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.

so is ATSKNF, so I'm fine with that.

ATSKNF doesn't work as a parallel argument as the USR mentions Marines explicitly, as has already been stated.


A better parallel would be attached characters to command squads, as IIRC the attached characters bit is only listed in the beginning of the Codex and not mentioned in the unit entry itself. (On second thought, can HQs even be inducted? Ignore me if they can't...)

Or how about Traits?


Are the special rules mentioned only at the beginning of the Codex applicable toward the units at all times, or only when using the army as a whole? I don't think this can be answered to everyone's satisfaction given the wording.

This feels like a league level decision to me.

Posted By blue loki on 12/19/2006 11:26 AM
ATSKNF doesn't work as a parallel argument as the USR mentions Marines explicitly, as has already been stated.

By that argument, Chaos Space Marines would have ATSKNF...

HQ's can't be inducted, and the FAQ specifically says that you can't take doctrines or traits with inducted guard/marines.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/19/2006 8:17 AM
And also once again, drop pods are not an option in the unit entries.

The Inquisition books don't refer specifically to the unit entry, they refer instead to the Codex.


Drop Pod Assault is an option listed in the Codex for certain units.

No. It says the UNITS take their own OPTIONS and UPGRADES from their OWN codex.

Drop pod assualt is an option for tactical and others....they can have it.

No, 'Drop Pod Assault' is not an option for Tactical or other squads. It is not listed in their unit entries, is it? No. You don't get the 'Drop Pod Assault' rules just because you take a Tactical Squad. It is a separate rule that grants additional options to the unit, but it is neither an option or an upgrade of that unit.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/19/2006 10:27 PM
No, 'Drop Pod Assault' is not an option for Tactical or other squads.

Of course it is. The Drop Pod Assault rules say that those squads can take a  Drop Pod. The Drop Pod is therefore an option for those squads.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/19/2006 10:27 PM
 It is not listed in their unit entries, is it?

Where does it say that only the options in the unit's Army List entry are used?

It doesn't. It says 'Codex'... NOT 'army list entry'

The Drop Pod is in the Codex, and is listed as being available to certain units. It is therefore an option for those units, regardless of where it appears in the codex.

Posted By carmachu on 12/18/2006 2:22 PM
I've skimmed this arguement, but havent seen anyone actually quote the 'by the authority of the immortal emperor of mankind" section in WH.

To quote:

'ALL units are taken exactly as they appear in codex:space marine and codex imperial guard and may only use the options and upgrades listed there.

Empasis mine.

Options and upgrades. Drop pods are an option marines can use from their own book. Its pretty clear they can...

 I'd have to say no, fluffy though the option is. The Drop pod is an army special rule much like a trait is. Neither can be taken by inducted Marines, because well, they're NOT in a Space Marine army. Or to look at it another way, Inducted marines are not acting as part of a S.M. force; they've been pulled away from their parent chapter to serve the Inquisition, and therefore must deploy only by what means the Inquisition has available. Likewise a Marine chapter wouldn't send 'deviant' Marines to the Inquisistion, hence no Traits. (Safe to say, the Blood Angels and Space Wolves  don't consider themselves deviant, though I'm not sure they CAN be inducted in the first place.)

Posted By Lordhat on 12/20/2006 4:56 AM
 I'd have to say no, fluffy though the option is. The Drop pod is an army special rule much like a trait is.

And ATSKNF is an army rule much like Drop Pod Assault.  Are you saying that inducted marines lose ATSKNF?

Fluff reason aside, why couldn't one use Traits in inducted marines? Its all part of the 'standard' marine codex...

Posted By skyth on 12/20/2006 6:01 AM

Posted By Lordhat on 12/20/2006 4:56 AM
 I'd have to say no, fluffy though the option is. The Drop pod is an army special rule much like a trait is.

And ATSKNF is an army rule much like Drop Pod Assault.  Are you saying that inducted marines lose ATSKNF?

ATSKNF is a USR that applies to ANY Space Marine as per the acutal rule itself, Drop pod assault applies to Space Marine armies as per the first line of the rule itself.

Maybe that's not a strictly RAW interperetation, but then again it IS an interperetation.

My $0.02.

 

Posted By Cruentus on 12/20/2006 6:05 AM
Fluff reason aside, why couldn't one use Traits in inducted marines? Its all part of the 'standard' marine codex...

"ALL units are taken exactly as they appear in codex:space marine and codex imperial guard and may only use the options and upgrades listed there."

 

Traits are neither an option NOR an upgrade to the unit.

Forgive the question from a non-loyalist marine player, who therefore does not have the SM Codex to hand, but does not the drop pod assault rule limit the army using said rule to only taking units that can be podded in?

If so, then the DH army entries cannot be podded in, as that rule does not apply to them, and hence the 'army' as a whole entity cannot. Hence, no pods for anyone.

But of course, I'm likely completely wrong about that rule.

Posted By Tribune on 12/26/2006 12:02 PM
but does not the drop pod assault rule limit the army using said rule to only taking units that can be podded in?

Nope. That was the case in the 3rd Edition codex, but not in the current one.

Ah, sufficient proof that I am 'old school' and hereby redundant ")

I thought it was too easy to have been missed.

Posted By Graatz on 12/26/2006 10:02 PM
Thus it comes into play when the army is being built from the SM codex.

A DH army with inducted Marines is being built, at least partially, from the SM codex. There is no rule that says that the entire army must come from the SM codex in order to use Drop Pods.

Posted By Graatz on 12/26/2006 10:02 PM
4. The wording unit entry means UNIT ENTRY and nothing more. 

The rules entry for inducted Marines doesn't use the wording 'unit entry' at all. If it did, we wouldn't have been having this debate in the first place.

It says that the unit can take any available options from its codex, rather than from its unit entry.

The Drop Pod is an option available to the unit in its codex.

From page 21 of Codex Daemonhunters:


If it's not in their army list entry, then it's not the 'basic version' and hence it is not allowed by the rules.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/27/2006 2:48 PM
If it's not in their army list entry, then it's not the 'basic version'

And this is written where, exactly?

And exactly what gives you the idea that a rule not in the unit's entry is a part of it's 'basic version'? It seems to me that you're the one who needs to prove that drop pods are a part of the 'basic version' of the unit, not me proving that they're not.

You're the one presenting a statement as if it actually means something. Find a definition of 'basic version' in the rules that states that a 'basic version' of a unit is a unit with only the options from its army list unit entry, and I'll happily agree with you.

Otherwise, it can just as easily be argued that 'basic version' simply refers to units without Traits and Doctrines, or taken from the main list rather than sub-lists. The Drop Pod is not a Trait or Doctrine, nor does it make the unit a different type of unit. It is simply an option provided by the codex.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/27/2006 2:48 PM
From page 21 of Codex Daemonhunters:

When using Allied or Inducted troops, only the basic versions of these troop types published in the appropriate Codex can be used. No variants of any kind can be incorporated.

If it's not in their army list entry, then it's not the 'basic version' and hence it is not allowed by the rules.

Basic version simply means what would be taken in a normal codex army.  The basic version of a Tactical Squad CAN be equipped with Drop Pods.

The only time a varient or trait is used in regards to drop pods is when you have the disadvantage 'Die Standing' which takes away the option you normally have for it.

Posted By Graatz on 12/26/2006 10:02 PM
1. ATSKNF is a universal rule and all marines in any list get it. As per the codex and core rule book.
2. Drop pod assault is not a universal rule. It is an army specific rule written specifically for an army constructed solely from the Space Marine codex. Thus it comes into play when the army is being built from the SM codex.
3. Chaos marines never get ATSKNF as it says that in their codex and the word chaos in their descriptor means they are not space marines. They are chaos space marines, nothing more nothing less.

So do loyalist Terminators have ATSKNF?  I believe they are listed as terminators in the desciption?

Posted By Graatz on 12/26/2006 10:02 PM
1. ATSKNF is a universal rule and all marines in any list get it. As per the codex and core rule book.
2. Drop pod assault is not a universal rule. It is an army specific rule written specifically for an army constructed solely from the Space Marine codex. Thus it comes into play when the army is being built from the SM codex.
3. Chaos marines never get ATSKNF as it says that in their codex and the word chaos in their descriptor means they are not space marines. They are chaos space marines, nothing more nothing less.

So do loyalist Terminators have ATSKNF?  I believe they are listed as terminators in the desciption?

Not unless they can take the 'Drop Pod Assault' special rule. So where is that in any of the unit entries? It's not because it's not a part of the 'basic version' of the unit like a Rhino or Razorback is.


How about presenting something that makes it a meaningless rule then? You can go on and on about how they can take drop pods but you've yet to provide any proof that you can do so. I don't have to prove that it can't be done, you have to prove that you can. It's not just because you say so.

Secondly, if the 'basic version' means you can take everything in the codex anyway, then what's the meaning of that rules passage then? Everything would be the 'basic version' of the unit anyway? So drop the BS and actually support your claims, because so far you've not done so.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/27/2006 3:32 PM
You can go on and on about how they can take drop pods but you've yet to provide any proof that you can do so.

Nonsense. I've already provided that proof: The Inquisition Codexes state that they can take any options available in their Codex, prohibiting only variant lists, not other options. They do NOT refer specifically to the army list unit entry.


You're claiming that 'Codex' means 'unit entry' but the only thing you have to back this up is a term that is undefined in the rules, and which can therefore be given numerous different meanings.

So, unless you can find a rules definition for 'basic version' you're not going to get anywhere with that angle.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/27/2006 3:32 PM
Secondly, if the 'basic version' means you can take everything in the codex anyway,

Nobody said that's what it means. Try reading the thread.

No. You've not provided the 'proof' that any options in the codex constitutes the 'basic' version of the unit


Bull. You're the one who's trying to claim that when they say the basic version of the 'troop type' means the entire codex. Use some common sense for a change instead of trying to blame GW because they didn't give you a dictionary of terms twice the size of the rulebook as an excuse to do whatever you want.


And unless you can somehow explain how an entire codex is a 'troop type' all you're doing is wasting bandwidth.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/27/2006 6:14 PM
No. You've not provided the 'proof' that any options in the codex constitutes the 'basic' version of the unit

Of course I haven't. Because the basic version of the unit, within the Inquisition rules, doesn't include any option in the codex.

Once again, since you seem to be ignoring it, the DH and WH rules prohibit the use of traits and doctrines... which, in case you hadn't noticed, are options given in the codexes.


What is in doubt is simply whether 'basic version' prohibits anything other than the traits and doctrines, and sublists.

Which, given that the DH and WG rules refer to options in the codex instead of options in the unit's army list entry, seems doubtful... unless you can come up with that definition of 'basic version' that says otherwise.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/27/2006 6:14 PM
Use some common sense for a change instead of trying to blame GW because they didn't give you a dictionary of terms twice the size of the rulebook as an excuse to do whatever you want.

'Common sense' meaning 'agree with Ghaz, despite no actual basis in the rules being provided'...?


Rules are what we are debating here, Ghaz. Not your personal interpretation of what they might have meant when they said to use the options given in the codex, if they had bothered to write the rule completely differently.

Besides, what would I be 'blaming' GW for? You're the one getting all uptight about it. I don't even play DH or WH... so all my interpretation would do is allow my opponent to 'do what he wants'...

Posted By Ghaz on 12/27/2006 6:14 PM
And unless you can somehow explain how an entire codex is a 'troop type'

It's not. Once again, try actually reading what I've written, rather than simply making it up as suits your argument.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/27/2006 6:14 PM

Nonsense. I've already provided that proof: The Inquisition Codexes state that they can take any options available in their Codex, prohibiting only variant lists, not other options. They do NOT refer specifically to the army list unit entry.

No. You've not provided the 'proof' that any options in the codex constitutes the 'basic' version of the unit

You're claiming that 'Codex' means 'unit entry' but the only thing you have to back this up is a term that is undefined in the rules, and which can therefore be given numerous different meanings.

Bull. You're the one who's trying to claim that when they say the basic version of the 'troop type' means the entire codex. Use some common sense for a change instead of trying to blame GW because they didn't give you a dictionary of terms twice the size of the rulebook as an excuse to do whatever you want.

So, unless you can find a rules definition for 'basic version' you're not going to get anywhere with that angle.

And unless you can somehow explain how an entire codex is a 'troop type' all you're doing is wasting bandwidth.

"only the basic versions of these troop types published in the appropriate Codex can be use"

I have read throught he codex and the rule book. No-where do I see a definition of basic, so we have to ignore it - unless we are now trying to use an intent argument (and of-course we never use intent on dakka now do we?) or make up our own description.

From the DH codex pg"No variants of any kind" plus "varient SM chapter models can stand in for normal SM" from the designers notes on pg21 means it is refering to pure vanilla marines not "basic". The word "basic" doesn't appear again. Squads allowed include tactical (duh!)

From the DH codex pg 30 ""may only use options and upgrades listed there"

Pg27 of the SM codex defines the options section using the following terminology "options - different weapon and equipement options and  ....  If a squad is allowed to have a model with an upgrade it must be..... " Drop pods are not equipement, they are transports in a similar vein to rhinos and razorbacks.

Pg21 of the SM Codex on drop pods. The first paragraph can be ignored. It doesn't contain any rules - it is fluff - a stupid place to put fluff but fluff it is. Unless you want to argue that a description of firing a drop pod from a battle barge at high speed is anything but fluff ..... then this whole thread becomes pointless.

The second paragraph starts with the word "ANY". I really don't see how you can argue with "Any". So inducted can use drop pods.

Posted By fullheadofhair on 12/27/2006 7:19 PM

No-where do I see a definition of basic, so we have to ignore it -

Yup. I see it as a similar situation to Escalation, which refers to 'basic infantry'

Without a definition of what 'basic infantry' actually are, people just assume it applies to all infantry, since no method is given to define them any differently.

So, by stating that the 'basic version' of the unit must be used, but only specifically defining variants as being not allowed, and listing options as being allowed from the codex rather than from the list entry, we're left with any other option from the codex being just fine.

Again, it's simple to figure out what the 'basic version' of a 'troop type' is. It is the troop type's army list entry and nothing else. A codex is not a troop type. It's not 'basic' if it has any additions, is it? No. You just don't want to see it because GW didn't give you a defintion so you think you can ignore the rule. Sorry, but I don't see anything that says you can ignore a rule just because you want to.