dreadknight question

[Brother Valerius]

There we disagree, Gentlemanloser (as you know). If we disregard, for the sake of argument, the bit about personal teleporters being for Interceptor squads only, then the RAW is that the dreadknight is both an MC and JI simultaneously. Yes, it breaks the game. No, there's no way to resolve it within the framework of RAW. Nonetheless, it is the RAW. Nothing about the meaning of "rules as written" means that you ignore them if they break the game. Game-breaking or not, they are the rules as written.

 

And if we are going to throw out the RAW because it breaks the game, then there's no ground to argue that the dreadknight is ever JI in the first place, because then we're really playing by RAI, not RAW.

 

The RAW doesn't exists. As noted, there's no RAW to say you change Unit type, or you're only ever one unit type.

 

And no RAW to say you're both.

 

As such, we have to look at how 40k functions in the absence of RAW direction here.

 

If we take the stance that you can be more than one unit type, the game breaks. If you take the stance that you change unit types, the game doesn't.

 

Obviously, we can't hold the stance that breaks the game as actual RAW. Otherwise we're no longer playing 40k. :cuss

 

But there is RAW to say that you're both, you're simply choosing to ignore it because it doesn't make much sense. If the rules say "unit x is a", and in another place say "unit x is b", then the logical conclusion is that the rules say "unit x is a+b". Sure, a+b is undefined and causes massive problems in this case, but that doesn't change the RAW.

 

Your last sentence sums up what I feel is incorrect in your position. RAW means "rules as written", but you're only accepting that something can be held as RAW if it is non-game-breaking. That is not a necessary condition for RAW. If the rules are written in a way which breaks the game, they break the game, and are still the rules as written.

 

And more or less, I think you're arguing for the right thing. We shouldn't blindly follow RAW, we should use some discernment to ignore rules which will completely hose the game up. But we also shouldn't say we're following RAW when we do so, because that isn't true.

[Gentlemanloser]

If the rules say "unit x is a", and in another place say "unit x is b", then the logical conclusion is that the rules say "unit x is a+b". Sure, a+b is undefined and causes massive problems in this case, but that doesn't change the RAW.

 

I disagree. :P

 

Precisely becuase there is no RAW for what happens when you change unit types. Logically it could be a state change, from a *to* b, and doesn't necessarily mean a concatenation.

 

Currently, we have two outcomes, both devoid of any RAW guidance.

 

One breaks the game, and requires hourserulling to work.

 

The other doesn't.

 

Why would/should the choice that breaks the game have more ligitimacy behind it, then the choice that actually runs smothly with the game itself? I'd even go so far as to claim that the choice that breaks the game is, by definition, an invalid choice. As it breaks the game.

 

Therefore, the only option we have is to go with the RAW that *doesn't* break the game.

 

;)

[number6]

And more or less, I think you're arguing for the right thing.

I think we all are, in the end. Angelis cleared up the last "hurdle" I saw with his latest posts. :D

We shouldn't blindly follow RAW, we should use some discernment to ignore rules which will completely hose the game up. But we also shouldn't say we're following RAW when we do so, because that isn't true.

The RAW may be broken, but the RAI is not. Everybody seems to be in 100% agreement about that. So ... why argue about who has the "correct" RAW interpretation when we're all going to play the game the same way anyway? The Teleporter DK remains a Monstrous Creature, and it moves like Jump Infantry.

 

Sorted. There's really nothing beyond that worth arguing about ... is there? :)

[Decoy]

Sorted. There's really nothing beyond that worth arguing about ... is there? :cuss

 

Define "Worth arguing". You're changing a series of rules to accomodate a favorable outcome; By RAW, if a unit takes a piece of wargear that changes its type, that unit type -changes-, does not add. When I add a Bike to my HQ infantry unit, it's not spontaneously "Bike/Infantry", it is a Biker. Anything that affects Infantry does not affect a Biker, and visa versa. This applies to every other permutation of this function in the entire game: There is no instance of any piece of wargear that grants dual Unit Type. They all overwrite, eliminating the prior unit categorization. This functions the same in regards to the NDK: "is Jump Infantry" means exactly that. The unit -is- so-and-so-type. It isn't "Jump infantry AND whatever else", it is Jump Infantry. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. If it said "Is Jump Infantry in addition to it's normal type", I'd agree with you fully. However, that is not the case.

 

People can snivel and hide behind "But the RAI is..." as they wish, but the rule is very solidly written and absolutely clear cut. It's not GW's fault that players want to try to manipulate the rules for competitive advantage.

[number6]

People can snivel and hide behind "But the RAI is..." as they wish, but the rule is very solidly written and absolutely clear cut. It's not GW's fault that players want to try to manipulate the rules for competitive advantage.

You've got this completely backwards. If I wanted a competitive advantage, I'd insist that my Teleporter DK was actually Jump Infantry AND Monstrous Creature, and when it suited me I'd say, "Jump Infantry! I can put him in my Stormraven! Jump Infantry! I'm gonna choose to take cover saves just like any other Jump Infantry!" And when it suited me otherwise, I'd say, "Monstrous Creature! I get 2d6 armour penetration! Monstrous Creature! You don't get any armour saves against any of my attacks!"

 

That's abuse. But if you want to claim that what I just described is the only way to play the game, I wish you luck in finding an opponent to play against.

[Daedalus Templarius]

You guys should talk about the usage and tactics of Dreadknights instead of continuing this circular argument.

[Gentlemanloser]

Don't bother with the ranged Weapons, only take the Heavy Incinerator, if you must have one, if you've got the points spare.

 

Run the NDK at stuff and hit things.

 

If you can free up the points, take the PT to make him hit stuff quicker. But it's an expensive upgrade.

 

That's about it really. ;)

 

Of course, there's the "Greatsword versus 2 Fists" debate. But that depends on how your group plays the Doomfists...

[Daedalus Templarius]

I imagine the doomfists will be FAQd to str6, and when that happens I think the sword will become a better upgrade.

 

Would you really want to take him without the PT? It just increases his movement by so much, 12" move and a 30" move once per game are pretty huge.

[Gentlemanloser]

For its cost, I never take the PT. It's too expensive.

 

Treat him like a cheaper 4 man TDA squad, and walk him up the board. ;)

[jeffersonian000]

I don't know, its difficult for me to not take the PT upgrade. "I can take a montrous Terminator with a Jump Pack!?!"

 

SJ

[Brother Valerius]

By RAW, if a unit takes a piece of wargear that changes its type, that unit type -changes-, does not add.

 

Cite me the rule, because to my knowledge there is no such rule.

 

People can snivel and hide behind "But the RAI is..." as they wish, but the rule is very solidly written and absolutely clear cut. It's not GW's fault that players want to try to manipulate the rules for competitive advantage.

 

The rule is very badly written. No sane player would pay 75 points for the privilege of losing MC status. This isn't some cowardly attempt to cheat, this is recognizing that the rules make no sense if we interpret them literally rather than recognize the glaringly obvious intent.

[Decoy]

By RAW, if a unit takes a piece of wargear that changes its type, that unit type -changes-, does not add.

 

Cite me the rule, because to my knowledge there is no such rule.

 

 

"is jump infantry." The rule is not "Is jump infantry in addition to it's type." The rule is "is jump infantry". Therefore, once the wargear is taken, the NDK is, by the rule, "jump infantry". Not an MC,or MC and Jump Infantry, but Jump Infantry alone. Quite clear cut. It doesn't "move like jump infantry", it doesn't "count as jump infantry", it is Jump Infantry. That means no MC rules, the ability to board Ravens (I think), and Dangerous Terrain when jumping into terrain.

 

 

And to Number6...

 

You've got this completely backwards. If I wanted a competitive advantage, I'd insist that my Teleporter DK was actually Jump Infantry AND Monstrous Creature, and when it suited me I'd say, "Jump Infantry! I can put him in my Stormraven! Jump Infantry! I'm gonna choose to take cover saves just like any other Jump Infantry!" And when it suited me otherwise, I'd say, "Monstrous Creature! I get 2d6 armour penetration! Monstrous Creature! You don't get any armour saves against any of my attacks!"

 

You couldn't put him in the Storm Raven, simply because Ravens cannot transport MCs. There is a list of allowable unit types on a Stormraven: Monstrous Creature is not one of them, to my knowledge. Therefore, it cannot embark, even though it -is- Jump Infantry.

 

Rules are not independently exclusive. Just because a unit (hypothetically) is two types does not invalidate the other requirements and hindrances of the unit type. Might I suggest reading into the rulebook? Such things are pretty much elementary, and I'd rather have this debate with someone with even a loose grasp of how a permissive set of rules works.

 

 

The problem with RAI is that it's almost never "read as intended". RAI is based solely on the premise of how each individual -believes- the rule should work. Almost every RAI argument is argued in favor of "common sense", with RAI purists blatantly ignoring given rules in favor of, to put it bluntly, the way they think the rules should work. RAW has a purpose; to put aside people "interpreting" the rule to their advantage.

 

Honestly mate, I think y'all are right in how it -should- work. I'm willing to bet that the FAQ will side with you. However, as it stands now, that's not the case; the RAW is clear, but the RAI is fuzzy. In truth, I wish I could agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

 

 

That's abuse. But if you want to claim that what I just described is the only way to play the game, I wish you luck in finding an opponent to play against.

 

It's self-defeating abuse. You lose more than you'd gain, ultimately. If you'd want to hamper yourself that way, you'd be welcome to do so. I, myself, play with RAI in mind; I've found that both RAW and RAI purists are irrational folk, and in a face to face confrontation you won't end up changing their minds one way or another. Largely, I end up ceding to a "Houserule" just so the other poor little thing won't throw a fit and walk out. I'd rather have a mediocre game following made-up rules conceived by a half-wit than no game at all.

[number6]

@Decoy, you contradict yourself in attempting to maintain your incorrect interpretation.

 

You couldn't put him in the Storm Raven, simply because Ravens cannot transport MCs. There is a list of allowable unit types on a Stormraven: Monstrous Creature is not one of them, to my knowledge. Therefore, it cannot embark, even though it -is- Jump Infantry.

When in the very same post you also stated:

 

"is jump infantry." The rule is not "Is jump infantry in addition to it's type." The rule is "is jump infantry". Therefore, once the wargear is taken, the NDK is, by the rule, "jump infantry". Not an MC,or MC and Jump Infantry, but Jump Infantry alone. Quite clear cut. It doesn't "move like jump infantry", it doesn't "count as jump infantry", it is Jump Infantry. That means no MC rules, the ability to board Ravens (I think), and Dangerous Terrain when jumping into terrain.

You can't have it both ways. You directly contradict your own logical underpinnings. Logical and RAW Fail on your part here.

[Gentlemanloser]

Number6, that part of Decoys post referes to the claim that the NDK is both MC and JI at the same time. :)

 

I'd insist that my Teleporter DK was actually Jump Infantry AND Monstrous Creature, and when it suited me I'd say, "Jump Infantry! I can put him in my Stormraven! Jump Infantry!

 

You couldn't put him in the Storm Raven, simply because Ravens cannot transport MCs

 

Just because a unit (hypothetically) is two types does not invalidate the other requirements and hindrances of the unit type.

 

:)

[501st]

i disagree that Doom Fists will be FAQ's to strength 6, taking the great sword is meant to be trading the str10 to a Str6 with re-rolls

[Decoy]

Number6, that part of Decoys post referes to the claim that the NDK is both MC and JI at the same time. ;)

 

Quite. I guess in addition to rules interpretations, reading comprehension should be improved a bit as well.

 

 

Number6, the RAW is clear. If I wanted to be even more of a RAWhound, I'd point out that the BRB further goes on to state that, unless the NDK has Relentless (it very well might, I don't have the Dex handy) since Jump Infantry cannot fire heavy weapons on the move, the NDK (which is Jump Infantry and follows all rules for Infantry, thusly) cannot even fire its weaponry after a jump (or, theoretically, a shunt).

 

 

To put it bluntly, houseruling that NDK "moves as if it were Jump Infantry" (or however you want to paraphrase that) eliminates all the negatives of the very rule -designed- to balance the unit without losing any of the advantages. While we're spewing bull :lol: and making up rules to fit our powergaming, unsportsmanlike selves, my Frostblades are now S8 and provide a 2+ Invulnerable. With rerolls.

 

It's quite simple. "Is Jump Infantry" does not mean "Is Jump Infantry and everything else I want it to be" or "Is Jump Infantry and is everything Daddy wasn't during my childhood". It does not mean "Counts as Jump Infantry." It does not mean "Moves as Jump Infantry". It means exactly what it says: Is Jump Infantry. Did you take the Teleporter? Yes? The NDK is now Jump Infantry. Enjoy your 12" move, lack of ignoring armor, and inability to shoot while jumping. Did you take the teleporter? No? The NDK is an MC, moves 6" and can fire all of it's weapons on the move.

 

Teleporter: Jump Infantry

No Teleporter: Monstrous Creature

 

And yes, it is just that simple, unless you deliberately set out to make it complex in order to win a game with plastic men. And that's just pathetic.

[shan vener]

i'm starting to wish that i had never noticed the teleporter option

[nurglez]

well, if you want to play it strictly by RAW, we must go back to grey mage's post, about how by RAW if the dreadknight takes a personal teleporter it cant use it, as the personal teleporter says, and I quote "Interceptor squad only".

[Decoy]

i disagree that Doom Fists will be FAQ's to strength 6, taking the great sword is meant to be trading the str10 to a Str6 with re-rolls

 

Agreed. That was just poor phrasing on the part of the developers. That's a pretty clear "obviousfail". It makes me wonder if they just copypasta'd the DCCW part of that. Or hell, maybe it was intentional for some Godsforsaken reason.

 

well, if you want to play it strictly by RAW, we must go back to grey mage's post, about how by RAW if the dreadknight takes a personal teleporter it cant use it, as the personal teleporter says, and I quote "Interceptor squad only".

 

I'd be inclined to agree, if it weren't a permissive rules set. The quote may be "Interceptor Squad Only", but there are many rules that circumvent such restrictions. "May assault after running", for instance, overrules "running disallows assaults" (I'm paraphrasing, please bear with me.) In general, a good rule of thumb is the following: If a rule says you -can- do it in an instance when you otherwise couldn't, you can. Rules for Stormshields prevent Arjac from getting a DCCW attack, his shield bypasses it (although in a roundabout way, but the principle is the same). There are such examples throughout the 40K world. In a permissive rules set, equipping the NDK with a PT is fully acceptable: The rules say you -can- do it, despite other (more general) rules saying you can't. If even the above fails, then a good rule of thumb is "specific over general". "Interceptor Only" is less specific than "may take PT".

 

(Edited to respond to Nurglez)

[number6]

It's quite simple. "Is Jump Infantry" does not mean "Is Jump Infantry and everything else I want it to be" or "Is Jump Infantry and is everything Daddy wasn't during my childhood". It does not mean "Counts as Jump Infantry." It does not mean "Moves as Jump Infantry". It means exactly what it says: Is Jump Infantry. Did you take the Teleporter? Yes? The NDK is now Jump Infantry. Enjoy your 12" move, lack of ignoring armor, and inability to shoot while jumping. Did you take the teleporter? No? The NDK is an MC, moves 6" and can fire all of it's weapons on the move.

 

Teleporter: Jump Infantry

No Teleporter: Monstrous Creature

 

And yes, it is just that simple, unless you deliberately set out to make it complex in order to win a game with plastic men. And that's just pathetic.

See, this is where you lose me on "right" and "wrong" with RAW interpretation. I challenge you to actually make this interpretation fly in the real world, in real games, against real people.

 

No matter how much you argue that it's simple, it really isn't. The reason is that people simply are not going to believe that a DK can ride in a Stormraven and take cover saves same as all other Jump Infantry. It flies in the face of the extremely clear intent of the rules.

 

Or, to put it bluntly, you are wrong. ;) No amount of semantics can change that. It's a game. Not a court of law. Try playing it. You might find it's actually kinda fun!

[Decoy]

No matter how much you argue that it's simple, it really isn't. The reason is that people simply are not going to believe that a DK can ride in a Stormraven and take cover saves same as all other Jump Infantry. It flies in the face of the extremely clear intent of the rules.

 

Or, to put it bluntly, you are wrong. :P No amount of semantics can change that. It's a game. Not a court of law. Try playing it. You might find it's actually kinda fun!

 

Problem is, that's exactly, to the letter, the way it's played now in my local area. Interestingly, it was a Grey Knight player who informed most of the rest of us, and it just spread.

 

Since a clear, intelligent and logical approach seems to be beyond you, I'll simplify it.

 

I have an apple.

I turn the apple into an orange.

The object that I posess is an orange. (Explanation, just in case:) It -was- an apple, but in every way, shape and purpose, it's an orange. What it -was- is irrelevant. What it -is- is what matters.

 

Applied to the rule in question: "IS Jump Infantry"

 

What -IS- it? Jump Infantry.

What -WAS- it? A Monstrous creature.

 

Therefore...

 

-IS- it a Monstrous Creature? No. It -IS- Jump Infantry.

 

You can claim that I'm wrong all you want. I can claim that I'm wrong too, but that'd make me a much a liar as you. Shame on you, a mod of all things, purposefully encouraging people to cheat. Tsk tsk.

 

 

I've proven that the NDK is Jump Infantry. You can't, nor haven't even tried, to prove otherwise. Hell, the best you can resort to is attacking me as a person instead of trying to prove me wrong. The only reason I'm still wasting my comparatively precious time with you is, I think, a childish curiosity to see if you have any backing in fact whatsoever, or if all you have on that end of the screen is knee-jerk reactionism and a lack of critical thinking skills.

 

If you can't contribute actively to a thread, might I suggest you leave it? You have every right to be here, but you're doing pretty much nothing other than insulting and general trolling. You're not even doing -that- well. Might as well make a forgettable nuisance of yourself somewhere else.

 

 

I've made the on-topic debate as simple as I can get. It doesn't get simpler. If you still don't understand it, I'll give up trying, because you can't teach the willfully ignorant.

 

In regards to this laughable statement...

 

It flies in the face of the extremely clear intent of the rules.

 

No. It flies in the face of the extremely clear intent of your rules. You don't "think" it should happen. Well, tough :lol: . That's not the way the real world, or the 40K world, operates. Wishful thinking and ing rainbows and sunshine won't make what you don't like go away. I suggest you get used to it.

 

 

 

Now. With that said. Does anyone else, anyone at all, have a counter to the evidence I've put forward? I'd prefer it if your argument didn't boil down to "LUL UR TEH STOOPID". Words over two syllables accepted and encouraged.

[Inquisitor Fox]

And I think we're done here.