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.

Any Dedicated Transport does indeed mean ANY transport, though GW did make a mess of the wording.

Gwar! wrote:Any Dedicated Transport does indeed mean ANY transport, though GW did make a mess of the wording.

And thats why it says any dedicated transport and not any transport so that theres no confusion with the stormraven.

This arguement is very childish and selfish. Its almost like the people who don`t play Blood Angels are taking it as a personal insult that someone has more LR`s than them. Get over it.

Gwar! wrote:Any Dedicated Transport does indeed mean ANY transport, though GW did make a mess of the wording.

Its not even really poor wording, its folks conflating the convenient citation on the terminator squad to imply meaning elsewhere. No one offers any support for the no Land Raiders position that doesn't cite that entry, which as a different entry is frankly irrelevant.

I don't check the Assault list to see if my Tactical Sergeants can get Infernus Pistols either...there both Space Marine Sergeants after all.

Jack

Jackmojo wrote:
Its not even really poor wording, its folks conflating the convenient citation on the terminator squad to imply meaning elsewhere. No one offers any support for the no Land Raiders position that doesn't cite that entry, which as a different entry is frankly irrelevant.

I don't check the Assault list to see if my Tactical Sergeants can get Infernus Pistols either....

Jack

This.

Selfish and childish?

I want clarity in codeci. I have already had 2 English teachers read and dicipher the meaning and it is exclusive. So we wait for FAQ.

I don't give a rat's ass about Land Raiders. Eldar > LR

It is very clear. Perhaps your english teachers aren't used to reading the codex, or perhaps you influanced their understanding.

But the fact remaines that it says "any dedicated transport." It really isn't that hard.

GW specifically takes Land Raiders as dedicated transports for tactical squads in their sample armies section for Blood Angels. http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=900003&pIndex=3&aId=8000031a&start=4
A squad that may take "any" dedicated transport may indeed take "any" dedicated transport. It doesn't matter how many English teachers disagree, if GW has army lists with Land Raiders as dedicated transports on their own website it doesn't require an FAQ or any other ruling. If they do it you can too, after all they wrote it and should know what you can and can't do.

The page the entry starts on is clarity.

Effendi wrote: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.

The wargear argument is a good one.

I don't really understand the issue here, Blood Angels or Standard Marines.

Lets look at the Standard Marine Codex, since the BA one is in Addition too the Standard.

The standard Codex has Dedicated Transports, with three options (those listed previously), then you turn the page and it starts the Elites Section.

Terminators have a dedicated transport option 'ONE term squad may select A Land Raider as a dedicated transport'

If you notice that Land Raiders are in the Heavy Support section of your Codex. which means they are Heavy support unless that ONE term squad picks one as a DT.

Other wise its a Heavy choice and has to be deployed as a seperate unit, and can then pick up a different unit.

So changing this in the BA codex as described would be ridiculously over powered even for a brand new GW codex.

headrattle wrote:It is very clear. Perhaps your english teachers aren't used to reading the codex, or perhaps you influanced their understanding.

Yup, I want to go out of my way to screw the peeps. Teachers had their opportunity to read codex for themselves. Seriously though, I set up leagues and tournies and people come to me with questions. I want to give them correct answers.

headrattle wrote:But the fact remaines that it says "any dedicated transport." It really isn't that hard.

False, It says, "take any dedicated transport (see page 90)". Again, there are 3 different transports on page 90, rhino, razorback and drop pod. What needs to be addressed, what does "any" mean? Any of the 3? Any on page 90 and/or 91? All I'm saying.

GW site articles have been wrong in past. So I take that for what it's worth.

I would hardly ask an English teacher to read through this particular entry. Maybe a lawyer or engineer who are used to reading professional/legal documents but you stating 'my teacher' holds 0 weight in this particular discussion.

The fact of the matter is, the codex is explicit on the rules. Any Dedicated Transport. Under your interpretation any page reference needs to contain the entire breadth of pages that address a topic.

'We are born with certain inalienable rights (pg. 6)'

What about habeas corpus? That one is on pg. 7, you don't get that one...

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:
False, It says, "take any dedicated transport (see page 90)". Again, there are 3 different transports on page 90, rhino, razorback and drop pod. What needs to be addressed, what does "any" mean? Any of the 3? Any on page 90 and/or 91? All I'm saying.

GW site articles have been wrong in past. So I take that for what it's worth.

yes, any dedicated transport. since LR are not dedicated Transports they are a Heavy Support choice. UNLESS 8A* (singular) Squad of Terminators choose 8A* (again... singular) LR as a Dedicated Transport.

Which then makes them dedicated?

hcordes wrote: since LR are not dedicated Transports they are a Heavy Support choice.

It would help if you actually read the BA codex before weighing on the discussion. In the BA codex all LR variants are dedicated transports. They are no longer heavy support.

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:

headrattle wrote:It is very clear. Perhaps your english teachers aren't used to reading the codex, or perhaps you influenced their understanding.

Yup, I want to go out of my way to screw the peeps. Teachers had their opportunity to read codex for themselves. Seriously though, I set up leagues and tournies and people come to me with questions. I want to give them correct answers.

Don't overreact. People often influence others without knowing it. It is a common problem when searching for an opinion.

headrattle wrote:But the fact remains that it says "any dedicated transport." It really isn't that hard.

False, It says, "take any dedicated transport (see page 90)". Again, there are 3 different transports on page 90, rhino, razorback and drop pod. What needs to be addressed, what does "any" mean? Any of the 3? Any on page 90 and/or 91? All I'm saying.

Any transport in the codex. If it didn't mean that, it would have specified. It didn't. The part in parentheses isn’t the actual rule. If the codex meant any Dedicated Transport on page 90, they would have just listed the three transports or said something along the lines of “any transport on page 90.” They didn’t.

They wrote “Take any dedicated transport.” The parentheses are more of a guide. Usually when they have parentheses it is as an example or to guide you to the correct page. Reading it as part of the actual rule wouldn't be correct in this or any other codex. If it was part of the actual rule, it wouldn't be in parentheses.

You are reading too much into it. For most of us it is pretty cut and dry.

hcordes wrote:

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:
False, It says, "take any dedicated transport (see page 90)". Again, there are 3 different transports on page 90, rhino, razorback and drop pod. What needs to be addressed, what does "any" mean? Any of the 3? Any on page 90 and/or 91? All I'm saying.

GW site articles have been wrong in past. So I take that for what it's worth.

yes, any dedicated transport. since LR are not dedicated Transports they are a Heavy Support choice. UNLESS 8A* (singular) Squad of Terminators choose 8A* (again... singular) LR as a Dedicated Transport.

Yeah, read the codex. Land Raiders are dedicated transports in the BA codex. They are not available as HS choices. You should take another look at your avatar, theres no need to panic.

( big fan of Douglas Adams btw )

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:
GW site articles have been wrong in past. So I take that for what it's worth.

You should also check the description of Devastators getting first pick of Land Raiders as transports and preferring them to the other options in their flavor text then.

Props to Fifty for pointing this out first, I just finally went and checked what it said since folks are still arguing it.

Jack

I read and re-read the BA codex and can accept that they can have any transport including LRs. Truthfully
6 LR's in a Hard Boyz list just justifies Meltas and Bright/Dark lances all the more.

I just bemoan that fact that leave off the "helpful" page references (That GW doesn't always provide.) or add
- 91 and all the issues are solved.

Not really a problem other than typical vague and ambiguous statements cause thread(s) to be started,
responses to get on the verge of flaming and noses to get out of joint.

BTW - a fluff reference in Devastators does not prove a rule. GW fluff is not always backed up in their rules.

Hell a fluff reference is just as valid as conflating random page references while ignoring actual wording

Jack

P.S. I just threw it out there to help folks who want some sort of RaI confirmation of things

wow.. people who argue raw along lines like this really manage to suck all the joy out of the game dont they?

I personally am in the camp of "any dedicated transport" means any choice on pg. 90 or 91. I encourage all of you to have a look at pg. 81 of you BA codex. On the right hand side of the page is a section marked "dedicated transports". It says "Where applicable, this section refers to any transport vehicles the unit may take. These have their own army list entry on page 90-91." This seems, to me at any rate, to indicate pretty clearly that EVERYTHING on pg. 90-91 is a dedicated transport. Therefore, a unit that can take any dedicated transport can choose anything on pg. 90-91. I will also point out that terminators and dreadnoughts are specifically limited in their choice of transport by the codex. Terminators can take "a Land Raider of any type" or a dreadnought can take "a Drop Pod", this is what was meant by "... this section refers to any transport vehicles that the unit may take." (81). Since the tactical squad entry specifically "refers to any transport vehicle the unit may take" as "any dedicated transport" it seems pretty clear-cut (at least to me). If units other than terminators and dreadnoughts were meant to be limited to a specific part of the dedicated transport section wouldn't it have been clearly specified (like it is for Terminators and Dreadnoughts)? I suppose it's possible that GW screwed up every dedicated transport entry in the codex except for the terminator and dreadnought (of all types) entries. However, this would seem rather unlikely.

If some of you are still not convinced that it is totally acceptable for a tactical or an assault squad to take a land raider as a dedicated transport consider this; there is a pile of evidence to support the "any means any" argument. Some of this is RAI evidence from the GW website, one example was provided above but that is not the only example of RAI on the GW site. http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=900003&pIndex=1&aId=8000040a&start=2. That link goes to the "Getting started with the Blood Angels" article on the GW site. In that article Land Raiders are specifically mentioned as a transport option for tactical squads. What evidence is there for the "any means any on pg. 90" argument? So far the only evidence I have seen for the "any means any on pg. 90" argument is a bracketed reference to a page number. I have also noticed that the fact that GW regularly has typos on their website and in their codices is being used as a reason to ignore the evidence in the above listed articles. If that is true, doesn't the same argument apply to the "see page 90" argument in general? Couldn't that be a typo? Maybe GW just messed up and the entry should really read "see pages 90 and 91" in the codex. They do, after all, have a history of typos on their website and in their codices. The "any means any on page 90" argument just doesn't hold any water.

andain841 wrote:I personally am in the camp of "any dedicated transport" means any choice on pg. 90 or 91. I encourage all of you to have a look at pg. 81 of you BA codex. On the right hand side of the page is a section marked "dedicated transports". It says "Where applicable, this section refers to any transport vehicles the unit may take. These have their own army list entry on page 90-91." This seems, to me at any rate, to indicate pretty clearly that EVERYTHING on pg. 90-91 is a dedicated transport. Therefore, a unit that can take any dedicated transport can choose anything on pg. 90-91. I will also point out that terminators and dreadnoughts are specifically limited in their choice of transport by the codex. Terminators can take "a Land Raider of any type" or a dreadnought can take "a Drop Pod", this is what was meant by "... this section refers to any transport vehicles that the unit may take." (81). Since the tactical squad entry specifically "refers to any transport vehicle the unit may take" as "any dedicated transport" it seems pretty clear-cut (at least to me). If units other than terminators and dreadnoughts were meant to be limited to a specific part of the dedicated transport section wouldn't it have been clearly specified (like it is for Terminators and Dreadnoughts)? I suppose it's possible that GW screwed up every dedicated transport entry in the codex except for the terminator and dreadnought (of all types) entries. However, this would seem rather unlikely.

If some of you are still not convinced that it is totally acceptable for a tactical or an assault squad to take a land raider as a dedicated transport consider this; there is a pile of evidence to support the "any means any" argument. Some of this is RAI evidence from the GW website, one example was provided above but that is not the only example of RAI on the GW site. http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=900003&pIndex=1&aId=8000040a&start=2. That link goes to the "Getting started with the Blood Angels" article on the GW site. In that article Land Raiders are specifically mentioned as a transport option for tactical squads. What evidence is there for the "any means any on pg. 90" argument? So far the only evidence I have seen for the "any means any on pg. 90" argument is a bracketed reference to a page number. I have also noticed that the fact that GW regularly has typos on their website and in their codices is being used as a reason to ignore the evidence in the above listed articles. If that is true, doesn't the same argument apply to the "see page 90" argument in general? Couldn't that be a typo? Maybe GW just messed up and the entry should really read "see pages 90 and 91" in the codex. They do, after all, have a history of typos on their website and in their codices. The "any means any on page 90" argument just doesn't hold any water.

I think you just BBQ this thread. Hopefully this puts it to rest.

NaZ wrote:wow.. people who argue raw along lines like this really manage to suck all the joy out of the game dont they?

And its even funnier when they are wrong, and the RAW are the exact opposite of what they argue.

People who think like this are the people who suck the life out of the game(I'm not talking about the OP, I am talking about many hardcore RAWheads and the people who brough this issue up at the OPs store). This has to be one of the most obscene cases of reading into something I have seen yet. There is a whole class of people who try to find technicalities not even to profit but just for the sake of trying to change things. More often than not in these situations it is obvious how it should be played. You want to use logic and/or fluff, how about this? I can do both at the same time.

So no troop choice in a Blood Angel army has or will ever ride in a Land Raider? And still some will argue that they cannot.

I believe the whole point was put it here for clarification from others. Not "People who think like this are the people who suck the life out of the game" having a closed mind.

So - minus the virtual backhands and gestures -this is what Dakka is for. Otherwise our local group could be going weeks or months with our own small group's wrong interpretation.

So, for my part, thanks for sharing your logic and references.

IMO this animosity mostly of this comes from Codex Creep. Every new codex seems to be more powerful than the last basically is seems like GW just wants to sell more models than actually have a balanced game. But after the initial "OMG Guess what Blood Angels can do" people start to see the weaknesses of each Codex and start to just accept it. I play Space Marines so when I see the Space Wolves and the Blood Angels codex do spout a bunch WTF's but it not gunna make me change armies.