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.

snooggums wrote:I disagree. They can intend a rule to be a certain way such as having transports for units that cannot be transported, but the idea of a dedicated transport indicates the rule of 'dedicated transports' is being contradicted by the rule allowing anyone to take them. It would be like having Chaos Terminators and Obliterators taking a Rhino as a transport that they could never use, even if the rule was clear that they could do so. I'm talking about the dedicated transport rules is what this is against. The OP should have put "Is this against RAI".

You have made an argument that the "spirit of the rules" is somehow different than the "intent of the rules". For your disagreement to have any weight, then you should not be presenting red herrings, but should instead be presenting an argument for why the two are different things. Are chaos terminators or obliterators given the option of taking a Rhino in the codex? If not, then don't bring them up, as it's an irrelevant point. If a rule is intended to operate in a certain way, then using that rule in that certain way is, by definition, within the spirit of the rule.