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.

After reading codex and playing/discussing at LGS, we have these questions...

Some backstory and factual items from codex.

Had a player show at tourney yesterday with BA. He had 3 LR, 2 had BA assault squads with jump packs removed. His first opponent and several in peanut gallery questioned the legality. After a brief discussion army was allowed for the day, pending some ruling or FAQ for future.

BA Codex facts

Units that refer to page 90 to pick any transport
-Honor Guard
-Sternguard Vets
-Tactical
-Death Company
-Assault Squad w/removal of jump packs
-Vanguard Vets without jump packs
-Devastator squad


Units that refer to page 91 to pick any Land Raider transport
-Terminator squad
-Terminator Assault squad

Units that refer to page 90 for drop pod transport
-Dreadnought

Questions

1. Can the units that refer to page 90 to pick any dedicated transport, also move to page 91 and pick Land Raiders?

2. Can the units that refer to page 91 to pick dedicated LR transport, also move back to page 90 and pick any of those options?

3. RAW for units refering to page 90. Are they just saying due to fact that there is 3 different items to chose from, rhino, razorback, drop pod?

4. Is this just another example of GW leaving something to individual interpretation RAW vs RAI?

5. Why didn't GW just add refer to pages 90 AND 91 if they wanted that option for most power armored units?


Please read BA codex or be somewhat knowledgable before offering opinion. Also, please include number you are refering to when answering questions.

thanks

1 - If a LR falls into the category of DT they can, it does not say they can only pick from page 90, only they can pick a dedicated transport

2 - Not sure why you would want to take anything but a LR for Terminators, but I would have to see the exact wording on the Terminator entry to be sure.

3 - If it says they can only pick from that specific page then yes....?

4 - It may be sloppy wording, or maybe they want to let you take a LR for troops knowing it would be a bit ridiculous to do so?

Assault squads can take ANY dedicated transport.

G

Based on what rules? Assault squad selection says refer to page 90, not page 91. Plead your case.

OMU: Your sort of misreading it. It says "It can have ANY dedicated transport at a 35 point discount (see page 90)"

It doesnt say it can have a dedicated FROM page 90. Just uses page 90 to refer you where dedicated transports are, I think reading into it that because LR are on apge 91 means they cant take them is a bit of a stretch considering it says "any dedicated transport" before all that.

1. I don't really see the question here. Lets take tactical marines for an example.
It says, very clearly, "The unit may select any dedicated transport (see page 90)."
Then, when you look on page 90, there are Drop pods, rhinos, and razorbacks. No land raiders.
Same for assault marines, death company, sternguard etc.

2. Now, under terminators, it says, again, very clearly, "The squad can select a Land Raider of any type as a dedicated transport (see page 91)."

3. Yes.

4. It could be taken as such, but I really have to lean to the RAW here.

5. Because that would make logical sense, and because they are GW.

Anyway, my take on these questions.

It refers you to page 90 because that's where the Dedicated Transport section starts.

For RAI confirmation see the various GW website articles which talk about Tactical Squads in Land Raiders and the like.

Additionally can anyone cite any other instance of things being restricted only by page number in other GW books?

Jack

Jackmojo wrote:
Additionally can anyone cite any other instance of things being restricted by page number in other GW books?

I can think of a few entries that are definitely NOT restricted by page numbers cough, coughOrkCodexcough, cough.

By the codex specifically giving page references for each choice that can have dedicated transports makes it exclusive, not inclusive.

The bold header "Dedicated Transports" at top of page on 90 and 91 is there to tell where these vehicles fall in FOC.

I think if they wanted to be clear you coudnt take land raiders, it would have said something to that effect. Such as you can ONLY take dedicated from page 90, not 91. But it doesnt

Mafty wrote:I think if they wanted to be clear you coudnt take land raiders, it would have said something to that effect. Such as you can ONLY take dedicated from page 90, not 91. But it doesnt

Why? They don't tell you you can take anything by name.

If the Terminator entry was not kind enough to indicate the page of just Land Raiders would we still be discussing this?

I think not, and using one entry to justify altering another entry is always suspect.

And here's a link to the tactical squad article which comments on them using Land Raiders and how that is different from other chapters.

Jack

Peanut gallery reading comprehension FTL.

The squad can remove it's jump packs to count as Infantry. It can then have any Dedicated Transport at a 35-point discount (see page 90)

Any dedicated transport

When we turn to page 90 as helpfully prompted we see dedicated transports are

Rhino
Razorback
Drop Pod
Land Raider
Land Raider Crusader
Land Raider Redeemer.

Now if Landraiders weren't marked as dedicated transports, or it said any dedicated transport FROM page 90, or ONLY ON page 90 or STOP AT THE END OF PAGE 90 or THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE LANDRAIDERS, there might be a scrap of a point.

But they are, and it doesn't. So, any dedicated transport means just that. It says 'see page 90' because the that's where the list of dedicated transports starts. Reading fail if you think that text is supposed to mean anything more than that, and you stop reading a book from left to right just because you were referred to a single page number.

Terminators refer to any LAND RAIDER transport, and are referred to 91, because funnily enough, page 90 doesn't have any Land Raiders on it.

What's failure is your inability to acknowledge that "see page 91" is not part of the power armored units transport option.

When it says see page 90 and no mention of continuing to page 91, you can see where the problem lies. A simple inclusion of "refer to page 90 and/or 91" would have solved many issues.

Futhermore, it's left to how you want to interpret the references. Many other forums have had discussions on the matter, recently (40k radio and BOLS)

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:

When it says see page 90 and no mention of continuing to page 91, you can see where the problem lies.

No, I don't see where the problem lies with that, because I know how to read a book from left to right?

If it said page 90 ONLY, you might have a point. But it doesn't. It further implies the complete opposite of 'page 90 ONLY' because right before that it lists ANY dedicated transport.

I can't believe this is actually discussed seriously, come on.

If it said "It can only select any dedicated transport on p. 90" you would be correct. But every listing states, "May select any deticated transport (see p.90)" The big thing here is the parentheses, causing it to not be an exclusive statement.

Wow, I can't believe this is actually a problem.

Terminators are refered to page 91 as a reference point to start looking for there dedicated transport because they can't take anything else BUT a Land Raider. The rest are refered to page 90 because page 90 is the start of the dedicated transport section of the book.

Unreal, I can't believe people are trying to pull this crap.

It is exclusionary.

"See page 90" means see page 90. Not see page 90 and thereafter.

I think it is "powergamer wishing" at work here.

I will grit my teeth though and wait for the faq when the English realize that their typical vague wording leads to these kind of arguments.

I agree am waiting for the FAQ which I hope clears this up

and I will laugh and I will point at the new BA players and their half dozen Land Raiders they just bought for there new "Power-gamer" list

Jackmojo's post has a link to the GW website that specifically says that tactical squads can take land raiders as dedicated transports.
I dont see where there is anymore question.
And if you go with that line of thinking for the page number...In codices that list wargear on multiple pages, I guess the wargear after the first page can be taken by no one.
Just there for window dressing.

Yeah, because we all know that GW never post anything wrong on their site....


Wait, what?....

This smells like a case of people not wanting to play against 3+ LR lists more than it does a valid RAW argument. Just in time for Ard Boyz, eh?

DAaddict wrote:It is exclusionary.

"See page 90" means see page 90. Not see page 90 and thereafter.

I think it is "powergamer wishing" at work here.

I will grit my teeth though and wait for the faq when the English realize that their typical vague wording leads to these kind of arguments.

ANY dedicated transport, ANY.

What does that mean to you?

I think the reference to the GW article certainly clears up the RAI for the use of LR's with Power Armoured squads.

If you think that the Dedicated Transports on page 91 are excluded, does that mean than only HQ's which share the same page as the Honour Guard may take them? It does not say every HQ, pages 82-84, inclusive.

Homer

Yea people really need to get over this. A Land Raider in the BA codex is labeled as a dedicated transport, period. Its the only way to get one in a list. The brackets to see a page is a reference point. All squads besides termies and dreads can take ANY dedicated transport. The force organization section of the codex is divided into sub sections like Fast Attack, dedicated transports, and HQ`s. The page reference to 90 is the start of the dedicated transport section of the book.

Since termies can only take LR`s for dedicated transports its stated in their profile. Now if LR`s were a heavy support choice in the codex there would be an arguement for this but they are in fact DEDICATED TRANSPORTS in the BA codex and tactical squads etc can take ANY DEDICATED TRANSPORT.

can this be more clear..

What does the table of contents say?

"Dedicated Transports / p90" or "Dedicated Transports / pp90-91?"

"Dedicated transport P90" Irrelevant, as ToCs usually only list the first page anyway - and this is the consistent usage in the codex.

It is unarguable: ANY dedicated transport means ANY dedicated transport from the Dedicated Transport section. The brackets simply tell you where to look.

Terminators are restricted to selecting a LR hence pointing them to page 91 is perfectly sensible.

CatPeeler wrote:What does the table of contents say?

"Dedicated Transports / p90" or "Dedicated Transports / pp90-91?"

nosferatu1001 wrote:"Dedicated transport P90" Irrelevant

Not irrelevant, as it elegantly demonstrates the common format used when citing a reference page. On top of this it says 'any', there are parenthesis, there is a supporting GW article and there is precedent.

This argument is silly.

The Codex specifically refers to Devastators being able to deploy in Land Raiders. Page 26 top of second column.

Devastators have exactly the same entry as other infantry types for dedicated transports.

Argument closed.

Agreed. Beyond silly.

Soup and a roll wrote:

CatPeeler wrote:What does the table of contents say?

"Dedicated Transports / p90" or "Dedicated Transports / pp90-91?"

nosferatu1001 wrote:"Dedicated transport P90" Irrelevant

Not irrelevant, as it elegantly demonstrates the common format used when citing a reference page. On top of this it says 'any', there are parenthesis, there is a supporting GW article and there is precedent.

This argument is silly.

Exactly my point.