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 wrote:

egd wrote:The text on p.62 does not make that distinction:

Certainly the text you quoted does not make the distinction, but the quoted text is incomplete. It lacks the third sentence that I quoted to show how the text is to be read.

But with regard to the following text (re: "These", surely the term "these transport vehicles" refers to the "transport option" in the previous clause rather than the "vehicle selected along with the unit" because of number agreement. If it agreed with the latter, it would be "this transport vehicle" indicating the particular vehicle rather than the type of vehicle.

I understand that, and it makes sense either way.

Nurglitch wrote:

egd wrote:Again, I'm just trying to help you see the other side of the argument. I think that either option would be supported by RAW because the language is inconclusive.

I do very much appreciate it. But can you understand why I, given this counter-argument, might reject it?

Yup. You had just stated earlier that you did not understand the counterargument, and I pointed it out to you. I think that both sides have merit, and continual bickering is not going to resolve the issue. The relevant rules have been quoted, everyone pretty much agrees that RAI is Devilfish <> Troops (and that you would be pretty foolish to take Devilfish as troops), so the only disagreement seems to be interpretation of RAW.

Nurglitch wrote:

egd wrote:But look at the Chaos Codex for example. Under the "Chaos Space Marines" entry it allows you to take a Rhino transport. Going by your argument ("if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of another Army List Entry", the Rhino can only be a dedicated transport. Applying the rest of the rule "[t]hese transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit," would suggest that, since Rhinos can be assigned to CSM, then they can only be assigned to CSM, and not to Rubrics, Berzerkers, etc.

My argument, such as it is, can truly be quoted as "if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of another Army List Entry". But taking that to mean "if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of that Army List Entry" would misrepresent my argument. As above, with the "these", my argument means: "if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of other Army List Entries" or "if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as a dedicated transport vehicle".

The problem is that "if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as a dedicated transport vehicle" is not supported by the rules. Either there's a 1:1 relationship between mounted troops & dedicated transports (any extra transports that can be taken aren't dedicated), or there's a 1:1 relationship between troops that can take transports and dedicated transports (each troop entry needs its own dedicated transport entry).

Nurglitch wrote:

egd wrote:Of course, GW writers are not necessarily known as the most precise wordsmiths in the world, so this result doesn't make sense, even tho the p.62 rule can be read as such. RAW is inconclusive, RAI clearly demonstrates that "these" refers to the individual vehicle, not the codex entry.

To be honest the more I actually walk the talk, so to speak, and apply what I teach in my classes to the problem of Warhammer rules I find those rules to be sufficiently precise such that the careful and critical reading I would give to scholarly articles yields clear and consistent results when applied to the Warhammer 40k rulebooks. RAI & RAW, being a flawed methods of reading, would naturally yield inconclusive results. I'm just trying to explain myself and the method I'm using here.

I would have to disagree with you here. I do a lot of reading as well, and the 40k rulebooks are poorly done, from a professional writing perspective. But for rulebooks, they convey the general concepts well enough to play the game.

Nurglitch wrote:

egd wrote:So at best, the question on whether devilfish can be taken as troops is inconclusive, by RAW. RAI doesn't work for the Devilfish, because there's no sure evidence pointing one way or the other on the issue.

I think it is best to ignore RAW and RAI when reading the rules and to read the rules carefully and critically. When read carefully and critically (meaning avoiding things like number disagreement) as I've shown the question of whether Devilfish can be taken as Troops seems to be conclusively answered by "No."

Another point of disagreement, I think that the question is open, but other sources (inappropriate to forming the argument) would suggest "yes," but only if you bring in corollary evidence to support RAI.

egd wrote:I understand that, and it makes sense either way.

Okay, so could you show me how it makes sense both ways, because it seems to be that it only makes sense one way.

egd wrote:Yup. You had just stated earlier that you did not understand the counterargument, and I pointed it out to you. I think that both sides have merit, and continual bickering is not going to resolve the issue. The relevant rules have been quoted, everyone pretty much agrees that RAI is Devilfish <> Troops (and that you would be pretty foolish to take Devilfish as troops), so the only disagreement seems to be interpretation of RAW.

Okay, so if you understand why I might reject the counter-argument, how is it that you think both sides have merit when you understand how at least one side is incorrect? I can see understanding why I might reject the counter-argument and thinking neither side has merit, but I don't get the assignation of merit to both sides when you understand my argument.

Continual bickering certainly won't solve the disagreement, but putting some patience, care, and co-operation into the discussion usually does the trick.

egd wrote:The problem is that "if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as a dedicated transport vehicle" is not supported by the rules. Either there's a 1:1 relationship between mounted troops & dedicated transports (any extra transports that can be taken aren't dedicated), or there's a 1:1 relationship between troops that can take transports and dedicated transports (each troop entry needs its own dedicated transport entry).

But the statement "if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as a dedicated transport vehicle" is supported by the rules, in particular the three relevant sentences on P.62 that keep getting thrown around. I've even shown how it is supported by those sentences.

Also, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there's a "1:1 relationship between mounted troops & dedicated transports", either as "any extra transports that can be taken aren't dedicated" or "each troop entry needs its own dedicated transport entry"

The rules say that if a transport is taken as a transport option for another unit entry then it is a dedicated transport. It doesn't say that if a particular transport vehicle is taken as particular transport option for another particular unit. It's talking about types, not tokens.

egd wrote:I would have to disagree with you here. I do a lot of reading as well, and the 40k rulebooks are poorly done, from a professional writing perspective. But for rulebooks, they convey the general concepts well enough to play the game.

I'm saying they're sufficiently precise, nothing more. Certainly I have a bone to pick with them via style and presentation, but they can be deciphered.

Nurglitch wrote:So far only the Land Raider has a rule stating that it may be taken as either a dedicated transport vehicle or as a own Heavy Support slot.

Actually all information in the rulebooks including layout and diagrams are relevant, although in this specific case the Troops symbol by the Devilfish entry has been shown to be irrelevant and the grey lettering "Transport" has been shown to be relevant.

Ummm, only the LR has a rule allowing it to be both??? Falcon? Immolator? Battlewagon? Looted-wagon? Beuhler? Beuhler?

Who has shown the symbol to be irrelevant and the sideways text relevant? You? I've never heard GW make any such statement.

Precedent is set that some vehicles can be BOTH a dedicated transport in some instances (and for some units) while also being separate FOC choices in their own right. Every other 'dedicated' transport has a paragraph denying their use as anything other than a dedicated transport. The LR, Falcon, Immolator, DF (et al.) all lack this restrictive clause in their rules. Would any of you say that a LR or a Falcon can't be take as BOTH a dedicated transport in some instances AND a separate FOC choice in other instances. No of course you wouldn't. The rules for these vehicles (LR, Falcon, Immolator, Battlewagon, Looted-wagon and DF) are all written the same way. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I don't like this DF issue any more than anyone else, and I think it all stems from sloppy codex writing and a lack of standardization among the writers, but you can't get around the fact that some vehicles (the DF, LR, Immolator, Battlewagon, Looted-wagon and Falcon are all included) can be taken as BOTH a dedicated transport and a FOC choice if the player chooses.

Beast wrote:Ummm, only the LR has a rule allowing it to be both??? Falcon? Immolator? Battlewagon? Looted-wagon? Beuhler? Beuhler?

The Falcon is not a transport option for any unit in Codex: Eldar. The Ork Codex explains how dedicated transports work in Codex: Orks, and Looted Wagons are not a transport option for any unit in Codex: Orks. The Immolator I couldn't say. So you're right in that the Battlewagon also has additional rules allowing it to be chosen as both dedicated tranports or independent Force Organization Chart select. Either way the point is that these extra rules are required and absent in the case of the Devilfish.

Beast wrote:Who has shown the symbol to be irrelevant and the sideways text relevant? You? I've never heard GW make any such statement.

I have, earlier in the thread. Would it help if I repeated myself?

Beast wrote:Precedent is set that some vehicles can be BOTH a dedicated transport in some instances (and for some units) while also being separate FOC choices in their own right. Every other 'dedicated' transport has a paragraph denying their use as anything other than a dedicated transport. The LR, Falcon, Immolator, DF (et al.) all lack this restrictive clause in their rules. Would any of you say that a LR or a Falcon can't be take as BOTH a dedicated transport in some instances AND a separate FOC choice in other instances. No of course you wouldn't. The rules for these vehicles (LR, Falcon, Immolator, Battlewagon, Looted-wagon and DF) are all written the same way. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I don't like this DF issue any more than anyone else, and I think it all stems for sloppy codex writing and a lack of standardization among the writers, but you can't get around the fact that some vehicles (the DF, LR, Immolator, Battlewagon, Looted-wagon and Falcon are all included) can be taken as BOTH a dedicated transport and a FOC choice if the player chooses.

Precendent has not been set. All vehicles that can be taken as either dedicated transport vehicles or independent Force Organization Chart selections have additional rules permitting them to do so. As mentioned the Falcon and the Looted Wagon may not be taken as transport options for any other units, while the Land Raider and Battlewagon each have rules permitting them to be either.

Of course one can have their cake and eat it too, that's the point of cake. The fact is that Devilfish can only be chosen as dedicated transports for other units.

egd wrote:"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

In standard English, if you use a pronoun, it refers specifically to the last preceding noun. In the case of this sentence, the 'These' transport vehicles then applies to the vehicle that is selected along with a unit.

If a vehicle (The vehicle itself, not the entry) isn't selected along with a unit, then it is not dedicated.

If a Devilfish is taken as a troops choice (And not along with a unit), then it is not dedicated. If it is 'selected along with the unit' then it is dedicated.

Nurglitch: To humor me, go line by line through this argument and tell me where you are having a problem. Just trying to present the argument clearly.

Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option

No confusion here, Firewarrior unit Alpha has an option which allows them to select a devilfish. They exercise the option and select "Devilfish #1"

allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit

The single Troops slot is occupied by the unit + vehicle (Alpha + #1, the tau player can take up to Zeta & #6 if he chooses)

These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit

Devilfish #1 is assigned to Firewarrior unit Alpha. Cannot be assigned to Firewarrior unit Beta

are known as dedicated transports.

Devilfish #1 is therefore dedicated transport, which implicates more rules, which are irrelevant to this discussion.

Other transport vehicles

Could be read as either "transport vehicles not selected with the unit" or "non-transport options allow[ed] to be selected along with the unit" (because a devilfish cannot be classified both as "transport vehicle" and "other transport vehicle allowed...")

are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organisation chart slot

Are not part of the unit's options, occupy a force org slot, etc.

and can be used to provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that can embark on it.

Establishes rules not present in the "dedicated transport" section, irrelevant for now.

Nurglitch wrote:

Beast wrote:Ummm, only the LR has a rule allowing it to be both??? Falcon? Immolator? Battlewagon? Looted-wagon? Beuhler? Beuhler?

The Falcon is not a transport option for any unit in Codex: Eldar. The Ork Codex explains how dedicated transports work in Codex: Orks, and Looted Wagons are not a transport option for any unit in Codex: Orks. The Immolator I couldn't say. So you're right in that the Battlewagon also has additional rules allowing it to be chosen as both dedicated tranports or independent Force Organization Chart select. Either way the point is that these extra rules are required and absent in the case of the Devilfish.

Beast wrote:Who has shown the symbol to be irrelevant and the sideways text relevant? You? I've never heard GW make any such statement.

I have, earlier in the thread. Would it help if I repeated myself?


Precendent has not been set. All vehicles that can be taken as either dedicated transport vehicles or independent Force Organization Chart selections have additional rules permitting them to do so. As mentioned the Falcon and the Looted Wagon may not be taken as transport options for any other units, while the Land Raider and Battlewagon each have rules permitting them to be either.

Of course one can have their cake and eat it too, that's the point of cake. The fact is that Devilfish can only be chosen as dedicated transports for other units.

You are correct about the Falcon and Looted wagon-they are indeed different creatures all together. I also agree the Ork codex specifically describes how dedicated (and only-ever-dedicated transports work (namely the Trukk) just as the SM codex says the same thing about Rhinos/RBs and as the IG codex says about Chimeras and the WH codex says about Rhinos/Chimeras, etc... I am not talking about those vehicles and I rather suspect you know that. But the point here is that there are other vehicles that can be chosen in the same manner as DF (LR, Immolator, Battlewagon specifically). All their rules are written the same way and can be BOTH a FOC choice on their own and a dedicated transport for another unit.

As for you showing us all that symbols/text are/are not relevant... I guess we should take your word as from the mouth of GW? I think not... I hope your students aren't subjected to this kind of intellectual highway robbery. I feel for their skulls full of mush if so.

Precedent is indeed set... For the LR/BW/Imm to be both you must reference several rules to come to that conlcusion (ie the Terminator entry for the dedicated transport option and the HS land raider entry for its own FOC choice). Same thing for the Battlewagon (Nobz entry and its own unit entry), Immolator (Dominions/Retributors entry and its own unit entry) and DF (FW/Pathfinder entry and its own unit entry).

You can't get around these facts and you might want to have your cake and eat it too, but the rules will smush it in your face before you get to take the first bite.

skyth: In standard English we also employ number agreement. "These transport vehicles" refers to the entry, not to the tokens of that entry.

egd: I wouldn't call it humouring, since I have not dismissed anything you're said out of hand. I'd call it checking.

1. "Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit."

egd wrote:No confusion here, Firewarrior unit Alpha has an option which allows them to select a devilfish. They exercise the option and select "Devilfish #1" The single Troops slot is occupied by the unit + vehicle (Alpha + #1, the tau player can take up to Zeta & #6 if he chooses)

This is incorrect because the unit entry Firewarrior Team includes the transport option, not any particular Firewarrior Teams.

2. "These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

egd wrote:Devilfish #1 is assigned to Firewarrior unit Alpha. Cannot be assigned to Firewarrior unit Beta

Incorrect as well. #2 means that selections from the Devilfish entry are directly assigned to the particular unit selected from the unit entry mentioned in #1. Although you're right that given those selections any particular Devilfish has a corresponding unit which it is selected for.

egd wrote:Devilfish #1 is therefore dedicated transport, which implicates more rules, which are irrelevant to this discussion.

The sentence in question, #2, indicates a conjunction. It could be paraphrased as two sentences:

These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit. These transport vehicles are known as dedicated transports.

In both sentences "these transport vehicles" refers to the entries, not the particular transports chosen from those entries, as iterated above.

3. "Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organisation chart slot and can be used to provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that can embark on it."

egd wrote:Could be read as either "transport vehicles not selected with the unit" or "non-transport options allow[ed] to be selected along with the unit" (because a devilfish cannot be classified both as "transport vehicle" and "other transport vehicle allowed...")

It can only be read as 'Other transport vehicles from those know as dedicated transports". Remember that transport vehicles are described on the same page as being those vehicles with a passenger capacity, called "transport" in their profiles (thus amphiboly is something to watch for here). The sentence in question thus divide transport vehicles into dedicated transports and those that are selected as Force Organization Chart slots.

egd wrote:Are not part of the unit's options, occupy a force org slot, etc.

The first part is incorrect: It should be read to mean that they are not listed as an option for another unit. And the last bit's irrelevant so I think we can safely ignore it.

Nurglitch wrote:I would have to disagree, although I suspect you have mispoken yourself here. The rules say that some vehicles with transport capacity are dedicated transports and that other vehicles with transport capacity are not.

You would be correct. In my haste to, both, post here AND work (LOL), I was unsuccessful.
My point was that, if it can be taken as a transport option for a specific unit, it's a dedicated transport for that unit, barring rules to the contrary (See: Land Raider).

I'm like you in that, for the life of me, I have not yet been able to see how anyone could read the rules in that manner (transports as troops).

Also...

Nurglitch wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:Show me where, in any part of the Tau codex, it specifically states that a Devilfish may be taken as a troop choice. Do not utilize symbols or words written sideways next to the unit. Please quote the relevant text and page #.

Actually all information in the rulebooks including layout and diagrams are relevant, although in this specific case the Troops symbol by the Devilfish entry has been shown to be irrelevant and the grey lettering "Transport" has been shown to be relevant.

You're right that they are relevant but not for what I was asking for. I was asking for something that specified that the DF can be used in this way.
The existence of a triangle or lack of one word might IMPLY to someone what the meaning is, but it doesn't actually state what it is. That was the important part of that section. WK40K is permission based. No specific permission = you can't do it.


Keep fighting the good fight. I'm still lurking & supporting your (our) side but the inability of certain people to (IMO) think clearly makes my head hurt too much to get into it often.

Eric

Beast wrote:You are correct about the Falcon and Looted wagon-they are indeed different creatures all together. I also agree the Ork codex specifically describes how dedicated (and only-ever-dedicated transports work (namely the Trukk) just as the SM codex says the same thing about Rhinos/RBs and as the IG codex says about Chimeras and the WH codex says about Rhinos/Chimeras, etc... I am not talking about those vehicles and I rather suspect you know that.

Yes, you are talking about vehicles that can be chosen as either dedicated transports or as Force Organization Chart slots. Aside from the Land Raider and the Battlewagon there are apparently none (though perhaps the Immolator though I don't have the Witch Hunter Codex and therefore could not comment).

Beast wrote:But the point here is that there are other vehicles that can be chosen in the same manner as DF (LR, Immolator, Battlewagon specifically). All their rules are written the same way and can be BOTH a FOC choice on their own and a dedicated transport for another unit.

Their rules are not written in the same way. The Land Raider, for example, has a rule specifically describing how it can be chosen as either a dedicated transport or a Heavy Support choice. The Battlewagon is not specified in Codex: Orks but falls under the rules that book provides about dedicated transports. In both cases, and unlike the Devilfish, specific rules exist to allow this flexilibility.

Beast wrote:As for you showing us all that symbols/text are/are not relevant... I guess we should take your word as from the mouth of GW? I think not... I hope your students aren't subjected to this kind of intellectual highway robbery. I feel for their skulls full of mush if so.

I'm not asking you to take my word, I'm asking for you to check my work. Much like I ask my students, except you won't get extra credit for finding errors. I teach them that appeals to authority are fallacies and that arguments stand on their own merits. Call it 'intellectual snobbery' if you like. I suspect it's impossible to judge such things before you actually take a class under me. Call it a hunch.

Beast wrote:Precedent is indeed set... For the LR/BW/Imm to be both you must reference several rules to come to that conlcusion (ie the Terminator entry for the dedicated transport option and the HS land raider entry for its own FOC choice). Same thing for the Battlewagon (Nobz entry and its own unit entry), Immolator (Dominions/Retributors entry and its own unit entry) and DF (FW/Pathfinder entry and its own unit entry).

As mentioned there is a rule in the Transport section of the Space Marine army list that allows a Land Raider to be taken as dedicated transport for Terminators and Combat Terminators as well as a Heavy Support choice. Likewise there is a rule in the Dedicated Transport Vehicles section of the Ork army list that allows vehicles like Battlewagons to be taken as dedicated transports as well as Force Organization Chart choice as well as a dedicated transport for the units listing them as an option. I can only hypothesize the same for the Immolator.

In the case of the Devilfish there is no additional rule beyond the options available in the Firewarrior and Pathfinder unit entries and the Devilfish entry labeled "Transport". Incidentally now that I check I noticed that like the Dedicated Transport Vehicles entry in the Ork army list, the Transport: Devilfish Troop Carrier is listed in the Troops section. An interesting congruency.

Beast wrote:You can't get around these facts and you might want to have your cake and eat it too, but the rules will smush it in your face before you get to take the first bite.

I don't need to get around these facts because they aren't facts, per se. In other words, it is not the case that the case of the Devilfish is sufficiently congruent with that of the Battlewagon or the Land Raider (although, again, I could not say about the Immolator). In fact the cases are significantly different. The Battlewagon and the Land Raider are both Heavy Support choices with additional rules allowing them to be taken as dedicated transports, while the Devilfish is neither an HQ nor Elite nor Troops nor Fast Attack nor Heavy support choice, and is in fact labeled a Transport.

MagickalMemories wrote:I'm like you in that, for the life of me, I have not yet been able to see how anyone could read the rules in that manner (transports as troops).

It might be something here to note that when we say something like "For the life of me I have not yet been able to see how anyone could read the rules to mean Transports are Troops" we mean "For the life of me I have not yet been able to see how anyone could read the rules to mean Transports are Troops unless they are reading the rules wrongly." The first way implicitly states: "Either I'm stupid or you're stupid" whereas the second way explicitly states that "Someone's making a mistake here, and I plan to get to the bottom of it."

MagickalMemories wrote:You're right that they are relevant but not for what I was asking for. I was asking for something that specified that the DF can be used in this way.
The existence of a triangle or lack of one word might IMPLY to someone what the meaning is, but it doesn't actually state what it is. That was the important part of that section. WK40K is permission based. No specific permission = you can't do it.

Depending on what other information is around symbols can be either relevant or irrelevant. In this case, it is the case that we'd need more information before the triangle symbol could be relevant to the status of the Devilfish entry. The information about the Force Organization Chart adds something, but not enough to make the connection explicit. And since what it implicit is subjective, and we're concerned with what the rules say, which is objective, only the explicit is relevant.

MagickalMemories wrote:Keep fighting the good fight. I'm still lurking & supporting your (our) side but the inability of certain people to (IMO) think clearly makes my head hurt too much to get into it often.

It's not a fight. It's about trying to figure out the truth. Personally I enjoy the communication, and it's quite educational. It's much nicer to be able to discuss these things with people than to find out during exam time that they weren't listening (or reading their textbooks, or apparently the course calendar..!).

Nurglitch wrote:I'm not asking you to take my word, I'm asking for you to check my work. Much like I ask my students, except you won't get extra credit for finding errors. I teach them that appeals to authority are fallacies and that arguments stand on their own merits. Call it 'intellectual snobbery' if you like. I suspect it's impossible to judge such things before you actually take a class under me. Call it a hunch.

Okay I will call it that if you insist (although I might edit-out the 'intellectual' part)... Just kidding... And your work (premise) has been checked... and found wanting in that it does not stand on its own merits. (Big smile, big smile- I'm still kidding) Everything else you commented on is a rehash of your same argument that doesn't hold water and that has been proven wrong by RAW. As I said 'numerous times' (is that too vague or do I need to list them all? ) before, I do agree with you that the DF should not be a FOC choice even though it is by RAW. It's a cryin' shame we must disagree about it. I can see your point of view, I just disagree that RAW supports you. Hopefully we will see eye to eye on some other, trivial game rules in the future though...

But this has been fun grunemeister... Stimulating at least...

Until next time then.

Nurglitch wrote:skyth: In standard English we also employ number agreement. "These transport vehicles" refers to the entry, not to the tokens of that entry.

Since nothing in the rules quote was plural before the 'These', you cannot hold this to be true.

If there was nothing, that would be correct. However:

"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

The adverb "sometimes" is plural, meaning more than once a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport options are dedicated transports.

Nurglitch wrote:1. "Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit."

egd wrote:No confusion here, Firewarrior unit Alpha has an option which allows them to select a devilfish. They exercise the option and select "Devilfish #1" The single Troops slot is occupied by the unit + vehicle (Alpha + #1, the tau player can take up to Zeta & #6 if he chooses)

This is incorrect because the unit entry Firewarrior Team includes the transport option, not any particular Firewarrior Teams.

I don't see how you can contradict this. If the unit entry "Firewarrior Team" includes the transport option, then every individual unit selected from that unit entry includes the option.

Rule 1: Any Firewarrior Team can select a transport option
Alpha is a Firewarrior Team
Therefore Alpha can select a transport option

Nurglitch wrote:2. "These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

egd wrote:Devilfish #1 is assigned to Firewarrior unit Alpha. Cannot be assigned to Firewarrior unit Beta

Incorrect as well. #2 means that selections from the Devilfish entry are directly assigned to the particular unit selected from the unit entry mentioned in #1. Although you're right that given those selections any particular Devilfish has a corresponding unit which it is selected for.

As defined above, Alpha can select a transport option. This rule states that any transport option selected by Alpha cannot be a transport option for unit (not Alpha).

Therefore:
Rule 2: Each transport selected under Rule 1 is assigned to the selecting unit, and only that unit.
#1 is assigned to Alpha
#1 cannot be assigned to any unit not-Alpha (and by implication in the transport rules, cannot transport any non-Alpha)

Rule 3: Each transport satisfying Rule 2 is a dedicated transport
Alpha selects Devilfish #1
#1 is a dedicated transport.

If a Devilfish is an option for "Firewarrior Team" troop entry, as opposed to an individual "Firewarrior Team Alpha", then any devilfish must be "directly assigned to that particular unit." But if there is no "particular unit" Alpha, then "particular unit" must apply to "Firewarrior Team." The result is that any devilfish can transport anything that satisfies the criteria "Firewarrior Team."

Nurglitch wrote:

egd wrote:Devilfish #1 is therefore dedicated transport, which implicates more rules, which are irrelevant to this discussion.

The sentence in question, #2, indicates a conjunction. It could be paraphrased as two sentences:

These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit. These transport vehicles are known as dedicated transports.

In both sentences "these transport vehicles" refers to the entries, not the particular transports chosen from those entries, as iterated above.

I'm OK with the first part, I think you're reading too much into the rule, however. All transport options must be dedicated transports, and all transport options must be transport vehicles. But not all transport vehicles must be transport options or, by implication, dedicated transports.

Nurglitch wrote:3. "Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organisation chart slot and can be used to provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that can embark on it."

egd wrote:Could be read as either "transport vehicles not selected with the unit" or "non-transport options allow[ed] to be selected along with the unit" (because a devilfish cannot be classified both as "transport vehicle" and "other transport vehicle allowed...")

It can only be read as 'Other transport vehicles from those know as dedicated transports". Remember that transport vehicles are described on the same page as being those vehicles with a passenger capacity, called "transport" in their profiles (thus amphiboly is something to watch for here). The sentence in question thus divide transport vehicles into dedicated transports and those that are selected as Force Organization Chart slots.

Transports can only be "Dedicated transports" or "Not Dedicated Transports."

If a transport is not a dedicated transport, then:
1) Transport may be chosen separately
2) Transport occupies a force org chart slot
3) Transport can provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that can embark on it

Nurglitch wrote:

egd wrote:Are not part of the unit's options, occupy a force org slot, etc.

The first part is incorrect: It should be read to mean that they are not listed as an option for another unit. And the last bit's irrelevant so I think we can safely ignore it.

The first part is correct. Any non-dedicated transport may not be chosen as a unit option. Even if devilfish can be chosen as troops (assumed arguendo), any devilfish selected as such may not be part of a unit's options. Firewarrior Unit Alpha (Troop Slot A) cannot opt to have a non-dedicated Devilfish transport (Troop Slot B). Or in a shorter form, any non-dedicated transport is not part of any unit (so models can't start in the transport, models can't deploy with the transport, but the transport may carry any qualifying models)

I've stayed out of this since I realised that this had become a circular argument that was only going to end in a flame war. And I note that the same positions have been restated (over and over and over since the intial first few posts) and we're still at an impass.

Here's the summary:
One argument is that something being labed "Transport:" makes it dedicated automatically.
The other says that the rules that belong to the "Transport:" & how the Transport is selected is what makes a transport deidcated.


Some issues that are getting on my nerves:
You can't say that the transport label is valid and the troops icon is not. Either both are valid, or neither is. If it's one is repeated twice, that does not make that label any more valid or invalid than the other one.

If we're to take the "restrictive" rules approach .... look out .... the cheeze is coming (there's alot of things that you can do if you're only restricted by rules saying what you Can not do" -- to use the the casualty example ... there is no rule that prevents me from bringing them back).
If we're to take the "permisive" rules approach .... look out .... a lot of the options you like to have are gone. (i.e. it doesn't say that terminators have Terminator Armour therefore they miss out on the 5+ inv. save ... which isn't listed in their unit entry).

Some thoughts to ponder:
This thread is becoming a real waste of time and bandwidth. Neither side is going to give to the other.

This issue is EXACTLY the same as the Pathfinder Scout rule used to be.
It will not be resolved until GW puts it into a FAQ.

We disagree .... I'm afraid you'll just have to move on.

On a side note:
How about the Chaos Landraider? Is it a dedicated transport?

If we are to follow the opposition's logic. As the CSM LR can be taken as a transport option it must be a dedicated transport. It does not have the same rules as the loyalist land raider (ie. is always a scoring unit & can capture objectives).
Therefore it must be a dedicated transport and can only be selected as one.
Thus it never occupies a FOC, never counts as a scoring unit and can never capture objectives.

Finally:

Nurglitch wrote:
As mentioned there is a rule in the Transport section of the Space Marine army list that allows a Land Raider to be taken as dedicated transport for Terminators and Combat Terminators as well as a Heavy Support choice.

No such rule exists.

Nurglitch wrote:If there was nothing, that would be correct. However:

"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

The adverb "sometimes" is plural, meaning more than once a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport options are dedicated transports.

a) Sometimes is not unnecessarily plural. 'Sometimes I go down to the beach'. Nothing in there is plural.

b) Even if it was plural, it modifies the entire sentence. The 'These transport vehicles' still points back to the vehicle selected along with the unit, bring the previous applicable noun.

As a trained English teacher and grammar nerd, in the English language, adverbs do not take modification for number.

For example the adverbs "sometime" and "sometimes" have distinct meanings that are not necesarily synonymous. One is not a plural of another:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sometimes

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sometime

I can only pray I don't debate half as long as this thread is if I ever encounter a player trying to field a Devilfish as a troop choice. I think that Lascannon fire should be the victor of this circular argument...

Really it goes nowhere and you are looping all over the place with one piece of criticle information that is fairly ambiguous: Is it listed as a Troop selection or not. that, in the end, is the real argument that neither can really win. you might as well argue over what's someones real last name, what they were born or married into.

egd:

If the unit entry "Firewarrior Team" includes a transport option, then every unit selected from that unit entry may have that transport option. If the unit entry "Pathfinder Team" requires a transport, then every unit selected from that unit entry includes the transport option. So:

Rule #1: All Firewarrior Teams can have a transport option
Fire Team Alpha is a Firewarrior Team.
Therefore Fire Team Alpha can be selected with a transport option.

As defined above, Alpha can be selected with a transport option. This rule states that any transport option that can be selected as part of Alpha cannot be a part of any other unit.

Therefore:
Rule #2: Any transport entry with a vehicle that can be selected according to Rule #1 cannot be selected as part of any other unit.
Fire Team Alpha is a Firewarrior Team with a Devilfish.
The Devilfish so selected cannot transport any unit that is not Fire Team Alpha.

Rule #3: Each transport entry satisfying Rule 2 is a dedicated transport.
A Devilfish may be assigned to a Firewarrior Team.
The Devilfish entry is a dedicated transport.

If Devilfish are a transport option for the "Firewarrior Team" troop entry, as opposed to a unit chosen from that entry such "Fire Team Alpha", then any Devilfish selected as part of a "Firewarrior Team" unit is "directly assigned to that particular unit." But if there is no "particular unit" such as Fire Team Alpha, then no Devilfish has been selected from the "Firewarrior Team" troop entry. And since the Devilfish may be selected for units selected from the "Firewarrior Team" troop entry, and must be selected for units selected from the "Pathfinder Team" fast attack entry, its entry is that of a dedicated transport and may not be selected independently of a unit it is a transport option for.

All transport options of units are known as dedicated transports, and all transport options for units are transport vehicles. Not all transport vehicles are the transport options of other units, they are "other" than dedicated transports; they are selected as independent slots in the Force Organization Chart.

Vehicles can either be "Dedicated transports" or "Not Dedicated Transports.", pending rules that allow them to be both (re: Land Raider, Transports, Codex: Space Marine; Dedicated Transport Vehicles, Codex: Orks).

If a vehicle is not a dedicated transport, then:
1) Its army list entry is labeled HQ or Elite or Troops or Fast Attack or Heavy Support.
2) It fills a slot in the Force Organization Chart.
3) If it has a passenger capacity (labeled: "transport") then it can provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that whose models can embark upon it.

A unit selected via the Firewarrior Team unit entry, such as Fire Team Alpha, would occupy a Troop slot on the Force Organization Chart. A vehicle that can be selected via the transport option of the Firewarrior Team unit entry, or must be selected via the transport option of the Pathfinder Team unit entry, is selected as part of those unit entries and does not occupy a slot on the Force Organization Chart. It is a dedicated transport. Only vehicles other than dedicated transports, those that cannot be selected as part of another unit entry because they are not a transport option and have their own unit entry in the army list, may provide transport to units that have not been selected for.

Meep357:

You should stay and help work out a solution. That would be the mature and productive thing to do. It's only a flame war if: (1) you can't criticize constructively, (2) take constructive criticism, (3) you deign to address non-constructive criticism, and (4) stick to what is relevant to deciding the matter. Saying that things are getting on your nerves, for example, is neither constructive nor relevant.

Your summary is incorrect.

One argument is that, according to the rules stated on P.62 of the rulebook, transport vehicles that can be selected as part of another entry in an army list are dedicated transport vehicles and may not be selected independently. Given this vital information this argument argues that because the Devilfish Trooper Carrier entry is labeled "Transport" in two different ways, and is a transport option for two other units (Firewarrior Teams and Pathfinder Teams), it is a dedicated transport and may not be selected independently in a Troops slot in the Force Organization Chart. An ancillary argument shows that the Troops badge beside the entry is irrelevant because other dedicated transports have similar badges because like the Devilfish entry they are located in the section of the army list devoted to Troops entries. Another ancillary argument shows that the Devilfish as no additional rules, like the Land Raider and the Battlewagon do in their respective codicies, that allow it to be taken as either a dedicated transport or as its own slot in the Force Organization Chart. The primary argument makes the case that the Devilfish cannot be selected as a Troops slot in a Tau Empire army, while the ancillary arguments assert that the conclusion of the main argument is clear and correct.

An opposing argument is that the rules stated on P.62 do not disallow a vehicle selected as part of another unit entry from being chosen as an independent slot in the Force Organization Chart of a Tau army, and that because the Devilfish Troop Carrier entry is located in the Troops section of the army list and marked with the badge (or "Triangle Symbol" as it has been called) associated with Troop choices, Devilfish Troop Carriors may be taken as Troop slots in a Tau Empire army. There is an ancillary argument that the labeling of "transport" on the Devilfish Troop Carrier entry is irrelevant, which I believe to be essentially that it doesn't say "Dedicated Transport" and hence does not indicate that the Devilfish is such a thing. There is also an ancillary argument that because the Devilfish is explicitly prohibited from carry Battlesuits that, because only transport vehicles that are not dedicated transports can transport units that they are not selected with, and the Devilfish cannot be selected as a dedicated transport for Battlesuit units.

So, as you can see by the corrected summary of the argument against Devilfish being a Troops choice (argumentation tip #1: people don't argument, avoid attributing them!) that we can indeed say that the transport label is relevant while the troops badge is not relevant. Contextual documents such as other codicies label their dedicated transport vehicles "Transports" (i.e.: Codex: Space Marines, Codex: Eldar), and often place them in the Troops section of their army lists (i.e.: Codex: Orks; Codex: Chaos Space Marines; Codex: Eldar). Reference to these contextual documents suggests that the label "transport" is relevant and that the specific badge appended is not. The argument against the Devilfish being a Troops choice takes the "transport" label as relevant because it is the term used on P.62 of the rulebook, the page of rules covering transports and dedicated transports, and because it is the term used to indicate transport options on P.36 and P.38 of Codex: Tau Empire.

I shall quote the additional rule allowing Land Raiders, a Heavy Support choice in Codex: Space Marines, to be taken as dedicated transports without always being dedicated transports:

"Land Raiders may be selected by some units as dedicated transports (P.35, Codex: Space Marines)."

skyth:

In fact sometimes is necessarily plural. It is not synonymous with terms like "one". Saying "Sometimes I go down to the beach." means that you have gone down to the beach more than once. That is the very stuff of plurality. As plural the compound term "These transport vehicles" indicates the transport option, a compound noun referring to a set or group, rather than to any particular vehicles selected.

For example, suppose that I said: "Sometimes I have a book of matches that allow me to strike a match. These matches are known as Lucky Strikes." In the second sentence I am not referring to each individual match that I strike as a "Lucky Strikes". The group, the book of matches, is what the name "Lucky Strikes" refers to.

Saldiven:

I'm glad you brought this up and cited it, and not resorted to any claim of authority. According to the definitions you've cited:

Sometimes. adverb
on some occasions; at times; now and then

As you can see "sometimes" is indeed not synonymous with "sometime" in the modern sense. Yet they do differ with respect to number where their definitions are compared. If something happens at times, it happens more than once. If something happens at some point in time, some future time, that happening is singular.

Sometime. adverb
1. at some indefinite or indeterminate point of time: He will arrive sometime next week.
2. at an indefinite future time: Come to see me sometime.
3. Archaic. sometimes; on some occasions.
4. Archaic. at one time; formerly.

Ihavenoavatar wrote:I can only pray I don't debate half as long as this thread is if I ever encounter a player trying to field a Devilfish as a troop choice. I think that Lascannon fire should be the victor of this circular argument...

Why you would debate it at all I don't know. That's the difference between forums and playing games. In forums we have all the time in the world to figure these things out, whereas during games we don't. Incidentally a circular argument would be someone including the conclusion of their argument in the premise and thus "begging the question." What you're seeing in this thread is certain people refusing to engage in constructive argument.

Ihavenoavatar wrote:Really it goes nowhere and you are looping all over the place with one piece of criticle information that is fairly ambiguous: Is it listed as a Troop selection or not. that, in the end, is the real argument that neither can really win. you might as well argue over what's someones real last name, what they were born or married into.

Surprisingly this dicussion is going somewhere. The addition of people like egd to the argument means that real engagement is now happening. The critical piece of information you speak of is irrelevant, and one of the ancillary arguments above makes the case why it is so. In short it goes: Many codicies list their dedicated transports in the Troops section of the army list (i.e.: Codex: Orks; Codex: Chaos Space Marines, Codex: Eldar). Being listed in the Troops section of the army list has no effect on the entry being a dedicated transport for other entries. Hence it is irrelevant.

Now it's interesting that you think an argument can be won by being accepted. This is, to put it nicely, stupid. Arguments are 'won' when everyone involved comes together to develop a solution and check the proof of it. One can, so to speak, win an argument when the argument one puts forth has been shown to be unsound because in doing so one contributes to the discussion.

To twist a phrase arguing, on the Internet or otherwise, is like participating in the Special Olympics, though not in the nasty snobbish way the traditional phrase insinuates. The athlete's oath of the Special Olympics is "Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt."

Being brave in the attempt and thus contributing is far more 'win' than simply being right.

Incidentally someone's real last name is the one they are legally documented as having.

Nurglitch, how much spare time do you have?!

Not much. I just write fast.

Nurglitch wrote:
If the unit entry "Firewarrior Team" includes a transport option, then every unit selected from that unit entry may have that transport option. If the unit entry "Pathfinder Team" requires a transport, then every unit selected from that unit entry includes the transport option. So:

Rule #1: All Firewarrior Teams can have a transport option
Fire Team Alpha is a Firewarrior Team.
Therefore Fire Team Alpha can be selected with a transport option.

If you make a rule that "All Firewarrior Teams can have a transport option" you are stating that all Firewarrior teams must have a transport if any have a transport. The choice is "have a transport option." If you opt for this, then you must fulfill the condition for "All Firewarrior Teams."

The phrase "Any Firewarrior team" means that you can satisfy the condition for any individual "Firewarrior Team." This gives the option uniquely to each subset of "Firewarrior Team" instead of giving the option to the class "Firewarrior Teams."

Nurglitch wrote:As defined above, Alpha can be selected with a transport option. This rule states that any transport option that can be selected as part of Alpha cannot be a part of any other unit.

Therefore:
Rule #2: Any transport entry with a vehicle that can be selected according to Rule #1 cannot be selected as part of any other unit.
Fire Team Alpha is a Firewarrior Team with a Devilfish.
The Devilfish so selected cannot transport any unit that is not Fire Team Alpha.

You're substituting "transport entry" (the Devilfish entry) for "transport option" (an individual Devilfish) without creating a rule to explain this.

Also, "These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit" is, I believe, the operative rule in this case. The words defining "these" and "that" must agree, "these" cannot be a class if "that" is a subset of a class.

Using the format: "These (transport vehicles) are directly assigned to That (particular unit), there are two results:

"These" (Transport: Devilfish) can be assigned to "That" (Firewarrior Team)
-or-
"These" (Devilfish #1) can be assigned to "That" (Firewarrior unit alpha)

If you choose the first option, I don't see what rule restricts the use of Devilfish #1 to Firewarrior Unit Alpha.

(as an aside, I think this is getting a bit esoteric of an argument for any type of play, casual or friendly)

egd:

Saying "All Firewarrior Teams can have a transport option" means that all Firewarrior Teams have the option of a transport. Since that's an option, rather than a necessity, some may take the transport option and some may not.

I'm substituting "transport entry" for "transport option" because a rule exists that makes them identical constructions; The transport option for Firewarriors is the Devilfish Troop Carrier and the transport entry in question is the Devilfish Troop Carrier. Therefore these things are the same since they are the same as a third, the Devilfish Troop Carrier.

"These transport vehicles" certainly refers to the class of transport vehicles and "that particular unit" certainly refers to the unit entry with the transport option. As you say, these terms must agree if they are to express that rule.

So given the first option is true, and we know that tokens of these entries are what are selected, then we know that tokens of the Devilfish entry are directly assigned to tokens of that particular unit (here either Firewarrior Teams or Pathfinder Teams), because they can be since they are transport options for them, and they are chosen as such.

That restricts any Devilfish vehicle to the Firewarrior Team unit it is selected for as an option.

Frankly that's not clear, so let me try it again, rearranging the text slightly and truth-functionally:

"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit."

So the first part gives us the class terms, and the second part the object terms. We could rewrite this something like:

[Unit Entry[Transport Vehicle]], Unit e Unit Entry, Vehicle e Transport Vehicle → [Unit[Vehicle]]

"These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

[Unit Entry[Transport Vehicle]] → Transport Vehicle = Dedicated Transport, Vehicle e Dedicated Transport

"Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organization chart slot (for exampe, Eldar Falcons),"

~[Unit Entry[Transport Vehicle]], Transport Vehicle e Unit Entry → Transport Vehicle = Unit Entry

(Reply to aside: Which is why we're not doing it during play.)

Nurg:

Careful about the "sometime" interpretation you use.

Using "sometime" to refer to an indefinite act that may or may not happen in the future in no way implies that the act will only happen a single time.

In the English language, modifiers are not themselves modified by the words that are their (the modifier's) objects.

For Example, in Spanish, you have a "casa roja" (red house) and a "perro rojo" (red dog). This is the case throughout Romance languages. Notice that in English, the adjective is not modified by the noun.

Further Example, in Spanish, you have "gatos negros" (black cats) and "gato negro" (black cat). Note that, again, the number of the noun affects the adjective in Spanish, but not in English.

Now those examples are all of adjectival situations, but adverbs act similarly. That being said, there can be argued that some definitions of "sometimes" have the connotation of plurality while others do not, just as there is no definite denotation that "sometime" indicates a singular situation.

Ok, no more grammar today. For those who are interested in improving their grammar and writing style, I strongly recommend Strunk & White's "Elements of Style." It's one of the best style manuals I've ever run across, and I have to admit that I own about 5 style manuals, 2 high school grammar books, and my college grammar book.

That really does make me a grammar geek, doesn't it?

Nurglitch wrote:
Rule #3: Each transport entry satisfying Rule 2 is a dedicated transport.
A Devilfish may be assigned to a Firewarrior Team.
The Devilfish entry is a dedicated transport.

And here is where you are making up rules.

Saldiven: I am being careful. The "sometimes" in the "Who Can Use a Transport Vehicle" denotes a plurality because many entries in Codex books (Book books?) include transport options. There are two in Codex: Tau Empire alone.

skyth: No, I am not making up rules. I'm paraphrasing:

"[3]These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports." (Rulebook. P.62)

Where the Rule #2 being referred to is embedded in the prior sentence.

"[1] Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, [2]allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit." (Rulebook. P.62)

And funny how the entry for the transport is NEVER mentioned in the rule. It mentions the unit entry of the unit taking the transport and the individual transports that are taken with the unit.

Nurglitch wrote:Meep357:

You should stay and help work out a solution. That would be the mature and productive thing to do. It's only a flame war if: (1) you can't criticize constructively, (2) take constructive criticism, (3) you deign to address non-constructive criticism, and (4) stick to what is relevant to deciding the matter. Saying that things are getting on your nerves, for example, is neither constructive nor relevant.

Nurglitch the reason I've limited my contributions is that I find your condescending attitude and the insults you frequently level at anyone who disagrees with you to be very offensive. I don't care about your academic qualifications or how smart you are. You repeatedly insuniate that anyone who disagrees with you of doesn't see your point of view is either unitelligent or a flat out cheat. Now most forum goers are not as eloquent as you ... nor do we choose to use large words that most people are going to have to look up inorder to fully understand us. That does not mean that we am any more or less intelligent than you are.

I have no problem construictivly critisising or taking constructive critisism (it's part of what I do for a living). As for what is and isn't relevant ... the only time I have diverged is in trying to point out how my point of view is counter to yours & for the purpose of addressing your arguments.

Now nurglitch ... if you want to get me (& other people) more involved in something more serious than the roundabout that we're all stuck on .... I would suggest that you start avoiding the academic jargon and start using plain english; be straight to the point & stop throwing veiled insults around.

Now I'm sure you're going to report this as a flame .... well if that's the way you're going to take it ... then you've missed the point.

The summary I provided is esentailly correct .... you've just used more words to say the same thing I did.

Now for pointing out things that get on my nevrves - that was an attempt to point out inconsistencies in the arguments being put forth that haven not been addressed satisfactorially and were being ignored.

We've tried to put up conter arguments & provide construcive critisism for your point of view and it is you who deign to address the critisism or even consider the counter points.

Nurglitch wrote:I shall quote the additional rule allowing Land Raiders, a Heavy Support choice in Codex: Space Marines, to be taken as dedicated transports without always being dedicated transports:

"Land Raiders may be selected by some units as dedicated transports (P.35, Codex: Space Marines)."

That be the same rule as on page 62 of the BGB. The same rule that the devilfish has.

And once again the label "Transport:" does not equal "Dedicated Transport:"

The term used on page 62 is "transport" meaning "any vehicle with transport capacity"
The term dedicated transport (again on page 62) means "any vehicle directly assigned to a unit by selecting it as an option for another unit"

The terms do not provided the restriction on how one unit can be used or not. It is the way that that unit is selected that provides the restrictions & the rules that each individual unit possess are what restrict how it can be selected.

The transport label merley identifys the unti's primary role as a transport (as opposed to a main battle tank). This is similar to the way jump infantry identifies the unit's primary role (however you have to go a bit further to find out how it actually moves). The role of a transport does not limit its selection and the only rules that limit the selection of transports are 1)pg 62 which states that IF selected as part of another unit it BECOMES a dedicated unit; and 2) the rules specific to the unit.

The label of transport is the same a the label of infantry. It does not limit how the transport/infantry is selected, merely how it is used.