Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Can a unit of Wolf Guard, for example, select both a Land Raider and a Drop Pod as a Dedicated Transport?

No, in the Wolf Guard entry it says that they can select a rhino, drop pod, or razorback.

They can not select a land raider as a dedicated transport. They can, however, take a rhino, drop pod, or razorback, and ride around in a land raider that you purchase with a heavy support slot.

What about the part where it says they can select a Land Raider as a Dedicated Transport?

I want to say no, I really do.


But I can find nothing to back up that denial.

they certainly could not take a Drop pod and a Rhino, nor any combination of Drop pod, Rhino, and Razorback; but taking a pod and a Land raider seems allowable.

The listed restrictions via wording is:
1 regular DT/unit.
1 LR as a DT/army.

the allowance for one of each per the text is granted by the LR wording: 1/army as "a" DT, not "the", nor "their" DT.

A Land Raider can be "a" DT, while a drop pod is also "a" DT.

Also nothing in the DT rules in the BRB(Page 67, boxout) list a restriction of 1 DT/unit, and the Land Raider portion of the Wolfguard's DT options does not say "Alternatively", or "Instead".

Permission is granted to take the LR with no restriction given, anywhere, that only 1 DT may be chosen per unit(not even in the Army list entry rules on page 81 of the Codex).

RAW: Green-lit, unless someone can find some rules I missed that countermand the above.

Now, outside of pure RAW: I would not even dare try this excepting in a friendly game or against a known TFG(just to screw with him), doing this and arguing my points will get you labeled as beardy or TFG yourself. The rules may allow for it as written, but the intention is not clear(this is the same book that has Wargear on special characters that does nothing, or only has an in-game effect extremely rarely).

I will admit the benefit to doing this is very slight, and the Cost of the Land raider makes it generally unnecessary(it is not like you are going to be wanting that extra Land raider plus the normal DT and having all 3 HS choices filled already); but it will still be looked down upon.

P.S. Agustus should learn to read more than 1 bullet point before posting, a Land Raider is an option for 1 unit/army.

No. The rules state the general Wolf Guard pack may take a pod, Rhino, or 'back as a dedicated transport. Further, one unit may take a LR as a dedicated transport. Note: nothing in the the LR exception permits an additional dedicated transport.


So of the three Wolf Packs available, one can have a LR as a dedicated transport while the other two may use a pod, Rhino, or 'back.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:No. The rules state the general Wolf Guard pack may take a pod, Rhino, or 'back as a dedicated transport. Further, one unit may take a LR as a dedicated transport. Note: nothing in the the LR exception permits an additional dedicated transport.


So of the three Wolf Packs available, one can have a LR as a dedicated transport while the other two may use a pod, Rhino, or 'back.

You clearly disagree with me but you have not backed up your position with any rules; I am not being snarky but i would like to know the reasons for your position.

As I see it, through the Verbiage, A razorback is allowed as a DT, and a Land Raider is allowed as a DT at the same time; there is bno restriction to only choosing one of the 2 through the Verbiage(while there is a restriction via verbiage against taking a drop pod and a razorback at the same time).

From the BRB p. 67, "Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex will include a transport option. allowing a vehicle to be selected together with the unit." (emphasis mine)

I read this as, "you get up to one dedicated transport per unit that allows it".

Thus, to answer the original question, no.

By that logic:

sgrunt wrote:From the BRB p. 67, "Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex will include a transport option. allowing a vehicle to be selected together with the unit." (emphasis mine)

So if you're taking 'a' exclusively to mean one, you can just as easily read it as only ever allowing a single unit in the army to have a dedicated transport...


'An' option to select a transport allows you to select a single transport. That doesn't prevent multiple options from giving you multiple chances to purchase a transport. That restriction would have to come from the unit entry itself, or some other rules specifically addressing it.

In general, units are very specifically limited to a single transport. There are a couple of transport options scattered through the codexes that do (IMO inadvertantly) wind up allowing a unit to select two different transports. I suspect that the vast majority of players would either assume that this is an oversight, or would never have noticed it in the first place under the general assumption that only one vehicle is allowed anyway.

a = indefinte article. It is not specific, meaning it could be any one of a group of things (in this case units or DT), the only thing that is clear is that it means 'one'. The word a/an comes from Old English for 'one'.
Whereas you could read the rule as only a single unit can have a DT, it doesn't strictly rule out repeating the rule for each unit in the army that has options for a DT. However, the rule does imply that only a single DT can be used for each unit, so I would agree with sgrunt.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:No. The rules state the general Wolf Guard pack may take a pod, Rhino, or 'back as a dedicated transport. Further, one unit may take a LR as a dedicated transport. Note: nothing in the the LR exception permits an additional dedicated transport.


So of the three Wolf Packs available, one can have a LR as a dedicated transport while the other two may use a pod, Rhino, or 'back.

You clearly disagree with me but you have not backed up your position with any rules; I am not being snarky but i would like to know the reasons for your position.

As I see it, through the Verbiage, A razorback is allowed as a DT, and a Land Raider is allowed as a DT at the same time; there is bno restriction to only choosing one of the 2 through the Verbiage(while there is a restriction via verbiage against taking a drop pod and a razorback at the same time).

There are two separate rules in play: the first is a general rule permitting the Wolf Guard to take a pod, Rhino, or 'back as a dedicated transport; the second is a more specific rule permitting one Wolf Guard unit to take any type of Land Raider at a dedicated transport. The more specific rule increases the number of options one Wolf Guard has in taking a dedicated transport not increasing the number of dedicated transports it can take. One unit may take a Pod, Rhino, 'back, or LR while the rest are limited to Pod, Rhino, or 'back.

@insaniak: if "a" can mean more than one, per your argument, then the Wolf Guard unit can take an infinite number of dedicated transports since the rule states "...make select a..." (emphasis mine). I think you would be hard pressed to suggest the WG can take an unlimited number of dedicated transports.

Avatar, nowhere in the DT entry for Wolfguard does it indicate that the land raider option and the normal DT options are mutually exclusive.

The definitive article "or" in the normal transport options means that they can only take 1 of the transports available: Rhino, Drop pod, or razorback. And "a" in the Context here means not any particular or certain one of a class or group; the Class or group in this case being Rhinos, Drop pods, or razorbacks; the same goes for the 1 unit/army allowance for "a" Land raider, the context is for the class or group of the 3 land raider variants.


Just to further Clarify: I am not advocating attempting the purchase of both Land raider and normal DT for WG in any games, I am merely pointing out that this is technically legal, but likely an oversight.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:@insaniak: if "a" can mean more than one, per your argument, then the Wolf Guard unit can take an infinite number of dedicated transports since the rule states "...make select a..." (emphasis mine). I think you would be hard pressed to suggest the WG can take an unlimited number of dedicated transports.

The point was actually that whether 'a' means specifically one or not is down to the context in which it is used.

'...may select a rhino, razorback or drop pod' is specific enough. It's a specific rule. A statement just mentioning that units can have a transport is on shakier ground.

It also runs afoul of the usual 'if a core rule says one thing and a more specific rule says otherwise, the specific rule wins' process.


In this case, the Land Raider is not presented as an option that is in any way connected to the other three transports. You can select one of those three. You can select a Land Raider. Doing one of those two things is not in any way connected to the other.

What it should have said, and what I suspect most players will naturally assume it means, is that one Wolf Guard pack may instead select a Land Raider...

Kommissar Kel wrote:Avatar, nowhere in the DT entry for Wolfguard does it indicate that the land raider option and the normal DT options are mutually exclusive.

First, the rules are permissive not dismissive so there needs to be a rule that permits taking more than one dedicated transport. Second, the rules are mutually exclusive as they are two independent rules describing what DTs can be taken.

There is a general rule detailing the any Wolf Guard unit can take a drop pod, Rhino, or Razorback as a dedicated transport. This rules applies when such DT are taken with by a unit. There is a specific rule that permits one Wolf Guard unit to take a Land Raider exclusively as a dedicated transport. The specific rule does not say "in addition" or "also" just that one unit can take a LR as a DT. Again, the rules are permissive not dismissive thus, if it doesn't say it can happen it can't.

Apologies, my Keyboard died about halfway through my typing this, had to dig out an old one and take care of some parental business.

Laughable.

Permissive set, yes.
Permission is granted to take a DT, no further restriction is given.
Permission is given in the specific case to take any one of the normal DTs.
Permission is given for 1 unit per army to take a land Raider as a DT.

There is permission to take both right there, in that there is no restriction to take both at the same time; and permission to take both. The only restriction to taking any is that only 1 unit per army may take the land raider option.

When General vs Specific comes into play is when the Specific rule tells you to do something the general rule forbids. There is no general vs Specific rule here, there is 2 Specific rules that tell you which DTs may be chosen, neither tells you that the other cannot be taken as well.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Apologies, my Keyboard died about halfway through my typing this, had to dig out an old one and take care of some parental business.

Laughable.

Permissive set, yes.
Permission is granted to take a DT, no further restriction is given.
Permission is given in the specific case to take any one of the normal DTs.
Permission is given for 1 unit per army to take a land Raider as a DT.

There is permission to take both right there, in that there is no restriction to take both at the same time; and permission to take both. The only restriction to taking any is that only 1 unit per army may take the land raider option.

The rule specifically states one unit may take as a DT a Land Raider, period, not take a Land Raider in addition to the normal DT. Just, take a Land Raider as a DT. There is not "and" or "in addition" in any of the DT rules.

You still haven't shown how the two rules combine to be inclusive.

If a WG unit wanted to take a drop pod as a dedicated transport, which rule is used? Correct, the one indicating a drop pod can taken as a DT.

If a WG unit wanted to take a Land Raider as a dedicated transport, which rule is used? Correct, the one indicating a Land Raider can be taken as a DT.

If two WG units wanted to take a Land Raider as a dedicated transport, which rule is used? Correct, none, since there is no rule that permits two WG units to take LR as DT.

If a WG unit wanted to take a Land Raider and a Rhino as a dedicated transport, which rule is used? Correct, none, since there is no rule that permits the taking of two DT.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:If a WG unit wanted to take a drop pod as a dedicated transport, which rule is used? Correct, the one indicating a drop pod can taken as a DT.

If a WG unit wanted to take a Land Raider as a dedicated transport, which rule is used? Correct, the one indicating a Land Raider can be taken as a DT.

The point is though that there is no rule that says that doing one of those two things prevents you from doing the other.

Yes, we can fairly safely assume that is supposed to be the case... but the codex falls short of actually saying so.

You can do A
You can do B

Find in there a rule saying that if you do A you cannot do B

It seems as due to an oversight in RAW it is legal however, RAI a dedicated transports is generally (ive actually never seen otherwise) a singular thing in a unit entry. If you play by RAW then it is technically legal but in all fairness you should abstain from exploiting loopholes in verbage when it is obvious how they were intended.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:You still haven't shown how the two rules combine to be inclusive.

Ok, I'll play along. Codex Space marines, page 134, tactical marine squad. You have 2 individual rules, each one tells you that if the Squad numbers 10 marines their Boltguns may be exchanged. the Heavy weapon and Special weapon exchange rules there are exactly the same as the Dedicated Transports rules here; according to you Tac Squads cannot have both Flamer and missile launcher because no inclusive is given to the rule.

SW Codex, Page 84-94, every entry has replacement rules for weapons or wargear. Every replacement rule is an individual rule. There is very few inclusions given for second replacement options(Replacement of Bolt pistol ad/or CCW, Grey hunters, blood claws, Land Speeders, and Long fangs)

A rule granting an allowance is inclusive with any other rule granting an allowance, as long as no additional specific restrictions are given.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:
If a WG unit wanted to take a drop pod as a dedicated transport, which rule is used? Correct, the one indicating a drop pod can taken as a DT.

If a WG unit wanted to take a Land Raider as a dedicated transport, which rule is used? Correct, the one indicating a Land Raider can be taken as a DT.

These 2 are correct.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:If two WG units wanted to take a Land Raider as a dedicated transport, which rule is used? Correct, none, since there is no rule that permits two WG units to take LR as DT.

If a WG unit wanted to take a Land Raider and a Rhino as a dedicated transport, which rule is used? Correct, none, since there is no rule that permits the taking of two DT.

These 2 are incorrect.

The first one is very simple: the one indicating a Land Raider can be taken as a DT, because it tells you that only 1 Unit may take the LR and therefore denies the second unit.(The rule is used to show where permission is denied, rules can be and are used in that way)

The Second one is also simple: Correct, both, since both rules grant permission to take each transport.

P.S. Vindicare-Obsession: I just want to reiterate, for the 3rd time, that I am well aware this is not likely to be intentional, and I do not advocate ever making a list with both pod and Land Raider. I would also like to point out for the second time that this should never be necessary to do either, by the time you get to a large enough game that spending 300 points on dedicated transports for a unit that is not even likely to exist at the beginning of the game, and have managed to fill all 3 Heavy support choices along with your bare 1 HQ + 2 Troops... you are probably playing an Apoc game and none of this matters.

Kommissar Kel wrote:The Second one is also simple: Correct, both, since both rules grant permission to take each transport.

We're going in circles, however hypothetical the argument is. I think the Land Raider rule DT rule precludes you from taking any other form of DT, while you think it permits taking a LR AND another DT. We're just not going to see eye-to-eye on this.

We are not going around in circles, I showed why the rules work the way they do and not the way you think they do in the very same post you quoted(As you had challenged).

I have shown that 2 rules both granting permission for any given Noun will always be combined to allow both nouns in the rules unless there is a further restriction stating only 1 rule is used at a time, or when one of the rules specify that our 2 Nouns are to be chosen as one or the other.

I had set a Challenge in my first post to find a reason in the rules that this cannot be done. I really didn't want to be right because it does seem to go against the Spirit of DTs(That is, the idea of the Transport being Dedicated to the squad, and transports needing to carry either the whole squad or none of them).

Kommissar Kel wrote:We are not going around in circles, I showed why the rules work the way they do and not the way you think they do in the very same post you quoted(As you had challenged).

I have shown that 2 rules both granting permission for any given Noun will always be combined to allow both nouns in the rules unless there is a further restriction stating only 1 rule is used at a time, or when one of the rules specify that our 2 Nouns are to be chosen as one or the other.

I had set a Challenge in my first post to find a reason in the rules that this cannot be done. I really didn't want to be right because it does seem to go against the Spirit of DTs(That is, the idea of the Transport being Dedicated to the squad, and transports needing to carry either the whole squad or none of them).

You just keep quoting the two rules and say "there ya go". You haven't shown how you the rules combine. The WG can take a dedicated transport, notice the heading of the rule is singular not plural. One rule states any of the WG units can take a pod, Rhino, or 'back as a DT. So units taken can take any combination of a drop pod, Rhino, or Razorback as a single dedicated transport. Another rule permits ONE of the units taken in a army to take a Land Raider as a dedicated transport. This rule specifically limits this unit to taking just a Land Raider since no other option is included, no "in addtion" no "also", just the Land Raider. Hence the two rules are mutually exclusive.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:You still haven't shown how the two rules combine to be inclusive.

Ok, I'll play along. Codex Space marines, page 134, tactical marine squad. You have 2 individual rules, each one tells you that if the Squad numbers 10 marines their Boltguns may be exchanged. the Heavy weapon and Special weapon exchange rules there are exactly the same as the Dedicated Transports rules here; according to you Tac Squads cannot have both Flamer and missile launcher because no inclusive is given to the rule.

SW Codex, Page 84-94, every entry has replacement rules for weapons or wargear. Every replacement rule is an individual rule. There is very few inclusions given for second replacement options(Replacement of Bolt pistol ad/or CCW, Grey hunters, blood claws, Land Speeders, and Long fangs)

A rule granting an allowance is inclusive with any other rule granting an allowance, as long as no additional specific restrictions are given.

This whole thing here, that would be an example of how the 2 rules combine; that would be several examples in fact.

There does not need to be an "In addition" or an "also".

What there needs to be is an "instead" or an "alternatively" for the 2 rules to not both work.

The point you need to understand is that Permission to do "A", and Permission to do "B" is Permission to do both "A" and "B" unless either "A" or "B", or a third Rule, Specifies that "A" and "B" cannot be done together.

Lets take shooting as an example, A Space marine Armed ith a Boltgun and a Bolt Pistol has an enemy model within 12", and it is the Space marine's Shooting phase. The pace marine has Permission to Shoot the Bolt pistol. The Space marine has permission to shoot the Boltgun. There is a third rule in place that prevents the Space marine from shooting both the Bolt Pistol and the Boltgun.

Now an example of allowances in purchasing from the SW Dreadnought entry: Permission for a Dreadnought to purchase a heavy flamer in exchange for its built-in storm bolter for a set amount of points. Permission is granted for a Dreadnought to exchange his stock Assault Cannon for a range of other guns. Permission is therefore granted to replace the Storm Bolter for a Heavy Flamer and the Assault cannon for a Multi-melta.

And there you have it, same set of options, same style of options, proof that allowance to do 2 separate things allows those 2 things to be done together unless otherwise specified. Very few Weapon/wargear options specify much in the way of " the special and Heavy weapons options work together", even fewer specify that the weapon options unlocked via wargear choices may be taken, or may be combined(WG taking Termie armor would not be able to take a Combi weapon and a Frost blade per your claims; because there is no rule stating that you are allowed to exchange both the storm bolter and the power weapon, and as you have done one, then you think the other is precluded).

Now I have offered you the same Proof through 2 different phrasings(and 2 specific examples) in this post that permission is given to do each, and without restriction that permission is granted to do both; Are you still going to say that I am making baseless statements and try to somehow ignore the entire top of this post(because that is what you did this last time, where the first example and explanation came from)?

This type of sloppy writing is nothing new ... Codex SM for example .... Tactical Squads, Dedicated Transport "May select a Rhino or a Razor back. If the squad numbers ten models, may take a Drop Pod"

It might not be the rules as intended but without the designers to tell us we just cannot know.

Tri wrote:This type of sloppy writing is nothing new ... Codex SM for example .... Tactical Squads, Dedicated Transport "May select a Rhino or a Razor back. If the squad numbers ten models, may take a Drop Pod"

It might not be the rules as intended but without the designers to tell us we just cannot know.

To be completely honest, I never noticed that Tac Squads had to have 10 members before they could take a Drop pod at all(But that is more because I hate the Drop pod, Model and Rules).

But much in the same way WG can do it; 10 man Tac squads can clearly drop down to meet their razorbacks on field.

TGA:

You may do A
You may do B

Find permission in those two rules that prevents you doing B if you do A, and vice versa.

nosferatu1001 wrote:TGA:

You may do A
You may do B

Find permission in those two rules that prevents you doing B if you do A, and vice versa.

The two rules are listed under the heading [b]Dedicate Transport[/d], note the singular not the plural. Further, the each rule detail the taking of a one ('a') dedicated transport not multiple dedicate transports. Because there is no rule permitting more than one DT, these rules are mutually exclusive.

By y'all logic I can do the following since there is not explicit rule denying it: A terminator may replace it's armor storm bolter with the following three weapons combined combi-flamer, wolf claw, AND thunder hammer.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:TGA:

You may do A
You may do B

Find permission in those two rules that prevents you doing B if you do A, and vice versa.

The two rules are listed under the heading [b]Dedicate Transport[/d], note the singular not the plural. Further, the each rule detail the taking of a one ('a') dedicated transport not multiple dedicate transports. Because there is no rule permitting more than one DT, these rules are mutually exclusive.

By y'all logic I can do the following since there is not explicit rule denying it: A terminator may replace it's armor storm bolter with the following three weapons combined combi-flamer, wolf claw, AND thunder hammer.

lets start with your example ... it does not start "replace the storm bolter" ... What it does say is "for every 5 models, one wolf guard in terminator armour may choose one of the following" You can only replace the storm bolter once ... but the same model (if you had 10) could take 2 CML or a CML and another weapon.

Unless there is a phrase like "select one of the following ..." or "may take x, y or z" you may take one of every option you are give. If you are asked to trade something then you may only do so once (as you no long have anything to trade)

Tri wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:TGA:

You may do A
You may do B

Find permission in those two rules that prevents you doing B if you do A, and vice versa.

The two rules are listed under the heading [b]Dedicate Transport[/d], note the singular not the plural. Further, the each rule detail the taking of a one ('a') dedicated transport not multiple dedicate transports. Because there is no rule permitting more than one DT, these rules are mutually exclusive.

By y'all logic I can do the following since there is not explicit rule denying it: A terminator may replace it's armor storm bolter with the following three weapons combined combi-flamer, wolf claw, AND thunder hammer.

lets start with your example ... it does not start "replace the storm bolter" ... What it does say is "for every 5 models, one wolf guard in terminator armour may choose one of the following" You can only replace the storm bolter once ... but the same model (if you had 10) could take 2 CML or a CML and another weapon.

Unless there is a phrase like "select one of the following ..." or "may take x, y or z" you may take one of every option you are give. If you are asked to trade something then you may only do so once (as you no long have anything to trade)

Actually, the exact verbiage is "Replace his Terminator armour's storm bolter with:" (Space Wolf codex, page 86) and then lists THREE weapon options: combi-flamer, combi-melta, or combi-plasma (for some points); wolf claw or power fist (for more points thne the combi-*); thunder hammer, storm shield, or chainfist (for more points then the claw/fist option). The argument for multiple DT's could just as easily be applied here: as long as all the points are allotted, the Terminator could carry a combi-flamer, wolf claw, and thunder hammer just by replacing the storm bolter. There is nothing to exclude taking more than one option (as nosfer has pointed out: you may take the combi, you may take the claw, and you may take the hammer. None of these options prevents taking of the other and nothing states there must be a one-for-one replacement of the bolter, just that the bolter may be exchanged.

Now, I believe the rule for a dedicated transport are just that, for a single dedicate transport and the rules support this interpretation. And I do believe there is a one-for-one replacement of the bolter for another weapon. I also believe the argument for multiple DTs is valid, then the same type of argument can be made for several of the other options within not only the WG options but other units through out the various codices.


*edited for typo tga*

I have an answer for you:

No you can't because:

As per the BRB:

The only limitation of a dedicated transport is that when deployed it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any IC) .

So your Wolf guard cant be in both the Drop pod and the LR so..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway when in doubt think as if you were an army commander, most of GWS rules are made to be logical in their meaning.

if you were a General would you allow one team to have 2 transport, one empty and the other full? No you would give the transport to another team so not to waste.

So I'd argue that, no, even if the phrasing is somewhat defficient, one unit may only have 1 dedicated transport.