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.

This hasn't come up yet in a game, but I can see how it might/will and I would like to have a basis for the inevitable discussion..  A Dark Angels squad of 10 marines can buy a Rhino as a dedicated transport on the army list.  During deployment the unit can split into two combat squads.  Does the Rhino have to be allocated to one of the combat squads?  Can it "pick up" either of the squads during the game?  If it picks up one combat squad, is it then not allowed to pick up and transport the other combat squad since it is a dedicated transport?  Both combat squads came from the same original unit when the Rhino was bought as a dedicated transport...  I have not found anything in RAW to support or prevent this course of action.  Basically they didn't address this 'loophole' as far as I can tell. :|

Thanks for your opinions.

Beast

Edit:  I should say that it just feels wrong to be able to transport both combat squads (separately or together) even though I can't find a specific rule about this relating to combat squads that were originally joined (pre-deployment) on the army-list.

Additionally, is it allowed for my opponent to take a Razorback for a unit of 10 marines that he knows he will split into combat squads on deployment, or must he buy a Rhino that can transport all of the original unit's members? 

It seems wrong to allow a Razorback in this case, but the only thing I can find preventing it is the capacity of Razorbacks.  If this is applied to the unit before deployment (when it is bought on the FOC) then it seems obvious to disallow it, but if it is applied during deployment then I might have difficulty arguing against him.  I guess that Army Builder (or other programs) wouldn't allow it, but that is obviously not an official ruling/justification. 

Perhaps some of you logic experts can create a case against this for me.

Again, thanks.

I don't have the DA dex, but the SM one states you can pick a razorback if your unit is 6 or less. The DA unit is 10 until deployment, so I would say no. (assuming that terminology is the same in the DA dex.)

Yeah, the wording in the DA dex is different from the C:SM entry for Tactical squads. The DA dex says "Tactical squads may select a Drop Pod, a Rhino or a Razorback as a dedicated transport vehicle (see page 87 for points cost)".  The entry for Razorback states the capacity is six but nothing about selecting it for a split combat squad.

This differs from the C:SM entry which states: "Transport: A Tactical squad which numbers six models or less may select a Razorback transport. Tactical squads which number ten models or less may select a Rhino transport. See the Transport vehicles entry for their details."

I can see potential room for abuse in this.  It would be a way for some players to get two heavy weapons in a DA tactical squad (one carried by a Marine and the other Razorback mounted).  I can't imagine the devs intended this, but I am not even going to go down the intent road...

DA: 250 for a 10man las-plas (which is the only way to get the las) + Razorback w/ HBs.
SM: 185 for a 6man las-plas + Razorback w/ HBs.
In either case, add 20 for LCs.

Somehow, I don't think the DAs are really too broken in this respect, since they have to pay 65 extra.

Wait a sec... Let's compare apples to apples...  A 10 man DA squad with a Lascannon costs 185 points.  Add a (legal???) Razorback from codex DA for 50 points.  That is 10 Space Marines (in two units but ONE FOC slot and one has vet sgt), two heavy weapons and a vehicle for 235 points.

A vanilla 5 man squad with a Lascannon costs 90 points.  Add a Razorback (from codex Space Marines) for 70 points.  Now add a combat squad (as a different FOC slot) for 75 points.  That is 10 Space Marines (in TWO FOC slots and no vet sgt), two heavy weapons and a vehicle for 235 points.

But my question was not whether DA are broken (although they would get more out of one FOC slot in this case).  My question was whether the Razorback was legal in this case.  Any opinions on this?

Thanks

Yes, the Razorback is completely legal.

The only problem is that in escalation, the entire squad starts offboard and can't be split, so they can't use the razorback until they lose 4 guys.

How about the Rhino question?  Can it transport either/both combat squads once they are on the board? Thanks.

Combat Squads rule DA codex page 23 "...each Combat squad is treated as a seperate unit for all game purposes from that point..."

A dedicated transport may only ever transport the unit it was assigned to. Thus, if you split into combat squads, you assign one squad the transport and it is theirs and theirs alone for the remainder of the game.

That is one possibility, but it is assigned to one unit.The 10 man DA unit. Now they get a divorce, and become two units. Does only one get custody? Or is it joint custody?

Joint custody only puts extra strain on the poor innocent transport. Only one combat squad gets custody.

I know it matters not on this board and for purposes of RAW, but JJ FAQed it and said they may both use the Rhino's transport capacity, but not at the same time.

I'd actually say that's the RAW answer.

After thinking on it further I decided to check the specific wording in the BGB regarding transports and considering that it simply says that it can only be used by the unit it was bought, and technically even when split, both squads are the unit that it was bought for, either one could use it and the FAQ makes perfect sense. Shows me for only checking one book and not both.

 

Who is JJ and where is this FAQ?

Posted By Green Angel on 05/13/2007 11:12 PM

 

Who is JJ and where is this FAQ?

You seriously dont know who "JJ" is?



I think its David Chappelles daddy...

Good times man, good times....

Posted By Green Angel on 05/13/2007 11:12 PM

 

Who is JJ and where is this FAQ?

Wait, you're the same guy that said GW isn't doing any layoffs, right? And you don't know who JJ is? Or the really obvious unofficial FAQ people are referring to?

I'll give you a hint, the JJ we're speaking of, he wasn't on Good Times, despite what that filthy xenos lover Malfred Hellfury would have you believe.

heh i know who JJ is but i have no idea what FAQ yer talking about

Is there a rule saying two units can't use the same transport?

Posted By nyarlathotep667 on 05/14/2007 1:06 AM

Posted By Green Angel on 05/13/2007 11:12 PM

 

Who is JJ and where is this FAQ?

Wait, you're the same guy that said GW isn't doing any layoffs, right? And you don't know who JJ is? Or the really obvious unofficial FAQ people are referring to?

I'll give you a hint, the JJ we're speaking of, he wasn't on Good Times, despite what that filthy xenos lover Malfred Hellfury would have you believe.

I ws being facetious. As far as I know, JJ has not written an official FAQ on any subject, and anything he says in an article or interview is "off the record" in terms of officiality.

 

How very incredibly useful.

Posted By Flagg07 on 05/13/2007 8:38 PM

"...each Combat squad is treated as a seperate unit for all game purposes from that point..."

Now they get a divorce, and become two units. Does only one get custody? Or is it joint custody?

Joint custody only puts extra strain on the poor innocent transport. Only one combat squad gets custody.

ROTFLMAO - former family law attorney.

Posted By GimpMaster on 05/14/2007 2:31 AM
heh i know who JJ is but i have no idea what FAQ yer talking about

Ah, it's some highly unofficial rules querry passed on to the Bolter & Chainsword via Owen Rees. Abandone All Hope Ye Who Entere Here

Posted By coredump on 05/14/2007 7:45 AM
Is there a rule saying two units can't use the same transport?

At the same time, yes. And if dedicated, only th eunit it was bought for can use it, of course. Question here becomes, Did only one combat squad buy it or did both. Jervis Johnson's answer is both.

Q: If I split a Tactical Squad into two Combat Squads, can both use any dedicated transport vehicle that was purchased for the unit? Or do I have to assign the vehicle to one of the Combat Squads?

A: Either Combat Squad is allowed to use the transport, but they cannot both use it at the same time because they are no longer a single unit. (Only one unit is allowed to use a transport vehicle at a time; see the rules for Transport Vehicles in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook).

You can find it here:

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=103740&hl=)

It's also on Warseer somewhere, along with some more answers on DA found here:

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83647

Perfect.  That answers both of my questions.  Many thanks to all of you.  And thanks  for finding the JJ/Owen post on B&C. 

Posted By nyarlathotep667 on 05/14/2007 12:00 PM

Posted By GimpMaster on 05/14/2007 2:31 AM
heh i know who JJ is but i have no idea what FAQ yer talking about

Ah, it's some highly unofficial rules querry passed on to the Bolter & Chainsword via Owen Rees. Abandone All Hope Ye Who Entere Here

Glad you clarified it as highly unofficial.

I think people misunderstood me. I wasn't argreeing with JJ's interpretation because its JJ's interpretation.

I was agreeing with JJ's interpretation because its actually a RAW interpretation.

Posted By Green Angel on 05/14/2007 12:59 PM

Posted By nyarlathotep667 on 05/14/2007 12:00 PM

Posted By GimpMaster on 05/14/2007 2:31 AM
heh i know who JJ is but i have no idea what FAQ yer talking about

Ah, it's some highly unofficial rules querry passed on to the Bolter & Chainsword via Owen Rees. Abandone All Hope Ye Who Entere Here

Glad you clarified it as highly unofficial.

Perhaps some reading comprehension would do you good as I always called it unofficial since it was not and has not been published by GW, be it in a WD or on their website via PDF.

Anyhow, Centurion has the right of it: it's about RAW (and JJ is a huge proponent of, when in doubt,  deferring to RAW).