can a unit with a dedicated transport ?

[Stormcaller3801]

...What?

[nighthawks]

he said that the limitation is not specific to transporting models, but that it could be that the unit embarked at deployment MUST be the one that the transport is dedicated to. there are clear rules allowing the dedicated transports to be passed around between squads like the village bicycle after the start of the game. the limitation here is that only the owning squad may ride to the battle in it... or so it can be argued, so it's not a good statement to base an assumption of intent about regular transports and deployment rules upon.

 

so that limitation does not a general transport rule make, nor doe sit add any HARD evidence that units are allowed to deploy inside of a regular transport. The only rules we have are that units may deploy in their dedicated trans, or be placed in reserve in same, and that any legal squad/character combo may arrive from reserves in a non-dedicated trans so long as they fit inside and were assigned that grouping when placed into reserves, and can be rolled for together. nothing that grants us permission to deploy a squad in a regular transport.

 

yes there are a lot of suggestions that this is legal, but inference of intent and a printed rule are different. yes, you should be unhappy about this, it sucks. so house rule it. but we need to clarify the rule in preparation for tourneys with lawyers.

[Stormcaller3801]

Okay, I'm not sure if I understood that either.

 

Look, there's three possibilities here, given that statement:

 

1. At deployment, dedicated transports can only carry their own unit, but units can freely ride in any other transport.

 

2 Only dedicated transports can carry units, and the unit they carry must be their own.

 

3. Only dedicated transports can carry units, which could be any unit, except that it's limited to their own unit.

 

The third one we can eliminate immediately, because it makes no sense.

 

Because the rule in the book uses the word limitation, option 2 doesn't work. You wouldn't say this is a limitation and you wouldn't say, "They're limited to only carrying their own unit." You would say, "Dedicated transports have the advantage of carrying their own unit at deployment." Why? Because you're adding an ability that other transports don't have.

 

The only way it can work with the word limitation is with option 1, because that's the only situation where this is a limitation on the dedicated transport. You have to be coming from that angle, that you're reducing the amount of options on them, to have it make any sense.

 

Think about it: if you're limiting something, you're cutting away options, leaving what's left. If you're adding something where there was nothing, you're improving it, giving it an advantage. If nothing could be transported at all, except dedicated transports and their unit, would you say, "Dedicated transports are limited to only carrying their own unit- but later they can carry anyone," or would you say, "Dedicated transports have the ability to carry their own unit at deployment, and later can transport anyone?"

 

Reduce it to one unit, you're limiting it. Increase it to one unit, you're bestowing an advantage. It just doesn't work otherwise.

[Trekari]

Let me try this again:

 

A DEDICATED transport means it has a specific purpose. It was purchased for a singular, specific unit.

 

By putting that "the only limitation" clause in the rulebook, GW could specifically be letting people know that despite being a DEDICATED transport, units other than the purchasing unit (the unit who you specifically bought the transport for), CAN embark into that transport during the game.

 

Without that statement, someone would've been able to argue that a dedicated transport purchased for a tac squad (for example), cannot allow a devestator squad to embark into it during the game, because it was *dedicated* to the tac squad.

 

They are defining the only limitation (and thus the intent) of the word "dedicated."

 

 

 

Another illustration in case my point is missed:

 

Who can embark into a Land Raider during the game, assuming the LR is simply a normal, Heavy Support-slot LR?

 

The answer of course, is any unit in the army who purchased it.

 

Now, who can embark into a DEDICATED LR during the game?

 

Without the "only limitation" clause on page 67, one could argue that NOBODY other than the unit it was purchased for, based on the very definition of "dedicated." i.e. That LR is "theirs, and theirs alone."

 

By adding in page 67's clarification, we come to realize that despite being dedicated, ANY unit can in fact embark into it during the game.

 

Hopefully that is more clear.

[Stormcaller3801]

But again, it's a limitation- and if carrying the dedicated unit at deployment is a limitation, then this must be an option available to other transports.

 

Further, let's take a look at p.92, 'A Note on Secrecy.' It's talking about deploying forces, and it makes it clear you should let your opponent know which units are in transport vehicles.

 

Now, it's not much, but they're talking about transports- not dedicated transports. It seems minor, and it is, but they make a point of using the term dedicated transports when they're dealing with those specifically.

 

And then p.94, Reserves, it references the dedicated transport callout from the vehicle rules section- but here again, the paragraph as a whole makes that distinction between transports and dedicated transports, and it makes it clear to remember that dedicated transports are limited.

 

If the ability of dedicated transports to carry their own unit was solely a reserve rule, they would not reference it again, nor would they make it distinct from other transports. Ergo, both transports and dedicated transports are able to carry units when deployed- and dedicated transports are limited in what they can carry. Again, it's consistent throughout the text, and it only makes sense one way.

[WarpSpawn]

I'm with Stormcaller on this one.

 

Yes, they should have made it clearer and said explicitly how it works, but all the implications are that any unit can start in a non-dedicated transport.

 

To say that the limitaton is it can only carry it's own unit, yet make it the only transport that can carry any unit at the start of the game, this simply does not add up. The net effect of this is still a benefit, yet nowhere in the book prior to this has it discussed what transports can hold what troops to suggest it has any benefits. This statement is purely geared towards explaining the disadvantage of them, it in no way explicitly mentions benefits, which do have to exist for your interpretation to be correct.

 

Whilst an explicit statement regarding deploying in transports as a whole would be nice, I am most definitely not going to buy into the opposition's theory, without an equally explicit statement to suggest that dedicated transports are the only transport that can deploy with troops in it. In the absense of such a statement, I suggest we have at worst (from our point of view) reached a RAW impasse and we should play it as we se makes most sense. In my opinion, this is that any unit can ride a non-dedicated transport, including during deployment. I also suspect this is how most people will play it and expect tournament judges to support this idea as well, though I am sure there will always be exceptions.

[SeattleDV8]

Indeed , there are more than enough hints and clues to lead us to the correct ruling. I believe that Warp, Storm and others are dead on.

[nighthawks]

I blieve it is supposed to be as storm/warp/etc... say as well. and it will be with my group. I've been pretty consistant about that in my posts.

 

BUT there is nothing that says so, specifically. if this were NOT something that everyone already "knows" how to play, it would be a different debate. it's going to be used by some niny rules lawyer in a tournament and make everyone mad. better to have either found an explicit rule, or gotten to said impass and raised enough of a stink that they can smell it in Nottingham and fix it in the next FAQ (in A.D. 2012 or whenever). no need to argue it, we all KNOW what the rule should read. there's almost nothing in the rules on deployment. this strikes me as a severe oversight in itself.

[WarpSpawn]

Can't really disagree with you there Nighthawks. Although most of us will assume it works the way it is probably supposed to, they should really have told us what transports can normaly do, before getting into benefits and limitations of specific types.

[Stormcaller3801]

The eternal assumption of mankind: we all tend to believe that whatever we know is known to everyone else as well, save for those instances where we're hoping that they don't. Tends to make things like this happen.

 

I'd be surprised to see a rules lawyer argue that you can't begin the game in transports, however

[WarpSpawn]

I wouldn't. Judging by some of the threads I've seen, little would surprise me.

 

That said, judging by the attitudes of everyone I know, I suspect some people just save it for forums and are more reasonable in real life.

[Brother Gothard]

So guys .. the conclusion is that we've found a RAW impasse? Dont want to stir up the embers here, but it seems there's some disagreement over whether or not this was proved conclusively, or just shown to be "what was probably intended."

[nighthawks]

yup. as far as I see it. this is not one of those I read it one way, you read it another type ?s.

 

it's a simple matter of implied vs. presumed vs. explicit allowances. and there's no answer until it is FAQ'ed. yay!

[SeattleDV8]

oh no not again...lol.. at this rate the faq is going to be huge.

[Stormcaller3801]

You say that as if there were some other option.

[Trekari]

Or that it's likely to be included in a FAQ. haha

 

Whilst looking through a GW glossary, I came across this entry for FAQ:

 

Forgot About Quality

[Hexx]

I wouldn't. Judging by some of the threads I've seen, little would surprise me.

 

That said, judging by the attitudes of everyone I know, I suspect some people just save it for forums and are more reasonable in real life.

 

 

Of course we do.. I've said it before- I'd never stop anyone from putting troops inside a transport during their deployment, but I'll argue until they FAQ it that nothing in the rules *says* you can do it.

 

The best anyone here can say is that GW has hidden a rule in the book that you can only be found by a careful study of interpretations and ommisions of other rules.

 

It's obvious (I think to everyone here- something of a rarity for the B&C) that it's intended to be a rule, but the simple fact is that it's not. (yet)

[SeattleDV8]

shhhh don't give away the secret Hexx...lol yes online I seem like a Hard @s$$ but in the real world I'm a big Teddy bear...heh I don't play as hard as I disagree online it's true... I only act as an asshat so you fellow B&C 's don't get blindsided in tourneys