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.

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.

Bah! Quote button where the edit button should be :(

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.

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.

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.

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...

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?

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

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...

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.

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?

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: vehicles, plural.

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.

MagickalMemories wrote:Space Marines codex, page 21.

Which codex?

Because the discussion was about the new one

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.

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.