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.

Doesn't the new imperial agents book let you deploy in allied detachments transports Somehow against the FAQ that disallowed that? Because if not the imperial navy section seems a little silly. It would be a transport that can't transport anything?

The Imperial Agents book does nothing to overide the allied transports FAQ as far as i know.,

 CrownAxe wrote:
The Imperial Agents book does nothing to overide the allied transports FAQ as far as i know.,

Thank you, I couldn't find anything either.

Also can't seem to find a reason why this book exists then or what they're trying to accomplish with it.

Something something Games Workshop doesn't care about the integrity of their rules something something.

Well, per the BRB, a unit with a dedicated transport can start the game embarked on their dedicated transport. The new IA codex is the first time we see a unit being able to twke a dedicated transport that is not the same faction as the unit in the case of Acolytes being able to take Aeronautica Valkyries, Sororitas Rhinos, and Grey Knight Land Raiders. The implied permission to be be able to start embarked does contradict the FAQ "clarification", yet does not contradict RAW. As codex overrides contradictory rules, it can be reasonably ruled that yes indeed, Acolytes can start embarked on their DT Valkyrie.

One more example of GW not understanding their own rules.

SJ

I don't think this was a mistake (though it very well could be, as we all know they've done this before) but I think its intentional.

Most likely; I think this is future proofed. This is either to help establish rule changes which will be fleshed out in 8th or they will have a new errata/faq for the current errata/faq.

This is just me, but if my oppoent showed me this rule or asks, if they can use the transport I will say yes, as that is what is intended. Even if not technically FAQ friendly.