hot, and later say the water is cold, logic does not dictate it is Hot and Cold, as they are two contradictory states.

 

Sure, that's true in a lot of cases. However, the rules are assumed to always be complete (ie, if a rule says something, we have to assume that is the extent of the rule), and always correct. That means that, even though the MC/JI state is an apparent contradiction, JI doesn't overwrite MC (otherwise the rule would say so), and it's a situation that has to be worked out somehow (since we can't argue that the RAW is wrong).

 

Without writing in int with a crayon or any other writing utensil, show me the unit type MC/Jump Infantry on page 4 and 5 of the BRB, of the defined unit types in Warhammer 40k and you are golden.

 

That right there is your RAW against unit type stacking and a model being two unit types. You can't argue around it without just making rules.

 

No, it doesn't work that way. You're insisting that MC/JI is theoretically a type in and of itself, but it doesn't have to be, as it's a combination of existing types (albeit one that causes issues). By your logic, a vehicle cannot be a fast skimmer because there's a place that details fast, and a place that details skimmer, but not a place that details fast skimmer. You have no RAW to stand on, none at all.

 

 

Page 71 under skimmers last sentece:

 

Skimmers follow the normal rules for vehicles, with the additions and exceptions given below.

 

Page 71 under Moving Skimmers, last sentence:

 

A skimmer that is also fast and is moving flat out can move up to 24".

 

Vehicles is a defined unit type. A fast skimmer is a vehicle type. The quoted RAW above shows you how vehicle types within the defined vehicle unit types interact and in your case specific information is given to account for a fast skimmer. You are not given that permission with Monstrous Creature nor are you given that permission with Jump Infantry.

 

A dreadknight with a personal teleporter that is MC/JI is not spoorted by the RAW of the BRB. You are creating a unit type not listed by the defined unit types of the BRB.

 

A dreadknight with a personal teleporter that is jump infantryper the RAW of the GK codex is supported by RAW of the BRB. I can specificallly point to the defined unit type that is created by putting a personal teleporter on a dreadknight. I can turn to the page for the rules regarding putting a personal teleporter on a dreadknight and how it moves, shoots, and assaults.

 

That cannot be done with a created MC/JI unit tupe that does not exist.

see my post directly above yours, i do agree that the type doesn't exist, nor can it, but then it just isn't covered in the rules, saying the NDK becomes JI instead of a MC is interpretation, there is a difference between the word IS and BECOMES

 

if ice is water it is still ice because you never explicitly said that it wasn't, if ice becomes water it clearly isn't ice anymore thus has undergone a state change

 

because the codex doesn't say it underwent a state change, ie MC to JI, it is still technically both, whether or not there is a rule for it! so the only thing we can do until the FAQ is released is either come up with a house rule (that not everyone will observe) or just say that the MC/JI type mixes are contradictory and not use the PT!

[Grimtooth]

Wow, worse analogy ever.

 

You are equating two different forms of the same substance. By the standard given by your analogy, Jump Infantry is just another form of Monstrous Creatures and Monstrous Creatures are just a different form of Jump Infantry which is completely wrong. H20 is H20 whether in solid or liquid form. Jump Infantry is not just a Monstrous Creature with a personal teleporter nor is a Monstrous Creature just Jump Infantry without a personal teleporter.

 

As there is a defined set of unit types per the BRB in Warhammer 40k, Montrous Creatures and Jump Infantry would be more akin to elements on the periodic table of elements.

[Marshal van Trapp]

Wow, worse analogy ever.

 

You are equating two different forms of the same substance. By the standard given by your analogy, Jump Infantry is just another form of Monstrous Creatures and Monstrous Creatures are just a different form of Jump Infantry which is completely wrong. H20 is H20 whether in solid or liquid form. Jump Infantry is not just a Monstrous Creature with a personal teleporter nor is a Monstrous Creature just Jump Infantry without a personal teleporter.

 

As there is a defined set of unit types per the BRB in Warhammer 40k, Montrous Creatures and Jump Infantry would be more akin to elements on the periodic table of elements.

no it still holds true, just because you say something is also something else doesn't mean it stopped being what it was

 

if X is Y than X=Y and reversed Y=X

if X Becomes Y than X no longer equals Y nor does Y equal X

 

its like a chemical reaction, the former is reversible, the later irreversible, H2O(s) <-> H20(l) but H2(g) + O2(g) -> 2H2O (by your example)

 

or another example, if something is male and is female it is both male and female (from a definition standpoint, technically its a hermaphrodite but this is straight RAW) but if it is male and becomes female then it is female, not both!

 

Is is not the same word as becomes RAW dictates that the MC is JI, not BECOMES JI so as Val said, your interpretation is as such, an interpretation!

[Grimtooth]

Wow, worse analogy ever.

 

You are equating two different forms of the same substance. By the standard given by your analogy, Jump Infantry is just another form of Monstrous Creatures and Monstrous Creatures are just a different form of Jump Infantry which is completely wrong. H20 is H20 whether in solid or liquid form. Jump Infantry is not just a Monstrous Creature with a personal teleporter nor is a Monstrous Creature just Jump Infantry without a personal teleporter.

 

As there is a defined set of unit types per the BRB in Warhammer 40k, Montrous Creatures and Jump Infantry would be more akin to elements on the periodic table of elements.

no it still holds true, just because you say something is also something else doesn't mean it stopped being what it was

 

if X is Y than X=Y and reversed Y=X

if X Becomes Y than X no longer equals Y nor does Y equal X

 

its like a chemical reaction, the former is reversible, the later irreversible, H2O(s) <-> H20(l) but H2(g) + O2(g) -> 2H2O (by your example)

 

or another example, if something is male and is female it is both male and female (from a definition standpoint, technically its a hermaphrodite but this is straight RAW) but if it is male and becomes female then it is female, not both!

 

Is is not the same word as becomes RAW dictates that the MC is JI, not BECOMES JI so as Val said, your interpretation is as such, an interpretation!

 

However within the ruleset of Warhammer 40k when something is llabeled X it is only X because X is clearly and consisely defined.

 

When GK codex tells us that a unit with a personal teleporter is Jump Infantry, you cannot also say it is still a Monstrous Creature because the very definition of what it is to be labeled as Jump Infantry is given on page 4 and 5. That is the very RAW that you keep asking for to prove to you that a dreadknight stops being a MC when it is Jump Infantry. The definition of exactly what it is to be labeled Jump Infantry is clearly defined by the Warhammer 40k ruleset and it does not include also being MC.

 

I really don't understand how you can argue something that is clearly defined by the RAW and use player created unit types as your counter argument. I can easily run through the entire scenario without breaking a single rule or creating one for the movement, shooting, and assaulting of a dreadknight with a personal transporter as jump infantry. I know you cannot.

[Marshal van Trapp]

Wow, worse analogy ever.

 

You are equating two different forms of the same substance. By the standard given by your analogy, Jump Infantry is just another form of Monstrous Creatures and Monstrous Creatures are just a different form of Jump Infantry which is completely wrong. H20 is H20 whether in solid or liquid form. Jump Infantry is not just a Monstrous Creature with a personal teleporter nor is a Monstrous Creature just Jump Infantry without a personal teleporter.

 

As there is a defined set of unit types per the BRB in Warhammer 40k, Montrous Creatures and Jump Infantry would be more akin to elements on the periodic table of elements.

no it still holds true, just because you say something is also something else doesn't mean it stopped being what it was

 

if X is Y than X=Y and reversed Y=X

if X Becomes Y than X no longer equals Y nor does Y equal X

 

its like a chemical reaction, the former is reversible, the later irreversible, H2O(s) <-> H20(l) but H2(g) + O2(g) -> 2H2O (by your example)

 

or another example, if something is male and is female it is both male and female (from a definition standpoint, technically its a hermaphrodite but this is straight RAW) but if it is male and becomes female then it is female, not both!

 

Is is not the same word as becomes RAW dictates that the MC is JI, not BECOMES JI so as Val said, your interpretation is as such, an interpretation!

 

However within the ruleset of Warhammer 40k when something is llabeled X it is only X because X is clearly and consisely defined.

 

When GK codex tells us that a unit with a personal teleporter is Jump Infantry, you cannot also say it is still a Monstrous Creature because the very definition of what it is to be labeled as Jump Infantry is given on page 4 and 5. That is the very RAW that you keep asking for to prove to you that a dreadknight stops being a MC when it is Jump Infantry. The definition of exactly what it is to be labeled Jump Infantry is clearly defined by the Warhammer 40k ruleset and it does not include also being MC.

 

I really don't understand how you can argue something that is clearly defined by the RAW and use player created unit types as your counter argument. I can easily run through the entire scenario without breaking a single rule or creating one for the movement, shooting, and assaulting of a dreadknight with a personal transporter as jump infantry. I know you cannot.

your problem is that i'm not arguing with the its ability to be both, i agree with you that it cannot be both a MC and a JI by the BRB's standards, but GRAMMATICALLY it is both because of the wording used, if you'd read my earlier post you would have seen that...

my problem with your argument is that it is EXCLUSIVELY a JI just because the BRB says that unit types cannot be shared, by those standards why isn't it just a MC? why does it HAVE to be JI? what you are saying is that the NDK BECOMES JI, while the codex says it IS JI

 

yes technically a unit cannot have 2 unit types, but what determines which unit type to use? have you found some support that a NDK with a PT is exclusively JI? because RAW of C:GK dictates that its both JI and MC which, IMHO cannot exist and is an illegal choice, not that you get to pick and choose which type it is or how the mixed type works

 

again it breaks down to an argument about the semantics of the sentences, because the word IS is not an equivalent to the word BECOMES, i agree that the MC/JI mix that you speak of cannot exist, i simply would like to point out that then it should be an illegal choice, not that you should get to decide its JI because its the last label applied!

 

thus my "counter argument" is then: because there are no rules for a MC and JI unit type, you cannot pick a PT for your NDK because of aforementioned contradiction

END OF ARGUMENT

 

you are arguing that because the JI label is added last then it must be JI, whats to keep others from then saying that because it was a MC first that then its still a MC and you spent your points for nothing?!

 

the point i'm trying to get across is that both ideas are wrong, its not JI because it still has the MC label, and a MC/JI cannot exist so thats right out, so without an FAQ or house rule, its simply an illegal choice

 

would you not agree?

[Grimtooth]

I am not even citing precedence of numerical order as to why it is Jump Infantry. The codex entry for persoanl teleporters tells you it is jump infantry, period. The BRB, to which the GK codex must reference to determine what is jump infantry, has clearly defined whatit is to be Jump Infantry. It isn't me creating a loop da loop conversion of MC to JI unit type, the codex plainly tells you that which is then clearly defined by the BRB.

 

This needs to be moved to the OR.