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 you have a unit of more than 10 chaos marines and have a rhino?

Umm. . . what does the codex entry for the squad that wants to take the Rhino say?

It says no. It's in the book, happypants.


You can't buy a transport that the unit can't use.


Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:It says no. It's in the book, happypants.


You can't buy a transport that the unit can't use.


Eric

Not always true, a 10 man squad of Blood Angels can purchase a Razorback.

MagickalMemories wrote:
It says no. It's in the book, happypants.


Not always true, a 10 man squad of Blood Angels can purchase a Razorback.

That because they can take combat squads allowing the unit to split and therefore fit in the transport, anyway if you could do this Happypants the game would be filled with so much that it's not even funny

MagickalMemories wrote:It says no. It's in the book, happypants.


You can't buy a transport that the unit can't use.


Eric

Can I have a page quote on that please? I am looking at the entries both for the marines and for the rhino and nowhere does it say that you can't have a rhino in a squad of more than ten.

Under the marines it notes:

Transport:
* The squad may have a Chaos Rhino dedicated transport.

Under the Rhino it notes:
Certain Chaos marine units have the option of selecting a Chaos Rhino. This vehicle does not use up any force organization chart selections, but otherwise functions as a separate unit.


I did a quick once over on the transport section in the BGB and can't find anything there that notes that a squad has to fit in a transport to take a transport.


As for PLAYING. I would say that either you can't do it because it brings up too many other problems.

Although someone could of course just say "I have a unit of 20 marines and a rhino and they just won't get in it unless they get killed down to less than 10." And I can't find any rule that says that would not be a possibility.

At the risk of inciting another linguistic battle......

Under the entry for Khorne berserkers, it states "if it ( the unit) numbers 10 or less models, the squad may have a chaos rhino".

And, since under the entry for Rhino it states
"the chaos rhino can carry up to 10 models", this writer would think that the obvious correlation is that if you have more than 10 models in a unit, you are ineligble to take the transport.

Yep, I definitely don't see any reason a regular CSM squad with more then 10 men can't take a Rhino.

They can't get embark on it until they number 10 or less models but they are certainly free to take it.

It's no less strange then 10 man BA and DA squads being able to take Razorbacks.

Can I have a page quote on that please?

LOL

I can't give you a quote on the CSM codex or BGB. I thought it was in the Codex: CSM, but it isn't.
It's in the Codex: SM, which I've been trying to read lately, as well.

Under the rules for any SM unit that can take a Rhino, it specifies the # of models you can have and still use a Rhino.

Yes. Before anyone jumps up... I realize that's the SM codex & not the CSM codex.


So, to change my stance slightly... No, the RAW don't specifically say you can't. They only say how many men can be transported in it.
IMO, however, the RAI say it.

If someone wanted to use one in that manner against me, I'd simply concede the game, congratulate him on his victory and go find someone else who (IMO) doesn't want to stretch the rules inappropriately.


Eric

If it says the squad can take the Rhino without giving a max number, buying a Rhino for 15 CSMs is not stretching anything. I don't use CSM, but I have no problems with this.

Who am I to suggest what the writer intended? I can only go with what they wrote. Don't hate the player, hate the writer.

MM, it isn't "stretching the rules." There isn't even any ambiguity--it's allowed. Absurd, but allowed. Of course you'd be within your rights to choose to concede the game rather than play (since you always have that right in any situation), but I think it would be a huge over-reaction to do so. One extra (but paid for) Rhino is hardly an "I Win!" button, is it? It isn't as if huge squads of CSMs are good for anything at all, either.

No. It isn't an "I WIN" button at all. In fact, it's a hindrance.

Instead of "stretching" the rules, lets say "Taking advantage of a rules ambiguity" to try to stack the odds in your favor inappropriately.

IMO, if they would do that, there are other things they'd be unscrupulous to try, as well. I'd just rather not deal with it.

The only way I'd play against them is in a tournament... but I'd point that out to the judges, first, for a ruling.

LOL Flagg07... You know me better than that. I don't hate anyone. I don't have it in me to hate a person.
(Yes, I do believe you were just making a statment and not being literal. Don't take the above statement overly serious, <G&gt

Like the sticked post says... If the rules don't SAY I can't bring my models back on the field after they're killed, it doesn't mean I CAN.
Wanna dice off for that one? LOL

Seriously, though, I admit there are no rules specifically for or against it. I can deal with that.
It doesn't mean I'm going to play him, though.

Eric

No. It isn't an "I WIN" button at all. In fact, it's a hindrance.

Instead of "stretching" the rules, lets say "Taking advantage of a rules ambiguity" to try to stack the odds in your favor inappropriately.

These two paragraphs contradict each other.

IMO, if they would do that, there are other things they'd be unscrupulous to try, as well. I'd just rather not deal with it.

God forbid someone should use an option the codex clearly tells them they may.

Like the sticked post says... If the rules don't SAY I can't bring my models back on the field after they're killed, it doesn't mean I CAN.

Yes, and the rules clearly say you can buy a Rhino for a CSM squad, and there is no other rule that contradicts this. Your analogy. . . isn't.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:

No. It isn't an "I WIN" button at all. In fact, it's a hindrance.

Instead of "stretching" the rules, lets say "Taking advantage of a rules ambiguity" to try to stack the odds in your favor inappropriately.

These two paragraphs contradict each other.

IMO, if they would do that, there are other things they'd be unscrupulous to try, as well. I'd just rather not deal with it.

God forbid someone should use an option the codex clearly tells them they may.

Like the sticked post says... If the rules don't SAY I can't bring my models back on the field after they're killed, it doesn't mean I CAN.

Yes, and the rules clearly say you can buy a Rhino for a CSM squad, and there is no other rule that contradicts this. Your analogy. . . isn't.

1) The 2 sentences are not contradictory. I said "try" to stack it. I didn't say "succeed."

2) Indeed. God forbid someone should take advantage of what I believe to be an editing error.

3) My example was no further off base, IMO, than taking advantage of a loophole I believe to be against RAI. Look at it from the perspective I'm suggesting here. The OP's idea (re: codex) AND my example (re: models).... Neither of these has been stated as against the rules. The only difference is that HIS does have a general rule for it that (again, IMO) was simply a poorly edited rule that was meant to be as specific as the rule is in the SM codex.

Eric

The codex clearly allows a squad of CSM (but not Berserkers) to select a Rhino regardless of the squad's size. This is quite different from the wording in many older codices, including Eldar, SM, and Witchhunters, but not so different from the wording in the BA and DA codices.

Whether this is some sort of editing error or in any way unsportsmanlike is another topic, and I think is being discussed enough in the other thread currently open on this subject. Due to redundancy I'm locking this thread.