Dreadknight with personal teleporter

[Venemox]

However its impossible to prove a negative so the cries of 'but it doesnt say you arent still a monstrous creature' will go on unabated.

 

Great article from a philosophy instructor on how to prove a negative. It basically says anyhting that can be asserted, can be asserted in the negative. So we can either prove a negative, or prove nothing at all. E.G. If a unit is JI, it is also 'Not not JI' by being logically equivilent.

 

Proving Negatives.

 

I know, not really all that helpful in this argument, but great reading regarding the myth on not being to prove a negative. Enjoy!

[nurglez]

well, my friend plays grey knights, and he might end up getting a dread knight, if he does, I'm sure we will just play it as a MC that moves as jump infantry, as anything else is rather silly (I think).

 

For me, its the statement

this works just like the interceptor squad personal teleporter

, to me this means it moves as they move.

 

Though there are a few other issues with the grey knight codex (such as dread close combat weapons on the dread knight...).

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

A thought.

 

Daemon Princes are MC. If given wings, they "move as jump infantry" (I haven't got the Codex here, so feel free to correct that). So, MC that moves as JI.

 

NDKs are MC. Units with a Personal Teleporter are JI. If, say, we gave a Brotherhood Champion a PT, he'd go from Infantry (Character) to JI (Character). If we gave a Grand Master a PT, he'd go the same way, become JI, and not Infantry. Neither would be a hybrid of Infantry and JI. And if a NDK is given a PT, he becomes JI, just like his peers that are less fortunate in the body armour department.

 

If A becomes B when you push a button, and C becomes B when you push a button, then surely D too becomes B when you push the button.

 

Why are we still arguing?

 

I question the motives of those who want both benefits on the NDK when the rules are quite clear. Would you people like some wine to go with that?

[Brother Valerius]

To be honest, I see the opposing side in this debate as not having a leg to stand on within the framework of RAW (and being strict about RAW is the only reason this issue would come up, so we need to remain within RAW). Saying that the rules nowhere explicitly state that you can combine MC and JI is not a valid argument, because that argument would invalidate many other classes of things within the rules, which are a combination of other things. There would be many weapons, for example, disallowed because they include multiple characteristics (and the rules for weapons never explicitly say you can combine two weapon types). Fast skimmers would be similarly disallowed because the rule book never explicitly says you can be a fast skimmer, it only speaks about being fast and being a skimmer.

 

The argument against having MC/JI hinges upon requiring explicit permission, but multiple precedents in the rules tell us that explicit permission is not required, merely implicit permission by having the two types listed upon a thing. The rules currently state the Dreadknight is an MC, and that it is JI (if it takes the teleporter). The combination of those two statements must constitute permission to be both, as both rules are equally authoritative.

 

GC08 is quite right, RAW the unit is both. The arguments of "the BRB doesn't list hybrid types" or "combining MC and JI breaks the game, so it's obviously against the rules" are not RAW arguments. They are arguments which forgo the rules as written, instead considering the rules correct only insofar as they make sense. That's all well and good, but if we're examining the rules through the lens of sense (rather than strict RAW), it's obvious that the Dreadknight isn't intended to be an MC. So either the unit is an MC/JI (RAW), or it is merely an MC (rules taken in the only way they make sense). You can't have it both ways, and claim RAW for only part of your argument.

[Gentlemanloser]

Fast skimmers would be similarly disallowed because the rule book never explicitly says you can be a fast skimmer, it only speaks about being fast and being a skimmer.

 

I'm pretty sure the Vehicle section does explicitly cover that. ^_^

[Brother Valerius]

Fast skimmers would be similarly disallowed because the rule book never explicitly says you can be a fast skimmer, it only speaks about being fast and being a skimmer.

 

I'm pretty sure the Vehicle section does explicitly cover that. ^_^

 

In a sense, but not in the sense Brother Ramses is claiming for his argument. The vehicle types are listed, and the skimmer rule talks about how fast skimmers can move 24", but there is no listing of "fast skimmer" as a vehicle type when the types are enumerated. If we apply the same reasoning Brother Ramses uses, that means fast skimmers are disallowed. Similarly, it means a Heavy Rending weapon is disallowed, and any other number of petty arguments. The point is, that his line of reasoning is obviously not followed by the rules anywhere, meaning explicit permission does not need to be given (contrary to what he argues).

[Gentlemanloser]

It's actually a sub-type of the Vehicle unit type.

 

Much like Jet Packs are a sub type of the Jump Infantry unit type.

[Brother Valerius]

Irrelevant to my point, though. The vehicle section never lists "fast skimmer" as a sub-type of vehicle, so Brother Ramses' reasoning says that no vehicle can be a fast skimmer. That's obviously untrue, which tells us that the argument is invalid.

[greatcrusade08]

i want to raise a point and im sure people will disagree but hey, people always disgree with me :cuss

 

infantry is considered a unit type as outlined one page 4, depsite being abent from page 51.. this is becuase infantry rules are considered the basic rules.

 

becuase of the fact that every non infantry unit type uses infantry rules as standard, i could quite easily make the case that many non infantry unit types are indeed dual types..

especially when you consider how wargear affects unit type as it does in this case.

a captain (infantry) may take a jump pack making him jump infantry, but again like the NDK unless it says that the JI replaces the infantry unit type he must keep it.

 

becuase of the way that all models use infantry rules where thier own dont cover mean that infantry/bike dual types would be exactly the same as just being a bike unit type.

 

the fact is we DO have set precedents for dual unit types, the unique thing about NDk is not that its dual, that its dual and neither unit type is infantry..

[greatcrusade08]

apologies for the double post, but i wanted to answer this post by GM

 

Some people are saying that it can be both types, despite no unit in the game being both types until- possibly- this point. We have no rules to define how that interaction occurs

lack of past precedence does not affect the legitimacy of this argument (which is why i presume you used the term possibly <_< ) but i would contest your claim to the fact that we have no rules to show how it works..

A unit type has it own set of rules, two unit types have two sets of rules.. page 52 says you use the "appropriate unit entry rules" for any given situation, if none are defined use the basic infantry rules instead.

so what does appropriate mean in this case.. well im sure there could be a dualing that would cause confusion, but you use which ever rule has precedence.

in this case MC and JI with movement

Mc has no noted exceptions bar move through cover, so it uses infantry rules

JI has its own set of movement rules that takes precedence over infantry rules, it therefore alos takes precedence over Mc rules (which are also infantry rules).

therefore the appropriate unit type rules for movement would be JI

 

a similar comparison can be made for shooting and assaul and neither bring about contradictory rules.

 

On the other hand we have people saying it entirely replaces the unit type, wich grammatically makes sense. However its impossible to prove a negative so the cries of 'but it doesnt say you arent still a monstrous creature' will go on unabated.

"grammatically makes sense" sounds dangerously close to RAI for my liking.

its not about 'proving a negative'

The NDK is a monstrous creature, its in its unit entry plain for all to see, unless that is taken away with a permissive set of rules then it must remain, any other argument is simpy not RAW

 

Nothing states it loses Mc

nothing states JI replaces Mc

and we have no rule stating a unit cannot have two types

[Grey Mage]

Nothing states it loses Mc

nothing states JI replaces Mc

and we have no rule stating a unit cannot have two types

No, but we do have other examples of wargear fully changing a unit over if it doesnt specify otherwise.

 

Bike riding command squads, anything with the option of taking- or losing- a jump pack, etc.

 

Or are you going to tell me that Assault Squads cannot ride in their free rhinos because theyre still jump-infantry? Because if the Dreadknight is still a MC they are still jump-infantry.... and pg. 66 of the BRB specificly states that jump-infantry cannot embark on a transport.

 

Quineg?

[greatcrusade08]

Nothing states it loses Mc

nothing states JI replaces Mc

and we have no rule stating a unit cannot have two types

No, but we do have other examples of wargear fully changing a unit over if it doesnt specify otherwise.

 

Bike riding command squads, anything with the option of taking- or losing- a jump pack, etc.

 

I dont get it, how can it change its unit type without saying, it could ADD a unit type, so bike command squads would become infantry/bike.. but then thats the same as just being bike

 

Or are you going to tell me that Assault Squads cannot ride in their free rhinos because theyre still jump-infantry? Because if the Dreadknight is still a MC they are still jump-infantry.... and pg. 66 of the BRB specificly states that jump-infantry cannot embark on a transport.

 

Quineg?

 

quineg donates that you expect a negative answer to this rhetorical question.

only youve not quite read the assult squad entry, they ARE still jump infantry (in that its in thier unit entry), however it speficially states that they "count as" being basic infantry (no changes to unit entry only how they are reprisented rules wise)

they can therefore ride in rhinos sans packs, dont you agree?

 

quiaff?

[Arikel]

I'm seeing the argument here, and raw I believe it is correct. The DK can take a wargear item that turns it into Jump Infantry. The Raw is quite clear, by the book. However, and there can be no doubt about this, I'm 100 percent certain that this is an oversight by gw because they do not understand their own rules and cannot write them clearly. It's unfortunate, and I do not think this is a loophole people should take advantage of to try and claim a dk is not an mc (There are words for those kinds of people, and they generally aren't permitted on nice forums such as these;), but it's pretty clear that this will have to be faq'd and hopefully fast, because by raw it is the correct ruling.

 

Of course, i guess it would mean you could stick your dk in a storm raven now though, doesn't it?

[greatcrusade08]

it cannot be RAW that its no longer an Mc.. where the rule that shows its no longer an MC???

 

without it there is no RAW argument

[Grey Mage]

Or are you going to tell me that Assault Squads cannot ride in their free rhinos because theyre still jump-infantry? Because if the Dreadknight is still a MC they are still jump-infantry.... and pg. 66 of the BRB specificly states that jump-infantry cannot embark on a transport.

 

Quineg?

 

quineg donates that you expect a negative answer to this rhetorical question.

only youve not quite read the assult squad entry, they ARE still jump infantry (in that its in thier unit entry), however it speficially states that they "count as" being basic infantry (no changes to unit entry only how they are reprisented rules wise)

they can therefore ride in rhinos sans packs, dont you agree?

 

quiaff?

Neg. If they can be both at once they can counts-as infantry and be jump-infantry at the same time, wich means- by pg 66- that they cannot enter into the transport.

 

Wich apparently they can, and thus are, if we follow this line of logic and have the Dreadknight as both a MC and JI.

[Frosty the Pyro]

it cannot be RAW that its no longer an Mc.. where the rule that shows its no longer an MC???

 

without it there is no RAW argument

 

It can, and is. Otherwise JotWW would effect a captain with a jumppack and he would be able to load into transports. As he would still be type infintry. This is the very reason codex chaos space marines HAS the wings wargear, and why nid dex's (increadably overpriced) wings also make one move as jump infantry instead of being jump infantry.

 

Is it RAW? yes

will it survive FAQ? no.

Have GW traditionaly failed as writing clean rules? yes

Will anyone but the biggest of arses insist on it? no

Should it be hit by errata instead of FAQ? yes

Will it? unlikely

 

 

Its the same with units that can take the bike wargear geting into transports, by raw they can, because they are not unit type bike, becaouse GW wrote the rules poorly, but no one is going to be a big enouph dick to do it (without geting slapped anyway).

 

edit

note to grey mage: pg 66 says only infantry may embark, it does not say jump infantry may not embark, simply that jump infantry does not count as infantry. The ability to embark or not is entirely based on transport capacity and checking if the unit is type infantry. There are no rules disalowing jump infantry from embarking, there are simply no rules to allow them to. If a unit was both infantry and jump infantry, they could embark as the rules allow infnatry to embark and do not disalow jump infintry.

[Grimtooth]

So here the deal.

 

This argument is circular, and entirely a matter of opinion. Some people are saying that it can be both types, despite no unit in the game being both types until- possibly- this point. We have no rules to define how that interaction occurs, and it seems unlikely that GW is going to put this out so we can compare dozens of different rules that are all equally important in order to figure out one unit.

 

On the other hand we have people saying it entirely replaces the unit type, wich grammatically makes sense. However its impossible to prove a negative so the cries of 'but it doesnt say you arent still a monstrous creature' will go on unabated.

 

If you have something new to add to this thread that will resolve the basic issues Im all ears, but if this thread continues to go in its circular spin it will be locked until the FAQ appears.

 

Yea, ai am just waiting for the FAQ now. No point in going back and forth. Not like it is an issue that was overlooked by a FAQ, yet. Hahahahaha!

[Grey Mage]

edit

note to grey mage: pg 66 says only infantry may embark, it does not say jump infantry may not embark, simply that jump infantry does not count as infantry. The ability to embark or not is entirely based on transport capacity and checking if the unit is type infantry. There are no rules disalowing jump infantry from embarking, there are simply no rules to allow them to. If a unit was both infantry and jump infantry, they could embark as the rules allow infnatry to embark and do not disalow jump infintry.

In the spirit of the split hairs in this thread, it says Only infantry can embark (it should be noted this does not include jump infantry). I would argue, were someone to really go to the absurd lengths Ive seen so far in this thread, that this means that a unit that is- somehow- both infantry and jump infantry is not included in the units that can embark into a vehicle.

 

However, as Ive said before- this is yet another C:GK question that really just needs to wait for a FAQ.

[Brother Valerius]

Will anyone but the biggest of arses insist on it? no

 

I think you're misjudging the point. The reason this question is important is not to be a rules lawyering arse, but to respond to those rules lawyering arses who look at the Personal Teleporter, and go "Oh, it's not an MC any more", ignoring the fact that it's obviously an error in the codex, resulting from pointing to a piece of wargear in another unit's entry (as turning a unit from MC to JI would be all sorts of stupid).

 

If it's being an arse, it's only incidental in the fight against those who are being an arse in the first place. I don't think there's anyone, at all, who is planning to claim MC/JI all the time... it's simply a way to shut down those who refuse to use a touch of common sense.

[Grey Mage]

Will anyone but the biggest of arses insist on it? no

 

I think you're misjudging the point. The reason this question is important is not to be a rules lawyering arse, but to respond to those rules lawyering arses who look at the Personal Teleporter, and go "Oh, it's not an MC any more", ignoring the fact that it's obviously an error in the codex, resulting from pointing to a piece of wargear in another unit's entry (as turning a unit from MC to JI would be all sorts of stupid).

 

If it's being an arse, it's only incidental in the fight against those who are being an arse in the first place. I don't think there's anyone, at all, who is planning to claim MC/JI all the time... it's simply a way to shut down those who refuse to use a touch of common sense.

The proper response is to find a better opponent or get a ruling from your TO. Im usually an advocate of lawyering them back into whatever hole they crawled out of, but there comes a point where weve debated into absurdity.

[Grimtooth]

I am trying to envision how that TO discussion goes:

 

Person A: A Dreadknight with a personal teleporter is unit type Jump Infantry.

 

Person B: A Dreadknight with a personal teleporter is unit type Jump Infantry/MC.

 

Person A: A Dreadknight with a personal teleporter is unit type Jump Infantry.

 

Person B: Nothing says that the Dreadknight loses his unit type Monstrous Creature when he is given a personal teleporter.

 

Person A: A Dreadknight with a personal teleporter is unit type Jump Infantry.

 

Person B: Nothing says a model cannot be two unit types.

 

Person A: A Dreadknight with a personal teleporter is unit type Jump Infantry.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

So after that display of each players argument the TO could go by what he thinks should be RAI and say,

 

A Dreadknight with personal teleporter moves as Jump Infantry.

 

Which then must mean,

 

Interceptors with personal teleporters move as Jump Infantry.

 

Or if he goes by RAI using past precedent of jump packs, bikes, and thunderwolf mounts combined with the rule as it is written then we are back to the beginning of,

 

A Dreadknight with a personal teleporter is Jump Infantry.

[Brother Valerius]

Don't be silly. It's very clear that the personal teleporter is intended to make Interceptors jump infantry, and the fact that it makes the Dreadknight into jump infantry as well is an oversight which came about because they pointed to a piece of wargear meant for another unit, without thinking of the implications. Very similar to the situation with the Doomfist.

[Grimtooth]

Don't be silly. It's very clear that the personal teleporter is intended to make Interceptors jump infantry, and the fact that it makes the Dreadknight into jump infantry as well is an oversight which came about because they pointed to a piece of wargear meant for another unit, without thinking of the implications. Very similar to the situation with the Doomfist.

 

Despite what you believe, you don't know what was intended by the design team.

 

It could be exactly as written and the design team thought that added mobility to the Dreadknight had to be balanced by taking away his Monstrous Creature strengths. That is just as plausible as the moving as Jump Infantry reasoning.

[Grey Mage]

Actually, now that I have the codex in my hands the resolution is readily apparent.

 

The wargear does absolutely nothing for a Nemesis Dreadknight. Nothing at all. Because there is no wargear entry for it anywhere.

 

There IS a personal teleporter entry on pg. 28. However, the very first thing it says is "Interceptor squad only". A Nemesis Dreadknight is not, cannot be, and never will be an interceptor squad. Thus, RAW it cannot use this peice of equipment. Thus it cannot teleport shunt, remains a monstrous creature, and its all very unfortunate.

 

After all, RAW nothing says that just because you can buy a piece of wargear that you can actually use it... or find the rules for it... or any such thing. The SWs had to deal with alot of this after the 5th edition C:SM came out. Its sad, but itll no doubt be hit with an errata soon enough.

[Grimtooth]

Yea, I brought my GK codex with me on a business trip to give it a few rereads over and over. The more I read it, I almost feel like there is a language barrier between GW writers and GW editors.

 

There is a difference between areas that can be open to different readings and just flat out sloppy writing.

 

It is probably a safe bet that the FAQ/Errata will say that Dreadknights with a teleporter move as Jump Infantry but also not change the the entry says Interceptors only. Hahahaha!