4576
Post by: Burning Star IV
In the Space Marine Codex, under the listing for Tac squads, it says:
Dedicated Transport:
May select a Rhino or a Razorback. If the squad numbers ten models, may take a Drop Pod (see page 135 for points cost).
Does this mean that I can give a Tac squad a Drop Pod AND a Razorback?
5164
Post by: Stelek
Sadly you noticed, I think it does.
4977
Post by: jp400
I dont think it does. What I do think is that it was poorly written by GW.
What they mean is that you can select the Rhino/razorback for any sized squad.... and if your squad is over a certain size you have the option to use a Drop pod instead.
Here we have another example of people trying to abuse something that isnt their because of "poor wording".
4515
Post by: KeithGatchalian
Burning Star IV wrote:In the Space Marine Codex, under the listing for Tac squads, it says:
Dedicated Transport:
May select a Rhino or a Razorback. If the squad numbers ten models, may take a Drop Pod (see page 135 for points cost).
Does this mean that I can give a Tac squad a Drop Pod AND a Razorback?
Page 67 of the Main Rulebook... a unit may buy a vehicle etc etc. Singular usage there. Check the dedicated transport entry box.
8021
Post by: JD21290
im guessing no, since the whole idea for a dedicated transport is for sole use for that unit only, and the unit can only use 1 transport.
just going on a general idea here, may be wrong though.
7366
Post by: quietus86
think you can only bye one but razer back you can bye for a 10 man squad now with the spit up role on half in the razerback the outer on foot
6838
Post by: 1hadhq
Tac squad = RAW = NO
The whole Tac squad is divided AFTER leaving the droppod.
Your dedicated transport can't be placed elsewhere until your transported Tacs arrive by DS.
7366
Post by: quietus86
I mean if you only take the razerback.
juist making my self clear
5164
Post by: Stelek
So far no actual RAW. We all know the RAI. That means nothing in this forum. What's the RAW say? Right.
4250
Post by: Smashotron
Does RAW specifically state you cannot place a dedicated transport without it's unit? (not at home with book) If it doesn't, you could deploy the rhino/razor empty for someone else and then drop the squad by pod.
5760
Post by: Drunkspleen
Smashotron: Theres no RAW That explicitly states that as far as I know, and I doubt there's any. If there was something stipulating needing to deploy a whole force organisation chart at once or something similar then it would prohibit HQs from taking transports for fear of rolling up a Dawn of War mission.
I think RAW in this case is that you could take both the razorback and the drop pod and I'm not sure but looking at the combat squad rules I think you could even get away with putting 5 marines in the pod and 5 in the razorback.
6838
Post by: 1hadhq
RAW transports: rulebook page 66. "one unit cannot be distributed between transports." Edit: difference between english and german rulebook: German RAW transports : rulebook page 67."a dedicated transport Must be placed with the unit its bought with."
Better?  Maybe you can buy razorback+droppod. How to place them? 
7849
Post by: Webbe
1hadhq wrote:RAW transports : rulebook page 67.
"a dedicated transport Must be placed with the unit its bought with."
This is not a quote from the rulebook.
You never have to deploy dedicated transport with the unit they are bought with if they are not embarked in it at deployment.
page 67
The only limitation of a dedicated transport is that when it is deployed it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any independent characters).
page 92 (deployment)
MULTIPLE UNIT CHOICES
Note that occasionally the Codexes allow the player to include several units in his army at the cost of a single force organisation slot (like dedicated transports, etc.). Apart from being bought as a single choice, these units operate and count as separate units in all respects.
As far as I can see RAW it's very possible for a Tactical squad to take both a rhino or razorback and a drop pod and then deploy in neither of them. We all know what's intended.
7811
Post by: Iboshi2
Webbe wrote:1hadhq wrote:RAW transports : rulebook page 67.
"a dedicated transport Must be placed with the unit its bought with."
This is not a quote from the rulebook.
You never have to deploy dedicated transport with the unit they are bought with if they are not embarked in it at deployment.
He said in his post that he was showing the difference between the german and english rulebook....
so, yes- It's not in the english version...
4515
Post by: KeithGatchalian
Page 67
"Sometimes a unit entry in a codex will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected with the unit." italics mine.
This makes it clear that you can only buy 1 vehicle per unit.
5164
Post by: Stelek
KeithGatchalian wrote: Page 67
"Sometimes a unit entry in a codex will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected with the unit." italics mine.
This makes it clear that you can only buy 1 vehicle per unit.
In your opinion.
Codex trumps rulebook is the rule in GW games.
So guess which rule actually applies?
Correct, razorback or rhino + drop pod.
7849
Post by: Webbe
Iboshi2 wrote:He said in his post that he was showing the difference between the german and english rulebook....
so, yes- It's not in the english version...
 He edited his post after I posted mine...
7098
Post by: Nightmare
i would say you can because there is no or before the buy a drop pod part, although why would you as they just give you extra kill points.
4298
Post by: Spellbound
Because a drop pod or razorback really requires at least a S6 weapon to do much do them, and that's something not shooting at your marines.
Sure, they can go for the "easy" kill point, but everything else is still shooting up your guys. It's not that they have to give up shots, it's WHAT they have to give up. A squad of dire avengers can't just give it a passing wave and blow it apart, they'll need their fire dragons or warp spiders to cause it any grief.
4250
Post by: Smashotron
exactly. fire warriors can't be bothered to shoot at it, and your opponent will then waste a hammerhead or suit shot to knock it (them) out.
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
I reread the entry in the marine codex. And then I reread the entry again. How the heck you can interprete the sentence as allow to take both shows a lack of basic English.
There are two sentences. You cannot take each sentence independantly. the sentence that says that you may take a droppod is just another option - i.e rhino, razorback or droppod. The reason the droppod is separate is it is separate and not with the rhino or razorback sentence is that there is a restriction in the number of models.
You can take 10+ with a rhino or razorback. you can only take a droppod if you have 10 or less.
I am just returning to 40k having not liked v4. The more time I spend on Dakka the more I am leaning to stopping playing again as I remember part of the reason why I stopped playing. I just hate watching this as people bend, stretch and purposely use bad grammar and poor logic to extract an advantage where there is none. I know I know I am going to face some-one like this across a table.
8583
Post by: InquisitorFabius
fullheadofhair wrote:You can take 10+ with a rhino or razorback. you can only take a droppod if you have 10 or less.
Before you jump on in, make sure you quote the rule properly. The rule states if the squad numbers 10 models, not 10 or less. You are quick to site bad grammar and reading comp, but you also are at fault of these items. You are correct it is comprised of two sentences, but there is no "if no Rhino or Razorback is tanken, then" statement, thus allowing both to be true.
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
InquisitorFabius wrote:fullheadofhair wrote:You can take 10+ with a rhino or razorback. you can only take a droppod if you have 10 or less.
Before you jump on in, make sure you quote the rule properly. The rule states if the squad numbers 10 models, not 10 or less. You are quick to site bad grammar and reading comp, but you also are at fault of these items. You are correct it is comprised of two sentences, but there is no "if no Rhino or Razorback is tanken, then" statement, thus allowing both to be true.
It was from memory. Being only average I am not blessed with a photgraphic memory or a copy of the new codex and anyway the 10 or less doesn't relate to the point you are making.
There doesn't need to be a no "if no" by combining the rule book and simple english comprehension listing three options - the point I was making is the reason the DP is separate is that there is a qualifier with it i.e an additional rule.
I hope it doesn't say just 10 models or you wil never be able to take a HQ character in a drop pod with a tac squad, i.e to have a drop pod must have 10 members therefore 9 doesn't get one. therefore unless a DP takes 11 models a HQ or character cannot attach to a tac squad and DP in.
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
fullheadofhair wrote:InquisitorFabius wrote:fullheadofhair wrote:You can take 10+ with a rhino or razorback. you can only take a droppod if you have 10 or less.
Before you jump on in, make sure you quote the rule properly. The rule states if the squad numbers 10 models, not 10 or less. You are quick to site bad grammar and reading comp, but you also are at fault of these items. You are correct it is comprised of two sentences, but there is no "if no Rhino or Razorback is tanken, then" statement, thus allowing both to be true.
It was from memory. Being only average I am not blessed with a photgraphic memory or a copy of the new codex and anyway the 10 or less doesn't relate to the point you are making.
There doesn't need to be a no "if no" by combining the rule book and simple english comprehension when reading the new codex. It is just listing three options - the point I was making is the reason the DP is separate is that there is a qualifier with it i.e an additional rule -not an additional option to be taken with the first two.
I hope it doesn't say just 10 models or you wil never be able to take a HQ character in a drop pod with a tac squad, i.e to have a drop pod must have 10 members therefore 9 doesn't get one. therefore unless a DP takes 11 models a HQ or character cannot attach to a tac squad and DP in.
4576
Post by: Burning Star IV
fullheadofhair wrote:InquisitorFabius wrote:fullheadofhair wrote:You can take 10+ with a rhino or razorback. you can only take a droppod if you have 10 or less.
Before you jump on in, make sure you quote the rule properly. The rule states if the squad numbers 10 models, not 10 or less. You are quick to site bad grammar and reading comp, but you also are at fault of these items. You are correct it is comprised of two sentences, but there is no "if no Rhino or Razorback is tanken, then" statement, thus allowing both to be true.
It was from memory. Being only average I am not blessed with a photgraphic memory or a copy of the new codex and anyway the 10 or less doesn't relate to the point you are making.
There doesn't need to be a no "if no" by combining the rule book and simple english comprehension listing three options - the point I was making is the reason the DP is separate is that there is a qualifier with it i.e an additional rule.
I hope it doesn't say just 10 models or you wil never be able to take a HQ character in a drop pod with a tac squad, i.e to have a drop pod must have 10 members therefore 9 doesn't get one. therefore unless a DP takes 11 models a HQ or character cannot attach to a tac squad and DP in.
You should check the rule before you jump in anyways. If you don't know the rule, you don't know what you're talking about.
There is nothing prohibiting the requisition of both, but there is something saying that you can take each one. It is permitted, so unless there is a clause somewhere (which there isn't), you can take both.
As for your HQ statement, that is not true. The rule states that if the SQUAD numbers 10 models, it may take a DP. Independent characters can join squads in DPs (which have a 12-model capacity, mind you), because of the rules described for ICs and Dedicated Transports.
99
Post by: insaniak
fullheadofhair wrote:There doesn't need to be a no "if no" by combining the rule book and simple english comprehension listing three options -
No, sorry... it's a seperate statement, and so it does need a qualifier if it's going to be included as a part of the first sentence.
The first sentence gives two options: rhino or razorback.
The second gives another unrelated option: Drop pod if 10 models.
Nothing in the rule quoted makes the second sentence dependant on the first in any way whatsoever. Without something linking it to the first sentence (an 'if neither of these are taken' or simply an 'instead') the sole qualifier for taking a Drop Pod is that the unit has 10 models.
Options are not conditional of previously listed different options unless something actually links them together.
So unless there's something else in the codex that limits units to taking a single transport vehicle, it's legal. I wouldn't recommend actually trying it... but the rules allow it.
99
Post by: insaniak
Bah! Quote button where the edit button should be :(
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
Burning Star IV wrote:fullheadofhair wrote:InquisitorFabius wrote:fullheadofhair wrote:You can take 10+ with a rhino or razorback. you can only take a droppod if you have 10 or less.
Before you jump on in, make sure you quote the rule properly. The rule states if the squad numbers 10 models, not 10 or less. You are quick to site bad grammar and reading comp, but you also are at fault of these items. You are correct it is comprised of two sentences, but there is no "if no Rhino or Razorback is tanken, then" statement, thus allowing both to be true.
It was from memory. Being only average I am not blessed with a photgraphic memory or a copy of the new codex and anyway the 10 or less doesn't relate to the point you are making.
There doesn't need to be a no "if no" by combining the rule book and simple english comprehension listing three options - the point I was making is the reason the DP is separate is that there is a qualifier with it i.e an additional rule.
I hope it doesn't say just 10 models or you wil never be able to take a HQ character in a drop pod with a tac squad, i.e to have a drop pod must have 10 members therefore 9 doesn't get one. therefore unless a DP takes 11 models a HQ or character cannot attach to a tac squad and DP in.
You should check the rule before you jump in anyways. If you don't know the rule, you don't know what you're talking about.
There is nothing prohibiting the requisition of both, but there is something saying that you can take each one. It is permitted, so unless there is a clause somewhere (which there isn't), you can take both.
As for your HQ statement, that is not true. The rule states that if the SQUAD numbers 10 models, it may take a DP. Independent characters can join squads in DPs (which have a 12-model capacity, mind you), because of the rules described for ICs and Dedicated Transports.
Oh for godsakes, will someone please frikking read. I went to my local GW last night. I read the rule in the frikking codex. I couldn't remember if the entry said 10 men or less.
Thank you for clarify the number of models in a DP - that I forgotten about.
However,
Point one: you are just asserting that it isn't prohibted. We differ on English. I think you cannot read. You think I am dumb - neither of us are going to agree until it is FAQ'ed.
Point 2. You cannot have it both ways. If it says 10 models(or whatever)/ squad can only take a DP then it is relating to the tac-squad as it is the entry for the tac squad. Untlike v4 of the SM codex, v5 details the DP carrying requirements in the tac squad entry. therefore the squad numbers refers to the tac squad itself.
From the main rules book "alternatively, an IC may beging the game already with a unit, by being deployed in coherency with them" pg 48. Deployed in coherency to me does not mean getting into a drop-pod before arriving. He has to be deployed as his own unit, in coherency to another unit (i.e other unit has to have been deployed first - note first, not simultanouesly, so that the first part of of pg 48 joining a unit can apply. So no, I don't think an IC can join a tac squad in a DP.
wasn't there the same argument in v4?
99
Post by: insaniak
fullheadofhair wrote:wasn't there the same argument in v4?
There was indeed.
The difference was that in 4th Edition, the Reserves rules didn't allow ICs to join Units in Reserve.
In 5th edition, they do.
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
insaniak wrote:fullheadofhair wrote:wasn't there the same argument in v4?
There was indeed.
The difference was that in 4th Edition, the Reserves rules didn't allow ICs to join Units in Reserve.
In 5th edition, they do.
ah yes, paid 94, player must specify if any transport vehicle in reserve is carrying any of the infantry units and or IC. Thanks for the clarification does suggest that. However, pg 48 makes no mention that IC's can join squads in reserves - it says IC's can only join a squad by either moving into coherency or by being deployed in coherency of another squad, which suggests that they cannot be deployed simultanuously.
On what page does it say an IC can join a unit in reserves?
EDITED: Does pg 94 actually qualify as saying that an IC can join a unit in reserves. The reason I am asking is this argument has already happened (I wasn't part of it).
On a side note it will be nice to own the dang codex instead of relying on memory when reading it in the store. any ideas when it is coming out?
However, I still disagree with the reading of the OP's main point. As I have said, we aren't going to agree until it is FAQ'ed, and I hope no-one I play is going to put an army list that has this and cotains the salamander special character + witch-hunter allies!!
99
Post by: insaniak
fullheadofhair wrote: However, pg 48 makes no mention that IC's can join squads in reserves -
That's because page 48 doesn't contain the rules for Reserves.
Reserves is a mission special rule. In missions that allow it, you follow the rules as laid out in the Reserves entry.
So in a mission using the Reserves special rule, ICs can be joined to units in Reserve... because the Reserves rules say that they can.
5695
Post by: Spif
Stelek wrote:
In your opinion.
Codex trumps rulebook is the rule in GW games.
So guess which rule actually applies?
Correct, razorback or rhino + drop pod.
Top of page 135 of SM codex,
"Certain Space Marine units have the option of selecting a dedicated transport vehicle."
I guess you could still argue this does not stop you from taking both (since this passage does not apply to tac squads), although it heavily hints at intentions. Considering we are interpreting a part of the codex that is not even written in complete sentences, looking elsewhere for intention or waiting for a FAQ is a good bet.
8153
Post by: gainesdp
As an additional reference besides page 135 of the Codex, page 128 states to refer to the rulebook for how dedicated transports work.
My take is that the consistent usage of singular case regarding a unit taking a dedicated transport (as well as the name itself) is a pretty strong case for nixing a unit taking multiple transports.
99
Post by: insaniak
Spif wrote:I guess you could still argue this does not stop you from taking both (since this passage does not apply to tac squads), although it heavily hints at intentions.
I don't think we really need hints of intentions. I'd be quite convinced even without any suggested intentions in the codex, that GW didn't deliberately allow a squad to take two different transports at the same time.
It may or may not be FAQ'd, but I would doubt that it will be much of an issue regardless, anywhere other than internet rules discussion boards.
1295
Post by: Blunt Force Trauma
Why shouldn't they be allowed to take two transports? Half deploy in pods the other in the razorback. It makes sense really.
527
Post by: Flavius Infernus
gainesdp wrote:As an additional reference besides page 135 of the Codex, page 128 states to refer to the rulebook for how dedicated transports work.
My take is that the consistent usage of singular case regarding a unit taking a dedicated transport (as well as the name itself) is a pretty strong case for nixing a unit taking multiple transports.
I disagree that it's a strong case. I don't think the case holds any water from a grammatical/linguistic standpoint. Using singular noun forms doesn't restrict the meaning in this way unless there's a modifier like "only" or "always" or "exactly" attached to it.
For example, if "I can take a candy bar off the shelf," that doesn't necessarily mean that I can't take two or more. If "I can eat a candy bar" and "my candy bar may have nuts," that doesn't mean that I don't have other candy bars as well.
527
Post by: Flavius Infernus
fullheadofhair wrote:
I am just returning to 40k having not liked v4. The more time I spend on Dakka the more I am leaning to stopping playing again as I remember part of the reason why I stopped playing. I just hate watching this as people bend, stretch and purposely use bad grammar and poor logic to extract an advantage where there is none. I know I know I am going to face some-one like this across a table.
The Dakka YMDC forum is one of the most unusual places in the hobby. To deal appropriately with it, it's better to bear in mind that the discussion here is not about what people will necessarily *do* across a table (or what people should do). Rather the discussion is a mostly-abstract analysis of what the rules actually *say* or don't say. That's just the starting place in deciding what to do.
For example, I read the rules as saying a tac squad can take both transports (and I believe both the logic and the grammar of this reading are good). But I would never actually take two transports in a game because I would feel like a cheezeball. If you're going to spend any time hanging out on YMDC, it's important to keep the two clear in your mind.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Favius Infernus:
You say that you "read the rules a saying a tac [sic] squad can take both transports" and go on to say, parenthetically, that "I believe both the logic and the grammar of this reading are good".
Could you please show us how "the logic and the grammar of this reading are good"?
8288
Post by: Rated G
Though I do not like the RAW approach usually, especially when it is obvious what the developer's intended, I cannot deny the logical conclusions to said approach in certain situations. I do not feel that this is one of those situations.
Saying you can take two transports here is not Rules as Written, it is Rules as Interpretation, based on a poorly worded sentence. Sadly, the interpretation that you cannot take two transports is no more valid, due to the same poorly worded sentence. It is true that the rule does not include "or." But it also does not "may also." It does not say that you can take two transports.
Everyone always says GW rules are restrictive, but this seems to be a very permissive interpretation. I do not think this would be worth quitting 40k over, though.
99
Post by: insaniak
Rated G wrote: It is true that the rule does not include "or." But it also does not "may also."
It doesn't need to include the 'also'
If I give you two statements:
- You may have an apple
- You may have an orange
Does taking an apple stop you from taking an orange, as the second statement doesn't include an 'also' clause?
No, it doesn't. They're two seperate statements. You can take an apple. And you can take an orange.
Making them exclusive, however, does require a qualifier:
- You may have an apple
- If you don't have an apple, you may have an orange
...would only let you take the orange if you don't have an apple.
The entry is indeed poorly written... but not because it's gramatically unclear... it's very clear. It's only poorly written if we assume that the squad is not intended to be able to take 2 different transports.
Again, not endorsing actually doing so on the table...
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
So what if there are actually three statements, to the effect that:
1. A person may take an apple.
2. A person may take an orange.
3. Certain people have the option of selecting a piece of fruit.
Are we still allowed to take both an apple and an orange?
8288
Post by: Rated G
insaniak wrote:
The entry is indeed poorly written... but not because it's gramatically unclear... it's very clear. It's only poorly written if we assume that the squad is not intended to be able to take 2 different transports.
Again, not endorsing actually doing so on the table...
It seems to me that even if people think they can do it by RAW, they are still assuming it was not intended. Hence, it is poorly written. Why can they take a rhino and a drop pod, but not two razorbacks? That's silly.
And I do not think your example works very well. If you and I were in a room and you told me that, I would then ask you, "Can I have both?" Dividing it into two statements does not automatically open up both options.
And Nurglitch, I think you might be trying too hard bro. Or maybe I'm just the idiot who doesn't understand what you are getting at.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Rated G:
Well, insaniak claims that if there are two sentences and they do not explicitly exclude each other that they are inclusive. Hence a Tactical Squad can take both a Razorback and a Drop Pod.
However, if there is a third sentence, a context such as the one on p.135 of the Codex, a sentence that makes these two sentences express exclusive propositions, then it seems that the rules as written do in fact say that a player does not have the option of taking both a Razorback and a Drop Pod.
It seems to me that the Tactical Squad entry is clear, and that interpreting it otherwise is interpreting it wrongly and out of context.
8288
Post by: Rated G
Ah, okay. You were directly relating the third sentence to the entry. Got ya.
99
Post by: insaniak
Nurglitch wrote:So what if there are actually three statements, to the effect that:
1. A person may take an apple.
2. A person may take an orange.
3. Certain people have the option of selecting a piece of fruit.
Are we still allowed to take both an apple and an orange?
That would depend on how the 3rd statement is actually related to the first two. As you've presented them there, it doesn't relate to them at all.
If the list was actually:
1. Certain people have the option of selecting a piece of fruit
2. Those people may take an apple or pear
3. If those poople are wearing blue shirts, they may take an orange
...then we have something closer to the case in point.
Which could certainly be taken to mean that they can only have one of the three fruits presented. There is an ambiguity that results from statement 1 not actually being with the other two in the codex, but being somewhere else instead, though... which allows the argument that the 'a transport' mention elsewhere is just a general statement, and the squad entry would therefore over-ride it specifically for that squad.
Rated G wrote:It seems to me that even if people think they can do it by RAW, they are still assuming it was not intended. Hence, it is poorly written.
How does a few people assuming that a rule wasn't intended to work as written make the rule poorly written?
4576
Post by: Burning Star IV
Rated G wrote:
...
And I do not think your example works very well. If you and I were in a room and you told me that, I would then ask you, "Can I have both?" Dividing it into two statements does not automatically open up both options.
...
The rules permit both. This is what I'm trying to say. The rules for the Srg. say that "The seargeant may replace his bolter/bolt pistol with..." and then lists options. But ho! There are separate statements. Does that make it off-limits to take more than one? When I said earlier that, "There is nothing preventing me from doing it," this was also in the respect that I was being permitted in the first place.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
insaniak:
I think your analogy better reflects the situation that is found in Codex: Space Marines. Mine was certainly over-simplified.
However, I disagree that any ambiguity results from having the first statement in the army list section on Dedicated Transports, while the second and third statements fall under the "Dedicated Transport" heading of the Tactical Squad unit entry.
The fact that the second two statements are under the heading "Dedicated Transport" means that any rules concerning dedicated transports are relevant to choices that are made about them. Indeed, the "Dedicated Transport" section of that unit refers us to p.135, specifically about points costs. There is no such ambiguity resulting from being in another part of the book where such a reference/referent exists.
If you want something closer to home, to avoid the specious argument that the Tactical Squad entry somehow over-rides the general rules for Dedicated Transports in the Space Marine Codex, we could take the heading "Dedicated Transport" in the unit entry to unambiguously mean that Tactical squads are limited to selecting one dedicated transport rather than two dedicated transports.
8288
Post by: Rated G
insaniak wrote:
Rated G wrote:It seems to me that even if people think they can do it by RAW, they are still assuming it was not intended. Hence, it is poorly written.
How does a few people assuming that a rule wasn't intended to work as written make the rule poorly written?
Because that is the definition you yourself gave a few posts back: "It's only poorly written if we assume that the squad is not intended to be able to take 2 different transports." A lot of those who believe the RAW says you can take two transports seem to think that it was not intended. I'm just holding you to your own definition of poorly written.
8288
Post by: Rated G
Sorry, Star. I should have specified who I was replying to. I was referring to Insaniak's example, not yours.
8288
Post by: Rated G
Nurglitch wrote:
If you want something closer to home, to avoid the specious argument that the Tactical Squad entry somehow over-rides the general rules for Dedicated Transports in the Space Marine Codex, we could take the heading "Dedicated Transport" in the unit entry to unambiguously mean that Tactical squads are limited to selecting one dedicated transport rather than two dedicated transports.
The problem with that is though, that the Codex trumps the rulebook. If the Codex in fact gives the option for two transports, then what the rulebook says is a moot point.
Edit: Sorry for the multiple posts.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Rated G:
I'm not talking about the rulebook, I'm talking about the unit entry for Tactical Squads in Codex: Space Marines.
The unit entry has the heading Dedicated Transport, under which three options are listed. The options are exclusive because the heading is explicitly singular. The unit can have a dedicated transport, and that dedicated transport can be either a Rhino, or a Razorback. It can be a Drop Pod if the unit is 10 models strong.
99
Post by: insaniak
Rated G wrote:Because that is the definition you yourself gave a few posts back: "It's only poorly written if we assume that the squad is not intended to be able to take 2 different transports."
Poorly written from our point of view...
If they actually intended the unit to have access to pods and APCs, it's not poorly written at all 
1985
Post by: Darkness
Im going to argue that intent also says yes.
SM unit uses combat squads, sets 5 up in each. Sounds fluffy and reasonable maybe.
Better though. Thunder hawk transport left the empty Rhino/RB for the marines to get into after they DP in. Aerial strike
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
I don't think it's poorly written at all. It says: Dedicated Transport right there in the entry. Case closed.
99
Post by: insaniak
Darkness wrote:SM unit uses combat squads, sets 5 up in each. Sounds fluffy and reasonable maybe.
Not as reasonable when you consider, as was pointed out earlier, that they can't likewise just take two Razorbacks...
Nurglitch wrote:It says: Dedicated Transport right there in the entry.
The word 'Transport' doesn't automatically mean 'single vehicle'
It can just as easily refer to an entire motor pool... As in, the motor pool is the transport assigned to the unit.
Likewise, a Municipal Public Transport system doesn't automatically include only one bus...
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Yes, in fact the term "Dedicated Transport" is in fact the singular and thus 'automatically' refers to a single vehicle.
In the Dedicated Transports section, on p.135, the plural is used to refer to the motor pool.
Equating the reading of "Dedicated Transport", to mean a single vehicle, with the reading of "Municipal Public Transport System", to mean a single vehicle, is to make an argument by bizarre equivalence.
As you pointed out earlier, what we have is:
1. "Certain Space Marine units have the option of selecting a dedicated transport vehicle." (Section: Transport Vehicles, p.135)
2. "May select a Rhino or a Razorback." (Section: Troops, Unit Entry: Tactical Squad, Unit Entry Section: Transport Vehicle, p.134)
3. "If the squad numbers ten models, may take a Drop Pod (see page 135 for points costs)." (Section: Troops, Unit Entry: Tactical Squad, Unit Entry Section: Transport Vehicle, p.134)
Thanks to the section entitled Dedicated Transports on p.135, we know that certain Space Marine units can take a dedicated transport.
Which Space Marine units are those "certain Space Marine units"?
Those Space Marine units with the "Transport Vehicle" heading in their unit entry.
How many dedicated transports can those Space Marine units take?
Those Space Marine units can take a single dedicated transport vehicle, as indicated by the sentence on p.135 and the corresponding heading on p.134.
99
Post by: insaniak
Beating a dead horse, Nurglitch.
I wasn't arguing the point, just your claim that the use of the word 'Transport' in the title is proof of anything all by itself.
8288
Post by: Rated G
insaniak wrote:Rated G wrote:Because that is the definition you yourself gave a few posts back: "It's only poorly written if we assume that the squad is not intended to be able to take 2 different transports."
Poorly written from our point of view...
If they actually intended the unit to have access to pods and APCs, it's not poorly written at all
Agreed.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
insaniak:
In that case your argument failed, and missed the point as well, because I was saying that the sub-heading "Dedicated Transport" both agrees with the description of certain Space Marine units only taking a single dedicated transport, and limits the unit to a single choice.
But now that you mention it, the use of the term "Dedicated Transport" as the sub-heading for the dedicated transports that a unit may take does in fact, by itself, stand as sufficient proof that the options listed are exclusive.
99
Post by: insaniak
Nurglitch wrote:In that case your argument failed, and missed the point as well, because I was saying that the sub-heading "Dedicated Transport" both agrees with the description of certain Space Marine units only taking a single dedicated transport, and limits the unit to a single choice.
... only if you assume that the word 'transport' can only mean the singular... which is false.
But now that you mention it, the use of the term "Dedicated Transport" as the sub-heading for the dedicated transports that a unit may take does in fact, by itself, stand as sufficient proof that the options listed are exclusive.
Again, only if you assume that the word 'transport' can only mean the singular... seeing a pattern yet?
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Yes, your constant assertion that the term "Dedicated Transport" can be plural is both false and misleading.
99
Post by: insaniak
dictionary.com wrote:
n. (trāns'pôrt', -pōrt')
...
5.a. The system of transporting passengers or goods in a particular country or area.
b. The vehicles, such as buses and trains, used in such a system.
Note: vehicle s, plural.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
You fail again.
You fail because dedicated transports are defined on page 67 of the rulebook. "Dedicated transport" is a defined term for the Warhammer 40,000 rules.
A dedicated transport is defined as a vehicle. Let me repeat that: A dedicated transport is a vehicle. Notice that the heading of the passages defining dedicated transports is plural, hence it applies to the type 'dedicated transport' and not to the token dedicated transports you can find listed under "Dedicated Transport" in the Tactical Squad entry of Codex: Space Marines.
Dedicated Transports wrote:Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected together with the unit. These 'dedicated transports' do not use up a slot on the force organization chart. Other vehicles may also have a transport capacity, but they are chosen separately as normal and occupy a force organisation chart slot of their own (for example, the might Space Marine Land Raider).
The only limitation of a dedicated transport is that when it is deployed it can carry the unit it was selected with (plus any independent characters). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly infantry unit, subject to transport capacity and other special exclusioons, as explained in the vehicle's entry (it might not be able to transport Terminators, for example).
3828
Post by: General Hobbs
Rated G wrote:Nurglitch wrote:
If you want something closer to home, to avoid the specious argument that the Tactical Squad entry somehow over-rides the general rules for Dedicated Transports in the Space Marine Codex, we could take the heading "Dedicated Transport" in the unit entry to unambiguously mean that Tactical squads are limited to selecting one dedicated transport rather than two dedicated transports.
The problem with that is though, that the Codex trumps the rulebook. If the Codex in fact gives the option for two transports, then what the rulebook says is a moot point.
Edit: Sorry for the multiple posts.
Can you give me the exact quote and page number the codex trumps rulebook "rule" comes from?
99
Post by: insaniak
Nurglitch wrote:You fail because dedicated transports are defined on page 67 of the rulebook. "Dedicated transport" is a defined term for the Warhammer 40,000 rules.
Either you've completely missed my point, or you're just latching onto another excuse to explain yourself again.
Either way, it's all a moot point so far as I'm concerned. I won't be taking two transports, and I doubt too many other players will either. You can argue about the semantics of it all you like if it makes you feel better, though.
8824
Post by: Breton
Page 135 "Certain Space Marine Units...." have the option of selecting a dedicated transport vehicle.
Not exatly on point, not exactly off point either. Much like the bible you can probably find any given entry stand-alone to argue whatever point you want.
527
Post by: Flavius Infernus
Nurglitch wrote:Favius Infernus:
You say that you "read the rules a saying a tac [sic] squad can take both transports" and go on to say, parenthetically, that "I believe both the logic and the grammar of this reading are good".
Could you please show us how "the logic and the grammar of this reading are good"?
Insaniak did it already. He wrote exactly what I would have written if I'd made it back around to this thread earlier.
Once again, one of the longer threads on YMDC results from a reading that assumes the presence of an "only" condition in a rule where no "only" condition is present. Referring to a particular instance of something in the singular doesn't automatically exclude other instances unless the exclusion is explicit.
8824
Post by: Breton
Blunt Force Trauma wrote:Why shouldn't they be allowed to take two transports? Half deploy in pods the other in the razorback. It makes sense really.
That won't work. They can't combat Squad until they're on the table via either deployment, or via Drop Pod Deep Strike. Thus, you can combat Squad during Deployment, and not ride the Drop Pod. Or you can Ride the Drop Pod, and Combat Squad when you land- but not have half your unit in the Razor Back.
HOWEVER, the upside is- in a take all comer's list, a mutli-game tournament, escalation, or so on where you use the same list for multiple games- you could choose to Drop Pod one game, and Ride in Rhino Style the next, allowing your drop pod to land somewhere providing terrain, and a mobile Deathwind/stormbolter/eventually usable Locator Beacon etc.
8583
Post by: InquisitorFabius
Actually, You could Drop Pod the Full squad, combat squad it, then have half embark into the Rhino/Razor that they bought.
7139
Post by: BBeale
How about a little perspective? When, in the entire history of 40k, have lists ever allowed for the purchase of multiple transport options for a single unit? Never.
As a lawyer, I argue semantics for a living. Sometimes it's permissible to look across the table at the other guy and just say, "That's dumb." This is one of those instances.
As has already been said, this isn't RAW, this is rules as interpreted, and, based on the history of the game, the obvious intent of the developers, common sense, and an unstrained reading of the rules, multiple dedicated transports for the unit is not an option.
But if that's not enough, there are cannons of statutory construction that can be applied to the reading of rules that also support this position such as In Pari Materia and the deferential cannon of Avoidance of Absurdity. In either case, application of the cannon refutes the argument that multiple transports can be taken.
Brice
527
Post by: Flavius Infernus
BBeale wrote:How about a little perspective? When, in the entire history of 40k, have lists ever allowed for the purchase of multiple transport options for a single unit? Never.
As a lawyer, I argue semantics for a living. Sometimes it's permissible to look across the table at the other guy and just say, "That's dumb." This is one of those instances.
As has already been said, this isn't RAW, this is rules as interpreted, and, based on the history of the game, the obvious intent of the developers, common sense, and an unstrained reading of the rules, multiple dedicated transports for the unit is not an option.
But if that's not enough, there are cannons of statutory construction that can be applied to the reading of rules that also support this position such as In Pari Materia and the deferential cannon of Avoidance of Absurdity. In either case, application of the cannon refutes the argument that multiple transports can be taken.
Brice
These statements might be true if the rules of 40K were laws. Because I'm a rhetorician rather than a lawyer, I couldn't say.
But again, Brice, you're arguing application rather than abstract interpretation. Claiming In Pari Materia or Avoidance of Absurdity are fine when you're standing at the game table. But in this thread on the Internet, we're trying to figure out what the rules literally say. So it doesn't matter if a rule is inconsistent with other rules (as long as it's not contradictory) or in some senses absurd. It says what it says, if it can be determined to say anything consistent at all.
RAW as defined for the purposes of this discussion necessarily does not consider the history of the game, perceptions of intent of the developers, common sense, or whether or not a reading is strained. All of those considerations are matters of opinion and assumption. We're just looking at verifiable deductively sound literal readings and leaving questions of application up to individual conscience.
8824
Post by: Breton
InquisitorFabius wrote:Actually, You could Drop Pod the Full squad, combat squad it, then have half embark into the Rhino/Razor that they bought.
Yes, but that's not Half in the Pod, Half in the Razorback as the post I was replying to suggested.
7139
Post by: BBeale
Flavius,
Arguing semantics just for the purpose of arguing semantics is purposeless outside of a teaching environment. In a sense you're saying that we argue the letter of the rules on this forum not for application on the tabletop, but just to argue the letter of the rules. That is the very definition of a fruitless exercise. Figuring out the literal meaning of anything is pointless in and of itself unless it is tempered with perspective and directed toward a result.
I read the YMDC section to better understand how the rules can be used in game play, but that's just me. . .
Brice
3320
Post by: Lormax
Personally, I'd allow the player to run both vehicles per tac squad. At the same time, I'll also use any beardy rules interpretation I can with my army...Blood Angel apothecaries using their exsanguinator on vehicles..Psychic Hoods that can be used on powers that aren't rolled for...cyclone missle launchers with the updated stat line, etc.
Two can always play at this game...
1523
Post by: Saldiven
Nurglitch wrote:Yes, in fact the term "Dedicated Transport" is in fact the singular and thus 'automatically' refers to a single vehicle.
In the Dedicated Transports section, on p.135, the plural is used to refer to the motor pool.
Equating the reading of "Dedicated Transport", to mean a single vehicle, with the reading of "Municipal Public Transport System", to mean a single vehicle, is to make an argument by bizarre equivalence.
As you pointed out earlier, what we have is:
1. "Certain Space Marine units have the option of selecting a dedicated transport vehicle." (Section: Transport Vehicles, p.135)
Just to be obnoxious, I'd like to point out that this statement does not say "all Space Marine units have the option of selecting A dedicated transport vehicle." It specifies "certain" space marine units. How are we to determine which Space Marine units are allowed only a single transport option, and which are allowed multiple options, if any? I would argue that this rule states that it is up to the individual unit entries to determine if a unit may take one, none, or several transports.
Just playing Devil's advocate....
2. "May select a Rhino or a Razorback." (Section: Troops, Unit Entry: Tactical Squad, Unit Entry Section: Transport Vehicle, p.134)
3. "If the squad numbers ten models, may take a Drop Pod (see page 135 for points costs)." (Section: Troops, Unit Entry: Tactical Squad, Unit Entry Section: Transport Vehicle, p.134)
Thanks to the section entitled Dedicated Transports on p.135, we know that certain Space Marine units can take a dedicated transport.
Which Space Marine units are those "certain Space Marine units"?
Those Space Marine units with the "Transport Vehicle" heading in their unit entry.
How many dedicated transports can those Space Marine units take?
Those Space Marine units can take a single dedicated transport vehicle, as indicated by the sentence on p.135 and the corresponding heading on p.134.
527
Post by: Flavius Infernus
BBeale wrote:Flavius,
Arguing semantics just for the purpose of arguing semantics is purposeless outside of a teaching environment. In a sense you're saying that we argue the letter of the rules on this forum not for application on the tabletop, but just to argue the letter of the rules.
Not merely "in a sense" but in every possible sense.
BBeale wrote: That is the very definition of a fruitless exercise. Figuring out the literal meaning of anything is pointless in and of itself unless it is tempered with perspective and directed toward a result.
What evidence do you have for this conclusion, counselor?
Seriously, though, this is just a bald assertion. Why is figuring out the literal meaning of something necessarily pointless? The result is that we know the literal meaning, so why is that a less worthy result than any other?
BBeale wrote:
I read the YMDC section to better understand how the rules can be used in game play, but that's just me. . .
Brice
Or maybe the unspoken rationale isn't clear. As a long-time veteran of many, many rules-discussion forums I can say that this one is the best I've participated in. Many rules discussion boards quickly deteriorate into shouting matches, ad hominem and ad baculum playgrounds and admin nightmares because they get tangled up in questions of application. How we play the game is always going to be a matter of opinion and the relative merit of opinions is not the kind of thing where people can always find common ground.
But everybody using the rules of grammar and (deductive) logic with the same starting conditions is going to come around to the same conclusions. So there's no need for agreement in abstract readings. Then questions of application can be treated as opinions that are in contrast or alignment with the literal readings--like what polls do--with the understanding that opinions are just opinions. It actually heads off pointless conflicts.
Ultimately, because YMDC consciously separates out application of rules from abstract reading of rules, it actually lets us discover and accumulate more information about where the rules work, where they are broken, and where they are just ambiguous. Then--and this has actually happened--word sometimes gets back to the people who write the rules and the problems get fixed.
Isn't that a worthwhile result?
7139
Post by: BBeale
I agree whole-heartedly that it is important to discuss ambiguity in the rules. The problem is when you seek out ambiguity, or even worse, create it out of whole cloth like was done here. Even if you discount every rational basis of extra-literal interpretation (which I believe shouldn't be done), the title of "Dedicated Transport", which is clearly singular is controlling on the option contained below it. Add to this that almost every single poster, with a few notable exceptions, agree that this is not an intended, or reasonable, interpretation of the rule, and it just makes this discussion seem moot at the very least and exploitive if you want to insert intent into the picture.
Brice
527
Post by: Flavius Infernus
Cool, it's not often that I get to debate with somebody who will know the terminology without needing an explanation.
BBeale wrote:Even if you discount every rational basis of extra-literal interpretation (which I believe shouldn't be done),
Strawman: I'm not discounting extra-literal interpretations. I'm segregating them from literal interpretations.
BBeale wrote: the title of "Dedicated Transport", which is clearly singular is controlling on the option contained below it.
I can't address this one personally because I don't have a copy of the codex yet. But it has already been noted, if this applies in this case, that singular noun forms are not automatically exclusive of multiple instances of their referents.
BBeale wrote:Add to this this that almost every single poster, with a few notable exceptions, agree that this is not an intended, or reasonable, interpretation of the rule, and it just makes this discussion seem moot at the very least and exploitive if you want to insert intent into the picture.
ad populum
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
Forgive me if this has been stated already.
I stopped readin on page 1 because I knew wherer to find the answer and didn't see how this thread could have made 3 pages unless (a) it's now off topic or (b) nobody quoted the rules.
So:
Space Marines codex, page 21.
Left column, second paragraph under "Drop Pod Assault"
Any Command Squad, Veteran squad, Terminator squad, Dreadnought, Scout squad, Ttactical squad, or Devastator squad may be equipped with a drop pod (see the transport vehicles entry for details). If so they may not slect any other transport option."
Eric
99
Post by: insaniak
MagickalMemories wrote:Space Marines codex, page 21.
Which codex?
Because the discussion was about the new one
958
Post by: mikhaila
insaniak wrote:MagickalMemories wrote:Space Marines codex, page 21.
Which codex?
Because the discussion was about the new one
Well, just to be a complete mule, I'll point out that it isn't 
In the Space Marine Codex, under the listing for Tac squads, it says:
Dedicated Transport:
While there is pretty good chance that a NEW SM codex is coming out Oct. 4th, if you only refer to the Space Marine Codex , as the original poster did, you're talking about the one that came out a few years ago and is in current use today.
The original poster didn't specify new, and any references to the new codex in the thread are just a few people going way off topic.
......
Seriously, if someone tried to pull this at my shops, especially in a tournament, it just wouldn't be allowed. I can see it leading to tactics like taking 6 empty drop pods to put on the table as blocking off areas, and other silly things. Tactics that are questionable in the first place, and suck the fun out of the game, are best ignored.
8824
Post by: Breton
6 Empty Drop pods isn't abusive assuming:
A) They'd have to be modeled open to allow LoS-
B) You'd have to be dropping somewhere around 1K points on the units and drop pods.
C) Without squads over there to support them, they'll go BOOM pretty quickly and easily.
The real effect is
A) Having half of them come in on turn 1 with locator beacons for Turn 2 and beyond Deep Striking (termies perhaps?)
B) Having 3 Deathwinds drop in your enemie's rear on turn 1 disrupting their first turn.
8944
Post by: Jackmojo
Breton wrote:Blunt Force Trauma wrote:Why shouldn't they be allowed to take two transports? Half deploy in pods the other in the razorback. It makes sense really.
That won't work. They can't combat Squad until they're on the table via either deployment, or via Drop Pod Deep Strike. Thus, you can combat Squad during Deployment, and not ride the Drop Pod. Or you can Ride the Drop Pod, and Combat Squad when you land- but not have half your unit in the Razor Back.
HOWEVER, the upside is- in a take all comer's list, a mutli-game tournament, escalation, or so on where you use the same list for multiple games- you could choose to Drop Pod one game, and Ride in Rhino Style the next, allowing your drop pod to land somewhere providing terrain, and a mobile Deathwind/stormbolter/eventually usable Locator Beacon etc.
Where is that in the codex, I've heard it said now a couple of times, but I'm not finding anywhere that stops them from entering seperately. The only section addressing it that I'm seeing seems to permit dividing them at either setup or after deep strikeing via dropod:
5th edition Codex: Space Marines, pg 51 wrote:The decision to split the unit into combat squads, as well as which models go into each combat squad, must be made when the unit is deployed. Both combat squads can be deployed in seperate locations. The one exception to this is a unit that arrives by Drop Pod. The player may choose to split such a unit into combat squads when it disembarks from the Drop Pod.
If you decide to split a unit into combat squads, then each combat squad us treated as a seperate unit for all game purposes from that point.
So clearly one combat squad from a unit can be in reserve and the other placed on the table (as that is normal for two units), and I do not see anything preventing the reserve half from using a drop pod (nor indeed preventing the pod from coming down empty should someone be so inclined).
Jack
99
Post by: insaniak
Jackmojo wrote:So clearly one combat squad from a unit can be in reserve and the other placed on the table
That's not what it says, though.
What you just quoted gives you exactly two options for when to split them:
1. When they are deployed
or
2. When they disembark from a Drop Pod
There is no way with those options that you can deploy one squad and keep the other in Reserve.
For that, you would need another option allowing you to split them before deployment.
8944
Post by: Jackmojo
insaniak wrote:Jackmojo wrote:So clearly one combat squad from a unit can be in reserve and the other placed on the table
That's not what it says, though.
What you just quoted gives you exactly two options for when to split them:
1. When they are deployed
or
2. When they disembark from a Drop Pod
There is no way with those options that you can deploy one squad and keep the other in Reserve.
For that, you would need another option allowing you to split them before deployment.
I deploy the unit; this 5 man section is on the table, I declare the remaining 5 man section to be in reserve and shall arrive via deepstriking Drop Pod...how is that any different then any other placement of two units?
Placing units in reserve is made "during deployment" as well, so I'm not sure how its any different...is there some specific reference to combat squads not being split into reserve and non-reserve portions?
Edit: I guess I view reserves as being part of the "Both combat squads can be deployed in seperate locations" as off the table is simply another location.
Jack
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Jackmojo:
If you view reserves as being included in the statement "Both combat squads can be deployed in separate locations" by reason of off the table being a separate location, then you would be wrong.
See p.94, Reserves: Preparing Reserves. It says:
"When deploying their army, players may choose not to deploy one or more of the units in their army and instead leave them in reserve."
According to this statement reserve is not deployment, and the decision to use combat squads happens either during deployment, or when the squad disembarks from its Drop Pod.
Since, in order to be in a location, a squad must be deployed, and a squad is not deployed if it is left in reserves, then it is not in a location if it is left in reserves.
So while you have your views, the rules disagree.
5164
Post by: Stelek
Actually reserves IS deployment.
Read the rest of the rules.
That disagree with you.
8471
Post by: olympia
Stelek wrote:KeithGatchalian wrote: Page 67
"Sometimes a unit entry in a codex will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected with the unit." italics mine.
This makes it clear that you can only buy 1 vehicle per unit.
In your opinion.
Codex trumps rulebook is the rule in GW games.
So guess which rule actually applies?
Correct, razorback or rhino + drop pod.
'permissive ruleset' shoots you down. It doesn't in the codex that you CAN. Therefore the BGB stands.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Could you please quote where the rules say that "reserves is deployment"? Because so far as I can tell the rules are wholly consistent on the fact that reserves are not deployment, as per the quote I have provided.
8471
Post by: olympia
On a side note, just allow me to big shout out to Khorne or whoever for the new SM codex. Now it's not just us Ork players that are in this forum arguing for crazy sh*t.
8620
Post by: DAaddict
Through ambiguous english, a rules lawyer can argue that taking a razorback and a drop pod is allowed.
Common sense tells me it is not. I know this is often lacking in rules lawyers but sadly, though written in english and conceived in England, it does not employ doctorates in english or contract lawyers who would read and tell them how their laws are ambiguous.
"Sergeant, get your squad into the drop pod and we will do an assault on the evil xenos!"
"Sir?"
"What is it brother?"
"Well do we know what we are facing?"
"It is a tournament sergeant, we have an idea but we are not sure of course."
"Well I was just thinking, you know the boys and me really don't think it would be a good idea to drop pod into the middle of a genestealer hoard so could we have a rhino too? You know just in case?"
"Librarian Bob. What does the Codex Astartes say."
<Opens the latest codex of the true blue marines.>
"Well it is hard to make out... it appears that despite the apparent idiocy of providing two transports for one combat squad, it MAY be allowed as it provides extra cover for the boys and seeing it provides extra profit margin for the Great Works, they have encouraged it as it now costs us less to purchase them per the codex official price."
"Excellent! I think we shall fight this battle in a way never fought before! Let us expend our precious drop pods with missiles and no troops as minefields into the enemies lines while we all ride into battle in our rhinos. I wonder why The Great Blue All Knowing Primarch never wrote this tactic down in the preceeding millenia?"
5762
Post by: Old Man Ultramarine
DAaddict wrote:Through ambiguous english, a rules lawyer can argue that taking a razorback and a drop pod is allowed.
Common sense tells me it is not. I know this is often lacking in rules lawyers but sadly, though written in english and conceived in England, it does not employ doctorates in english or contract lawyers who would read and tell them how their laws are ambiguous.
"Sergeant, get your squad into the drop pod and we will do an assault on the evil xenos!"
"Sir?"
"What is it brother?"
"Well do we know what we are facing?"
"It is a tournament sergeant, we have an idea but we are not sure of course."
"Well I was just thinking, you know the boys and me really don't think it would be a good idea to drop pod into the middle of a genestealer hoard so could we have a rhino too? You know just in case?"
"Librarian Bob. What does the Codex Astartes say."
<Opens the latest codex of the true blue marines.>
"Well it is hard to make out... it appears that despite the apparent idiocy of providing two transports for one combat squad, it MAY be allowed as it provides extra cover for the boys and seeing it provides extra profit margin for the Great Works, they have encouraged it as it now costs us less to purchase them per the codex official price."
"Excellent! I think we shall fight this battle in a way never fought before! Let us expend our precious drop pods with missiles and no troops as minefields into the enemies lines while we all ride into battle in our rhinos. I wonder why The Great Blue All Knowing Primarch never wrote this tactic down in the preceeding millenia?"
LMAO
Come on people. 1 squad = 1 transport. FAQ will clear this up, I hope. :S
99
Post by: insaniak
Stelek wrote:Actually reserves IS deployment.
Read the rest of the rules.
That disagree with you.
I'm not seeing how.
The decision to put a unit into Reserves is made during deployment... but it's listed specifically as something you do instead of deploying them.
Nothing in the rest of the section contradicts that idea. It simply contonues to refer to reserves as something that happens during the deployment period.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Stelek:
Could you explain how you are reading the rules as disagreeing with the notion that putting a unit into reserves is deployment, and not something that you do instead of deploying them?
|
|
