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 single 10 man space marine tactical squad buy two dedicated transports so that each combat squad has one?

It's not listed as an option, so no.


Well, not quite true. Reading pure RAW, the squad can take a rhino or razorback and a drop pod... but the general concensus is that's just dodgy wording, and you're only supposed to be able to get the one.

Reading English the squad can only take a single transport.

I read it as only one myself but I just played a fellow with DP and RB, one of each for a ten man squad. Now he did put all 10 in the DP and combat squad once he disembarked from DP but had a RB with TLLC in the back lines for support. I just wasn't able to show sound evidence that he couldn't do this. Thx for the response; we'll see what others come up with as well.

The twin-transport thing comes up because the section that lists the transports does so with two statements.

- A squad is allowed to take a rhino or razorback
- A 10-man squad is allowed to take a Drop Pod.

There is nothing in the entry that suggests that these two statements are exclusive. (ie: that taking one stops you from taking the other)

This has been hashed out in-depth on previous occasions. You won't find anything actually rules-based to prove him wrong. The best you can do is appeal to reason, which suggests that the intention was against taking the two transports, for the simple reason that doing will always result in an empty vehicle as units can't be Combat Squaded in Reserve.

there is a slight problem:

Tanks need to keep coherency.

As son as you etempt to DE-B you're squad gets split up

Otherwise, it's a nice idea.

Wouldn't work with DP's though, scatter.

It's a good idea for high-value squads so that if the tank goes down, the squad has to evac.

the real problem is that they have to DE-B /;.l

Captain Solon wrote:there is a slight problem:

Tanks need to keep coherency.

No, sorry, they don't. The Transport is a separate unit. There is no requirement for multiple units to keep coherency with each other.

Doesn't make sense fluff wise rule wise or gameplay wise to have more than one transport per squad.

Insaniak is right, the transport can pootle around doing its own thing when the embarked squad jumps out and does its thing.

Captain Solon wrote:there is a slight problem:

Tanks need to keep coherency.

As son as you etempt to DE-B you're squad gets split up

Otherwise, it's a nice idea.

Wouldn't work with DP's though, scatter.

It's a good idea for high-value squads so that if the tank goes down, the squad has to evac.

the real problem is that they have to DE-B /;.l

Did you buy a rulebook from a Thailand black market or something? Where do you come up with these rules all the time?


OP - Like stated most people think you cant, but the wording is truly crappy. So depending on how you read it, it could go both ways. Kind of like the KFF, except there is more then one GW source that shows them using the 4+ on vehicles and a 5+ on troops. So unless we didnt have the WD and the card thingy, that one would ALSO be in the air

I agree with KingCracker: depending on how you read the rules it could go both ways.

Except that if you read it wrong, then you imagine that you're licensed to take a Drop Pod in addition to either a Rhino or a Razorback.

The only correct reading is that the squad gets one dedicated transport out of the three that are listed. That isn't anything to do with the rules, that's to do with reading comprehension.

I plan on getting a tactical squad both transports and using the Rhino for Grey Knights in power armor who aren't able to buy their own. It's perfectly legal, although they have to start outside the Rhino.

thebetter1 wrote:I plan on getting a tactical squad both transports and using the Rhino for Grey Knights in power armor who aren't able to buy their own. It's perfectly legal, although they have to start outside the Rhino.

Sorry, but the two transports is the part that is not "perfectly legal." There is no clear evidence that they are allowed two transports. I personally see and read it as they may, but I do not support that view. I feel it is a poorly written entry that needs to be clarified.

My personal way to play is one transport, be it a Rhino, Razorback, or Drop Pod.

It is dubiously ambiguous.

When confronted with a situation in which you are unsure, the best approach is normally to aspire to the solution which is less likely to be loophole.

I can assure you that you will encounter fewer arguments, and win more friends, playing Warhammer with this approach.

InquisitorFabius wrote:Sorry, but the two transports is the part that is not "perfectly legal." There is no clear evidence that they are allowed two transports. I personally see and read it as they may, but I do not support that view. I feel it is a poorly written entry that needs to be clarified.

So do you play that a Captain is allowed only one upgrade? If he takes a Storm Shield, is he still allowed to take melta bombs? "May take the following" means that you can take any number of the things that follow.

The rules are very clear that you can take both a Rhino or Razorback and a Drop Pod. The evidence is the rule that it seems like you both have and have not read.

Find me a rule that says a unit is allowed only one dedicated transport. There isn't one, therefore a tactical squad is allowed both, as indicated by the codex.

Please quote the relevant rule.

I think it's the part in the Army List Tactical Squad entry entitled Dedicated Transport. You know, the part referring to dedicated transports in the singular. Don't let that reading thing get in the way of wishful/wooly thinking though.

Codex: Space Marines (134) wrote:May select a Rhino or a Razorback. If the squad numbers ten models, may take a Drop Pod.

How is this any different from:

Codex: Space Marines(134) wrote:The Space Marine Sergeant may take: [melta bombs, teleport homer]

Nurglitch wrote:I think it's the part in the Army List Tactical Squad entry entitled Dedicated Transport. You know, the part referring to dedicated transports in the singular. Don't let that reading thing get in the way of wishful/wooly thinking though.

Codex: Space Marines (135) wrote:Dedicated Transports

Maybe we should all just stop and actually read our rulebooks.

thebetter1 wrote:

Codex: Space Marines (134) wrote:May select a Rhino or a Razorback. If the squad numbers ten models, may take a Drop Pod.

Point is that its badly written and should really be "may take a Rhino, a Razorback or if there are ten models a drop pod." it doesn't but RAP is you can have 1 D.Transport per unit. You feel that you can get away with taking both go for it ... but expect to be disappointed. (RAP is also backed up by the BGB stating, on page 67, that the unit may allow a vehicle to be selected. Singular)

Tri wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

Codex: Space Marines (134) wrote:May select a Rhino or a Razorback. If the squad numbers ten models, may take a Drop Pod.

Point is that its badly written and should really be "may take a Rhino, a Razorback or if there are ten models a drop pod." it doesn't but RAP is you can have 1 D.Transport per unit. You feel that you can get away with taking both go for it ... but expect to be disappointed. (RAP is also backed up by the BGB stating, on page 67, that the unit may allow a vehicle to be selected. Singular)

Sorry, but rulebook > codex really does not help to back up your definition of RAP. If it is being exploitative to take two transports as specifically allowed by the codex, where does it stop? Would I be TFG for taking transports just so the guys inside cannot be shot at? What about not allowing an opponent to claim AP1 with melta bombs?

If anyone would refuse to play against me for taking perfectly legal codex options, I would absolutely consider it a win. After all, they forfeit. If they decide to make me dice off for it, then I will make them dice off for every unit in their army as well.

thebetter1 wrote:Maybe we should all just stop and actually read our rulebooks.

Maybe you should stop and re-evaluate your life, because if you are so desperate to win at toy soldiers you have to try and cheat, you have issues.

Gwar! wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:Maybe we should all just stop and actually read our rulebooks.

Maybe you should stop and re-evaluate your life, because if you are so desperate to win at toy soldiers you have to try and cheat, you have issues.

Really? Even you think it is cheating to do what is allowed by the codex? What gives you the right to decide that I am a cheater? You obviously do not care what the rules say, so it's not the rulebook. As far as I know, you do not work for Games Workshop, so it can't be that either.

Now, you could just admit that I am right, which I am sure you know, but that would conflict with the personal war you have waged against me for quite some time.

thebetter1 wrote:Really? Even you think it is cheating to do what is allowed by the codex? What gives you the right to decide that I am a cheater? You obviously do not care what the rules say, so it's not the rulebook. As far as I know, you do not work for Games Workshop, so it can't be that either.

Now, you could just admit that I am right, which I am sure you know, but that would conflict with the personal war you have waged against me for quite some time.

Please show me the line that says you may take 2 Transports.

Don't try and infer it, please point out the EXPLICIT line that says "You may buy 2 Dedicated Transports".

As for this "Personal War", please do not flatter yourself. I would not waste my time on someone like you.

Well, this went downhill fast.


To summarise: The entry can be read to allow the unit two transports, but most players accept that it shouldn't be allowed and is due solely to dodgy wording. Sort it out with your opponent if you're unsure.



On a tangental note to posters: Threads tend to remain far more civil if your don't treat your position as self-evident. If someone's arguing the point, that doesn't automatically make them an idiot, or a cheat. Most of the time, it simply means that they disagree with you.

Posts insulting someone's reading comprehension, or calling them a cheat, are bordering on flamebait and are pretty well guaranteed to see a thread spiral downhill. Making the effort to keep posts civil and addressing the point instead of the poster will keep everything far more friendly and result in fewer suspensions.