Complete RAW, Can a Tac squad take a Drop Pod and Razorback?

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.

**Nurglitch**

Yes, your constant assertion that the term "Dedicated Transport" can be plural is both false and misleading.

**insaniak**

dictionary.com wrote:
n. (trāns'pôrt', -pōrt')

...

5.a. The system of transporting passengers or goods in a particular country or area.
b. The vehicles, such as buses and trains, used in such a system.

Note: vehicles, plural.

**Nurglitch**

You fail again.

You fail because dedicated transports are defined on page 67 of the rulebook. "Dedicated transport" is a defined term for the Warhammer 40,000 rules.

A dedicated transport is defined as a vehicle. Let me repeat that: A dedicated transport is a vehicle. Notice that the heading of the passages defining dedicated transports is plural, hence it applies to the type 'dedicated transport' and not to the token dedicated transports you can find listed under "Dedicated Transport" in the Tactical Squad entry of Codex: Space Marines.

Dedicated Transports wrote:Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected together with the unit. These 'dedicated transports' do not use up a slot on the force organization chart. Other vehicles may also have a transport capacity, but they are chosen separately as normal and occupy a force organisation chart slot of their own (for example, the might Space Marine Land Raider).

The only limitation of a dedicated transport is that when it is deployed it can carry the unit it was selected with (plus any independent characters). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly infantry unit, subject to transport capacity and other special exclusioons, as explained in the vehicle's entry (it might not be able to transport Terminators, for example).

**General Hobbs**

Rated G wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
If you want something closer to home, to avoid the specious argument that the Tactical Squad entry somehow over-rides the general rules for Dedicated Transports in the Space Marine Codex, we could take the heading "Dedicated Transport" in the unit entry to unambiguously mean that Tactical squads are limited to selecting one dedicated transport rather than two dedicated transports.

The problem with that is though, that the Codex trumps the rulebook. If the Codex in fact gives the option for two transports, then what the rulebook says is a moot point.

Edit: Sorry for the multiple posts.

Can you give me the exact quote and page number the codex trumps rulebook "rule" comes from?

**insaniak**

Nurglitch wrote:You fail because dedicated transports are defined on page 67 of the rulebook. "Dedicated transport" is a defined term for the Warhammer 40,000 rules.

Either you've completely missed my point, or you're just latching onto another excuse to explain yourself again.

Either way, it's all a moot point so far as I'm concerned. I won't be taking two transports, and I doubt too many other players will either. You can argue about the semantics of it all you like if it makes you feel better, though.

**Breton**

Page 135 "Certain Space Marine Units...." have the option of selecting a dedicated transport vehicle.

Not exatly on point, not exactly off point either. Much like the bible you can probably find any given entry stand-alone to argue whatever point you want.

**Flavius Infernus**

Nurglitch wrote:Favius Infernus:

You say that you "read the rules a saying a tac [sic] squad can take both transports" and go on to say, parenthetically, that "I believe both the logic and the grammar of this reading are good".

Could you please show us how "the logic and the grammar of this reading are good"?

Insaniak did it already. He wrote exactly what I would have written if I'd made it back around to this thread earlier.

Once again, one of the longer threads on YMDC results from a reading that assumes the presence of an "only" condition in a rule where no "only" condition is present. Referring to a particular instance of something in the singular doesn't automatically exclude other instances unless the exclusion is explicit.

**Breton**

Blunt Force Trauma wrote:Why shouldn't they be allowed to take two transports? Half deploy in pods the other in the razorback. It makes sense really.

That won't work. They can't combat Squad until they're on the table via either deployment, or via Drop Pod Deep Strike. Thus, you can combat Squad during Deployment, and not ride the Drop Pod. Or you can Ride the Drop Pod, and Combat Squad when you land- but not have half your unit in the Razor Back.

HOWEVER, the upside is- in a take all comer's list, a mutli-game tournament, escalation, or so on where you use the same list for multiple games- you could choose to Drop Pod one game, and Ride in Rhino Style the next, allowing your drop pod to land somewhere providing terrain, and a mobile Deathwind/stormbolter/eventually usable Locator Beacon etc.

**InquisitorFabius**

Actually, You could Drop Pod the Full squad, combat squad it, then have half embark into the Rhino/Razor that they bought.

**BBeale**

How about a little perspective? When, in the entire history of 40k, have lists ever allowed for the purchase of multiple transport options for a single unit? Never.

As a lawyer, I argue semantics for a living. Sometimes it's permissible to look across the table at the other guy and just say, "That's dumb." This is one of those instances.

As has already been said, this isn't RAW, this is rules as interpreted, and, based on the history of the game, the obvious intent of the developers, common sense, and an unstrained reading of the rules, multiple dedicated transports for the unit is not an option.

But if that's not enough, there are cannons of statutory construction that can be applied to the reading of rules that also support this position such as In Pari Materia and the deferential cannon of Avoidance of Absurdity. In either case, application of the cannon refutes the argument that multiple transports can be taken.

Brice

**Flavius Infernus**

BBeale wrote:How about a little perspective? When, in the entire history of 40k, have lists ever allowed for the purchase of multiple transport options for a single unit? Never.

As a lawyer, I argue semantics for a living. Sometimes it's permissible to look across the table at the other guy and just say, "That's dumb." This is one of those instances.

As has already been said, this isn't RAW, this is rules as interpreted, and, based on the history of the game, the obvious intent of the developers, common sense, and an unstrained reading of the rules, multiple dedicated transports for the unit is not an option.

But if that's not enough, there are cannons of statutory construction that can be applied to the reading of rules that also support this position such as In Pari Materia and the deferential cannon of Avoidance of Absurdity. In either case, application of the cannon refutes the argument that multiple transports can be taken.

Brice

These statements might be true if the rules of 40K were laws. Because I'm a rhetorician rather than a lawyer, I couldn't say.

But again, Brice, you're arguing application rather than abstract interpretation. Claiming In Pari Materia or Avoidance of Absurdity are fine when you're standing at the game table. But in this thread on the Internet, we're trying to figure out what the rules literally say. So it doesn't matter if a rule is inconsistent with other rules (as long as it's not contradictory) or in some senses absurd. It says what it says, if it can be determined to say anything consistent at all.

RAW as defined for the purposes of this discussion necessarily does not consider the history of the game, perceptions of intent of the developers, common sense, or whether or not a reading is strained. All of those considerations are matters of opinion and assumption. We're just looking at verifiable deductively sound literal readings and leaving questions of application up to individual conscience.

**Breton**

InquisitorFabius wrote:Actually, You could Drop Pod the Full squad, combat squad it, then have half embark into the Rhino/Razor that they bought.

Yes, but that's not Half in the Pod, Half in the Razorback as the post I was replying to suggested.

**BBeale**

Flavius,

Arguing semantics just for the purpose of arguing semantics is purposeless outside of a teaching environment. In a sense you're saying that we argue the letter of the rules on this forum not for application on the tabletop, but just to argue the letter of the rules. That is the very definition of a fruitless exercise. Figuring out the literal meaning of anything is pointless in and of itself unless it is tempered with perspective and directed toward a result.

I read the YMDC section to better understand how the rules can be used in game play, but that's just me. . .

Brice

**Lormax**

Personally, I'd allow the player to run both vehicles per tac squad. At the same time, I'll also use any beardy rules interpretation I can with my army...Blood Angel apothecaries using their exsanguinator on vehicles..Psychic Hoods that can be used on powers that aren't rolled for...cyclone missle launchers with the updated stat line, etc.

Two can always play at this game...

**Saldiven**

Nurglitch wrote:Yes, in fact the term "Dedicated Transport" is in fact the singular and thus 'automatically' refers to a single vehicle.

In the Dedicated Transports section, on p.135, the plural is used to refer to the motor pool.

Equating the reading of "Dedicated Transport", to mean a single vehicle, with the reading of "Municipal Public Transport System", to mean a single vehicle, is to make an argument by bizarre equivalence.

As you pointed out earlier, what we have is:

1. "Certain Space Marine units have the option of selecting a dedicated transport vehicle." (Section: Transport Vehicles, p.135)

Just to be obnoxious, I'd like to point out that this statement does not say "all Space Marine units have the option of selecting A dedicated transport vehicle." It specifies "certain" space marine units. How are we to determine which Space Marine units are allowed only a single transport option, and which are allowed multiple options, if any? I would argue that this rule states that it is up to the individual unit entries to determine if a unit may take one, none, or several transports.

Just playing Devil's advocate....

2. "May select a Rhino or a Razorback." (Section: Troops, Unit Entry: Tactical Squad, Unit Entry Section: Transport Vehicle, p.134)

3. "If the squad numbers ten models, may take a Drop Pod (see page 135 for points costs)." (Section: Troops, Unit Entry: Tactical Squad, Unit Entry Section: Transport Vehicle, p.134)

Thanks to the section entitled Dedicated Transports on p.135, we know that certain Space Marine units can take a dedicated transport.

Which Space Marine units are those "certain Space Marine units"?

Those Space Marine units with the "Transport Vehicle" heading in their unit entry.

How many dedicated transports can those Space Marine units take?

Those Space Marine units can take a single dedicated transport vehicle, as indicated by the sentence on p.135 and the corresponding heading on p.134.

**Flavius Infernus**

BBeale wrote:Flavius,

Arguing semantics just for the purpose of arguing semantics is purposeless outside of a teaching environment. In a sense you're saying that we argue the letter of the rules on this forum not for application on the tabletop, but just to argue the letter of the rules.

Not merely "in a sense" but in every possible sense.

BBeale wrote: That is the very definition of a fruitless exercise. Figuring out the literal meaning of anything is pointless in and of itself unless it is tempered with perspective and directed toward a result.

What evidence do you have for this conclusion, counselor?

Seriously, though, this is just a bald assertion. Why is figuring out the literal meaning of something necessarily pointless? The result is that we know the literal meaning, so why is that a less worthy result than any other?

BBeale wrote:
I read the YMDC section to better understand how the rules can be used in game play, but that's just me. . .

Brice

Or maybe the unspoken rationale isn't clear. As a long-time veteran of many, many rules-discussion forums I can say that this one is the best I've participated in. Many rules discussion boards quickly deteriorate into shouting matches, ad hominem and ad baculum playgrounds and admin nightmares because they get tangled up in questions of application. How we play the game is always going to be a matter of opinion and the relative merit of opinions is not the kind of thing where people can always find common ground.

But everybody using the rules of grammar and (deductive) logic with the same starting conditions is going to come around to the same conclusions. So there's no need for agreement in abstract readings. Then questions of application can be treated as opinions that are in contrast or alignment with the literal readings--like what polls do--with the understanding that opinions are just opinions. It actually heads off pointless conflicts.

Ultimately, because YMDC consciously separates out application of rules from abstract reading of rules, it actually lets us discover and accumulate more information about where the rules work, where they are broken, and where they are just ambiguous. Then--and this has actually happened--word sometimes gets back to the people who write the rules and the problems get fixed.

Isn't that a worthwhile result?

**BBeale**

I agree whole-heartedly that it is important to discuss ambiguity in the rules. The problem is when you seek out ambiguity, or even worse, create it out of whole cloth like was done here. Even if you discount every rational basis of extra-literal interpretation (which I believe shouldn't be done), the title of "Dedicated Transport", which is clearly singular is controlling on the option contained below it. Add to this that almost every single poster, with a few notable exceptions, agree that this is not an intended, or reasonable, interpretation of the rule, and it just makes this discussion seem moot at the very least and exploitive if you want to insert intent into the picture.

Brice

**Flavius Infernus**

Cool, it's not often that I get to debate with somebody who will know the terminology without needing an explanation.

BBeale wrote:Even if you discount every rational basis of extra-literal interpretation (which I believe shouldn't be done),

Strawman: I'm not discounting extra-literal interpretations. I'm segregating them from literal interpretations.

BBeale wrote: the title of "Dedicated Transport", which is clearly singular is controlling on the option contained below it.

I can't address this one personally because I don't have a copy of the codex yet. But it has already been noted, if this applies in this case, that singular noun forms are not automatically exclusive of multiple instances of their referents.

BBeale wrote:Add to this this that almost every single poster, with a few notable exceptions, agree that this is not an intended, or reasonable, interpretation of the rule, and it just makes this discussion seem moot at the very least and exploitive if you want to insert intent into the picture.

ad populum

**MagickalMemories**

Forgive me if this has been stated already.
I stopped readin on page 1 because I knew wherer to find the answer and didn't see how this thread could have made 3 pages unless (a) it's now off topic or (b) nobody quoted the rules.

So:

Space Marines codex, page 21.
Left column, second paragraph under "Drop Pod Assault"

Any Command Squad, Veteran squad, Terminator squad, Dreadnought, Scout squad, Ttactical squad, or Devastator squad may be equipped with a drop pod (see the transport vehicles entry for details). If so they may not slect any other transport option."

Eric

**insaniak**

MagickalMemories wrote:Space Marines codex, page 21.

Which codex?

Because the discussion was about the new one

**mikhaila**

insaniak wrote:
MagickalMemories wrote:Space Marines codex, page 21.

Which codex?

Because the discussion was about the new one

Well, just to be a complete mule, I'll point out that it isn't

In the Space Marine Codex, under the listing for Tac squads, it says:
Dedicated Transport:

While there is pretty good chance that a NEW SM codex is coming out Oct. 4th, if you only refer to the Space Marine Codex , as the original poster did, you're talking about the one that came out a few years ago and is in current use today.

The original poster didn't specify new, and any references to the new codex in the thread are just a few people going way off topic.

......
Seriously, if someone tried to pull this at my shops, especially in a tournament, it just wouldn't be allowed. I can see it leading to tactics like taking 6 empty drop pods to put on the table as blocking off areas, and other silly things. Tactics that are questionable in the first place, and suck the fun out of the game, are best ignored.

**Breton**

6 Empty Drop pods isn't abusive assuming:

A) They'd have to be modeled open to allow LoS-
B) You'd have to be dropping somewhere around 1K points on the units and drop pods.
C) Without squads over there to support them, they'll go BOOM pretty quickly and easily.

The real effect is

A) Having half of them come in on turn 1 with locator beacons for Turn 2 and beyond Deep Striking (termies perhaps?)
B) Having 3 Deathwinds drop in your enemie's rear on turn 1 disrupting their first turn.

**Jackmojo**

Breton wrote:
Blunt Force Trauma wrote:Why shouldn't they be allowed to take two transports? Half deploy in pods the other in the razorback. It makes sense really.

That won't work. They can't combat Squad until they're on the table via either deployment, or via Drop Pod Deep Strike. Thus, you can combat Squad during Deployment, and not ride the Drop Pod. Or you can Ride the Drop Pod, and Combat Squad when you land- but not have half your unit in the Razor Back.

HOWEVER, the upside is- in a take all comer's list, a mutli-game tournament, escalation, or so on where you use the same list for multiple games- you could choose to Drop Pod one game, and Ride in Rhino Style the next, allowing your drop pod to land somewhere providing terrain, and a mobile Deathwind/stormbolter/eventually usable Locator Beacon etc.

Where is that in the codex, I've heard it said now a couple of times, but I'm not finding anywhere that stops them from entering seperately. The only section addressing it that I'm seeing seems to permit dividing them at either setup or after deep strikeing via dropod:

5th edition Codex: Space Marines, pg 51 wrote:The decision to split the unit into combat squads, as well as which models go into each combat squad, must be made when the unit is deployed. Both combat squads can be deployed in seperate locations. The one exception to this is a unit that arrives by Drop Pod. The player may choose to split such a unit into combat squads when it disembarks from the Drop Pod.

If you decide to split a unit into combat squads, then each combat squad us treated as a seperate unit for all game purposes from that point.

So clearly one combat squad from a unit can be in reserve and the other placed on the table (as that is normal for two units), and I do not see anything preventing the reserve half from using a drop pod (nor indeed preventing the pod from coming down empty should someone be so inclined).

Jack

**insaniak**

Jackmojo wrote:So clearly one combat squad from a unit can be in reserve and the other placed on the table

That's not what it says, though.

What you just quoted gives you exactly two options for when to split them:
1. When they are deployed
or
2. When they disembark from a Drop Pod

There is no way with those options that you can deploy one squad and keep the other in Reserve.

For that, you would need another option allowing you to split them before deployment.

**Jackmojo**

insaniak wrote:
Jackmojo wrote:So clearly one combat squad from a unit can be in reserve and the other placed on the table

That's not what it says, though.

What you just quoted gives you exactly two options for when to split them:
1. When they are deployed
or
2. When they disembark from a Drop Pod

There is no way with those options that you can deploy one squad and keep the other in Reserve.

For that, you would need another option allowing you to split them before deployment.

I deploy the unit; this 5 man section is on the table, I declare the remaining 5 man section to be in reserve and shall arrive via deepstriking Drop Pod...how is that any different then any other placement of two units?

Placing units in reserve is made "during deployment" as well, so I'm not sure how its any different...is there some specific reference to combat squads not being split into reserve and non-reserve portions?

Edit: I guess I view reserves as being part of the "Both combat squads can be deployed in seperate locations" as off the table is simply another location.
Jack

**Nurglitch**

Jackmojo:

If you view reserves as being included in the statement "Both combat squads can be deployed in separate locations" by reason of off the table being a separate location, then you would be wrong.

See p.94, Reserves: Preparing Reserves. It says:

"When deploying their army, players may choose not to deploy one or more of the units in their army and instead leave them in reserve."

According to this statement reserve is not deployment, and the decision to use combat squads happens either during deployment, or when the squad disembarks from its Drop Pod.

Since, in order to be in a location, a squad must be deployed, and a squad is not deployed if it is left in reserves, then it is not in a location if it is left in reserves.

So while you have your views, the rules disagree.

**Stelek**

Actually reserves IS deployment.

Read the rest of the rules.

That disagree with you.

**olympia**

Stelek wrote:
KeithGatchalian wrote: Page 67
"Sometimes a unit entry in a codex will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected with the unit." italics mine.

This makes it clear that you can only buy 1 vehicle per unit.

In your opinion.

Codex trumps rulebook is the rule in GW games.

So guess which rule actually applies?

Correct, razorback or rhino + drop pod.

'permissive ruleset' shoots you down. It doesn't in the codex that you CAN. Therefore the BGB stands.

**Nurglitch**

Could you please quote where the rules say that "reserves is deployment"? Because so far as I can tell the rules are wholly consistent on the fact that reserves are not deployment, as per the quote I have provided.

**olympia**

On a side note, just allow me to big shout out to Khorne or whoever for the new SM codex. Now it's not just us Ork players that are in this forum arguing for crazy sh*t.