Breaking News! Space Marine FAQ Up


Oh boy, the Emperor’s Angels got an FAQ and I’m sure there are some rulings that will rattle some cages. Remember, it’s still just a Rough Draft for the time being!

The new FAQ is right here!

Reece's Space Marines!

Reece’s Space Marines!

GW defines grav, battle brothers, chapter tactics, and more in the largest codex FAQ to date.


About Petey Pab

Aspiring 40k analyst, tournament reporter and Ultramarines enthusiast, Petey Pab only seeks to gather more knowledge about the game of 40k and share it with as many people as he can in order to unite both hobbyists and gamers. We are, after all, two sides of the same coin.

121 Responses to “Breaking News! Space Marine FAQ Up”

  1. AngryPanda June 8, 2016 10:20 am #

    Drop Pods with open doors are going to block whole tables. I can just see 9 of them coming down and no one being able to go anywhere.

    • Reecius June 8, 2016 10:32 am #

      Yeah, that rule is an auto ignore for tournament purposes, lol.

      • EmbraceYourInnerGeek June 8, 2016 10:39 am #

        Awww…man! Spoiled my fun – I have a 12 drop pod gladius army that would be just bonkers with this rule…..!

        • Reecius June 8, 2016 10:44 am #

          You wouldn’t even be able to move over the doors of your own Drop Pod, hahaha.

          • Threllen June 8, 2016 11:16 am

            Wouldn’t be able to deploy guys on them either. But they’d lead to effective 9″+ disembarks.

            Drop pod in.
            Open doors.
            Disembark within 6″ of the tippy-top of the door.

          • Reecius June 8, 2016 12:40 pm

            Lol, right? hahah, so silly. Otherwise though, I like the FAQ.

          • novastar June 8, 2016 12:05 pm

            its just to pen khorne dogs on one side while you shoot them from the other lol

          • AbusePuppy June 8, 2016 9:39 pm

            To be fair, they _were_ being VERY bad doggies.

      • AngryPanda June 8, 2016 10:46 am #

        “Hello Khorne Demonkin. I’ve just build a wall of Droppods. They’re open so I’m gonna shoot you now, cool?”
        I’m not sure if want to call this tactic pulling an “East-Berlin” or just “The Trump”.

      • Greg June 8, 2016 12:11 pm #

        Just take a drop pod gladius and drop them all next to each other, then deploy all the marines on the opposite side or drop them empty! YAY!

    • LordWynn June 8, 2016 10:38 am #

      IH Drop Pods with it will not die blocking stuff. 😛

    • Petey Pab June 8, 2016 10:38 am #

      Even worst, this means people can model for advantage to the cheesiest degree when opening and closing doors. “I will open this door to grab this objective but leave all these other doors closed to block LOS from your models to mine! Oh and by the way you have to stay more then 1′ away from my model’s doors! Muahahaha!”

      • AngryPanda June 8, 2016 10:42 am #

        You just need to bring Drop Pods that are build in different styles and place what you need there you need it.

        • Threllen June 8, 2016 11:19 am #

          Nah. Just don’t glue them. Then you can put the doors however the heck you want. Just because the doors are still able to move, the way it is “modeled” means you could flip the doors in any combination you wanted for maximum OPness.

          • AngryPanda June 8, 2016 12:09 pm

            You mean maximum fluff right? After all you only made those models moveable to forge a better narrative. I’m not willing that you random internet person I do not know could have anything but the most pure motivation 🙂

          • Threllen June 8, 2016 5:52 pm

            Of course, of course. I would never model for my own advantage. I’m just trying to represent myself in the 41st millenium with a retro drop pod where one of the doors won’t open. It’s ok, though – if you just slide to the driver’s side you can get out that way.

  2. EmbraceYourInnerGeek June 8, 2016 10:42 am #

    The one I liked was clarifying that codex marines joining with BA, DA etc negate chapter tactics. Fewer death star shenanigans the better IMHO.

    • AngryPanda June 8, 2016 10:44 am #

      This is true. At least it makes White Scars Librarius Conclaves not also give cheap hit and run to other Marine deathstars.

    • Reecius June 8, 2016 10:45 am #

      Yeah, too bad they didn’t say it worked the other way around, too, taking away Blood Angels/Space Wolves/Dark Angels “Chapter Tactics”. That would have been aweosme to slow down Deathstars.

      • AngryPanda June 8, 2016 10:49 am #

        True but on the other hand they would probably define those as just the Furious Charge and the Counter Charge and while those are good they aren’t nearly as important as say the Hit and Run and all the Jinx games Ravenwing bring into a star?

      • Joshua Taylor June 8, 2016 12:26 pm #

        because death-stars are so reliant on that, over-watch on BS2, and counter attack…

        • Vercingatorix June 8, 2016 12:58 pm #

          Haven’t you ever been devastated by that brutal overwatch? yeah, men neither actually.

      • Doodoo June 8, 2016 4:20 pm #

        Reece, I think that they didn’t rule on the non codex chapters losing their special rules because this is a codex space marines FAQ. I would bet money that the other chapters get the same treatment in their FAQs. The days of innumerable special rules are coming to an end, the reign of the wulfen is about to begin.

        • Reecius June 8, 2016 4:58 pm #

          Ah yeah, good point.

        • AbusePuppy June 8, 2016 7:57 pm #

          The real question is “what are the DA/BA/SW Chapter Tactics?” Does the Ravenwing rule count, or just Grim Resolve? Do Deathwing stop being Fearless when a character joins them? Etc.

          • Doodoo June 9, 2016 12:42 am

            Those are good questions and I would bet that GW hasn’t anticipated how complicated this will get. A better solution would have been to do away with battle brothers or with battle brothers joining each other’s squads.

          • EvilCheesypoof June 9, 2016 1:32 am

            I think the best solution is that Battle Brothers shouldn’t be able to join each other’s units

            You can still narratively/competitively ally forces together, they just can’t be part of the same unit because they don’t train together, and it gets rid of the convoluted “which rules do they get?” that GW is gonna have a hard time getting right.

            I think this would make most narrative and competitive players happy.

          • pascalnz June 9, 2016 2:05 am

            I still laugh that this means IH, bionics stop working and salamanders bash their weapons so they aren’t master crafted any more…durr hyuck?

  3. AngryPanda June 8, 2016 10:43 am #

    I’m a huge fan of the way they handled the question if the Captain in a Gladius can be a Chapter Master.
    “That would never happen, it makes no sense. But you can totaly do it.”

    • Reecius June 8, 2016 10:45 am #

      Yeah, right?! Lol, we were like, wait, what? haha

    • Vercingatorix June 8, 2016 11:22 am #

      I know right? ‘Yes, but please don’t guys, come on.”

    • tag8833 June 9, 2016 7:05 am #

      Yes, what an amusing answer.

  4. EmbraceYourInnerGeek June 8, 2016 10:52 am #

    Also – am I right in thinking there’s a nerf to the Conclave – i.e. they clarified that if you use the channeling power nobody else can cast but the guy using the power.

    • AngryPanda June 8, 2016 10:55 am #

      To be fair I’m pretty sure the rules of the conclage were trying to say that from the start. They just aren’t all that good at being clear about things.

    • Joshua Taylor June 8, 2016 12:27 pm #

      yea pretty sure thats how i have always read it and seen it played.

    • Reecius June 8, 2016 12:37 pm #

      That’s how we already ruled it, but yet.

  5. Trentat June 8, 2016 10:56 am #

    Conclave changed to if you use Empyric Channeling the supporting Librarians can’t manifest powers at all?

    That’s not a clarification, that’s completely changing the printed rule! lol

    It IS a nice de-shenanigan-ization though.

    • Reecius June 8, 2016 12:39 pm #

      That’s how we always read and played it, already. I believe that is what the rule actually says, but YMMV =)

  6. Jason Wolfe June 8, 2016 11:02 am #

    Iron Hands won this FAQ hard.
    Black Templars got reminded that they suck.

    And are SuperFriends dead? It looks like chapter tactics don’t work in mixed chapter dogpiles.

    • EmbraceYourInnerGeek June 8, 2016 11:06 am #

      I’m being stupid, I know – but why did Iron Hands win the FAQ? Was it “just” the IWND on vehicles or have I missed something else?

      • Threllen June 8, 2016 11:18 am #

        Yeah. That’s a huge ruling. Since RAW the rule for Chapter Tactics said “any time a rule refers to a model from a certain chapter it means a model from that Chapter that has the chapter tactics special rule.” Which vehicles did not (apart from dreads). But now they’re clarifying they meant for any vehicle in an IH detachment can have IWND. That’s huge.

        • Joshua Taylor June 8, 2016 12:29 pm #

          Quit trying to make this some profound difference. The iron hands chapter tactics specifically state that the vehicles gain IWND even though they don’t have the chapter tactics special rule.
          NO FAQ NEEDED

          • Reecius June 8, 2016 12:45 pm

            We read it that way, too, but some folks read it as them not getting it due to not having CTs. It was a valid argument, but RAI was pretty clear to me.

          • AbusePuppy June 8, 2016 7:58 pm

            It actually doesn’t in 7E, you are thinking of the previous edition (which did in fact specify such.) ITC played it that was, but it was not part of the text of the rule.

          • Threllen June 8, 2016 8:08 pm

            They don’t, though. The 6th edition codex explicitly said they did. The 7th did no such thing.

        • Reecius June 8, 2016 12:40 pm #

          Did you not play it that way already? In the ITC we were already playing Iron Hands vehicles as having IWND.

          • Threllen June 8, 2016 8:55 pm

            We don’t really have too many Iron Hands players around here, so it wasn’t a big issue. Some of the Space Marine players did see that they removed the “including vehicles without chapter tactics” wording from the new book and assumed that meant you couldn’t anymore, though.

      • Reecius June 8, 2016 12:39 pm #

        Most tournaments already played it that way, anyway, so seems pretty benign to me.

      • Sanchezsam2 June 8, 2016 2:45 pm #

        Power of the machine spirit rulings was a nice boost for them as well

    • Sanchezsam2 June 8, 2016 11:21 am #

      Super friends got raped hard, fast and dirty. Librarius conclave took a few more kick to the nuts as well, it’s now not the auto take everyone was using it for.

      • Vercingatorix June 8, 2016 11:48 am #

        Hey man, remember the article a few weeks ago? I definitely agree with your sentiment but lets not bring rape into this.

        • Turok117 June 8, 2016 1:22 pm #

          Your use of the word “shit” below is also offensive to some. Just sayin.

        • Sanchezsam2 June 8, 2016 2:42 pm #

          I don’t know which thread you are talking about but Point taken. I was just trying to be overdiscriptive and funny. Not trying to be literal.

        • AbusePuppy June 8, 2016 9:37 pm #

          It turns out that article wasn’t very popular.

      • EmbraceYourInnerGeek June 8, 2016 12:43 pm #

        Mate – my 11 year old daughter was threatened with “rape” in the play ground at her primary school yesterday by a little boy who had no idea what the word means, because he had heard “grown ups” use it. “`Grown ups” like you. It’s not just a “word”, it’s not funny, and its not “just a bit of fun”.

    • Reecius June 8, 2016 12:39 pm #

      Super Friends isn’t dead but did lose some steam, thank the Emperor.

      • Vercingatorix June 8, 2016 12:56 pm #

        How else can they get hit and run? Otherwise I’ll send invulnerable pink horrors to their death for days against one.

        • Reecius June 8, 2016 1:09 pm #

          Dark Angels.

        • Trentat June 8, 2016 1:25 pm #

          They can also get Hit & Run from that White Scars Deathwatch jabroni. He has it inherently without ‘Chapter Tactics’.

          He’s not an IC but you can attach a bunch of IC’s to him.

  7. Alex D June 8, 2016 11:10 am #

    I like being able to use the auspex in overwatch 😀

    • Vercingatorix June 8, 2016 11:25 am #

      I love this. Everyones going bonkers over the elimination of an entire style of army, the huge nerfing to white scar conclave, Drop pod shenanigans. You’re over here, “Oh shit, auspex in overwatch!”

      • AngryPanda June 8, 2016 11:50 am #

        Right next to the guy going “repairing vehicles on a 1+? Sweet!”

        • Vercingatorix June 8, 2016 12:53 pm #

          A new kind of death star. A giant blob of servitors following around an Imperial knight.

          • Reecius June 8, 2016 1:09 pm


          • AbusePuppy June 8, 2016 7:59 pm

            *hammering intensifies*

    • Joshua Taylor June 8, 2016 12:30 pm #

      I don’t see how that was ever a question.

  8. Ytook June 8, 2016 11:38 am #

    Drop pod thing is silly but taking rules as is drop pods have always been an odd one. Though worth noting as is via the FAQ deploying drop pods is trickier and targeting them much easier given the large foot print, but I think everyone will understandably just go on ignoring the doors 😛

    Aside from that I like this FAQ allot, kicks allot of the sillier marine stuff into touch and defangs allot of the nastier Death Star combos, fine by me!

    • AngryPanda June 8, 2016 11:46 am #

      You just need to bring different drop pods. Depending there you want it you place an open or a closed one. If the things come with objective secured you can just clutter them all turn 1 and start scoring maelstrom.

      • Ytook June 8, 2016 12:06 pm #

        Well if you’re going to push that extreme you could technically use whatever base you want to for any model and swap them out depending. Got to be some degree of not being an ass with your toys, no FAQ or rule set can account for that 😉

        Besides I think the drop pod thing is being overblown, a rule change has been widely accepted already so an FAQ restating the rules as is isn’t going to change that.

  9. DirtyDeeds June 8, 2016 11:58 am #

    Now we just need to see eldar and daemon death stats taken down a notch and we’ll have a more enjoyable game!

    • Ytook June 8, 2016 12:17 pm #

      If the Eldar FAQ started with “increase the points values of the following units and options.” I think the cheer would cause avalanches 😛

      Won’t happen but still, one can dream…

      • Joshua Taylor June 8, 2016 12:36 pm #

        WraithKnight: 375 pts.
        Windrider jetbikes: may take 1 heavy weapon per 3 models in the unit.
        Warp Spiders: Unit Composition 3 Warp Spiders.
        i’m good with the rest, everyone deserves some shenanigans.

        one can dream….

        • Ytook June 8, 2016 12:44 pm #

          I think changing the windriders heavy weapons to 1 per 3 would be harsh on people who’ve built them that way, maybe making them windrider versions with much less range (18″?) would be better? Ah well, it’s all wishlisting really 😛

        • Petey Pab June 8, 2016 1:03 pm #

          Are you joking?? Min units of 3 warp spiders would be INSANE. That would mean the 30 warp spiders I run would be 10 units instead of 6. On the flip side, if they made it so you had to take a minumum of 5 windriders and 10 warp spiders, that would hurt their points efficiency, by a lot.

          • westrider June 8, 2016 1:13 pm

            Nope. Max Units of 3 Warp Spiders 😀

          • tag8833 June 9, 2016 7:09 am

            Yeah, that isn’t the answer. We need to nerf them not buff them.

            “Warp Spiders lose a guy every time they use their warp jump.”

    • Nightman June 9, 2016 3:35 am #

      I’m going knight bases on all my tacticals

  10. HeavyPlate June 8, 2016 12:24 pm #

    We all agree on the insanity the drop pod ruling. It’s just one of those “people only take 1 or 2 of these things, what’s the worst that could happen?” [Meanwhile everyone seeing nightmares.]
    I love the wording on the speeder firing arc basically saying “that’s a hard one.”
    Over all I liked these[a beefy 12 pages], but any rules clarifications that bumble ugly with ITC rulings/changes? Namely thinking the chapter tactics stuff and if ITC will revote or revisit that area.

    • AngryPanda June 8, 2016 1:08 pm #

      I still wonder if they ever let their designers outof that hermeticaly sealed bunker they are kept in and if they genuinely do not know the internet exists.
      I mean do they all hate their jobs so much they didn’t sit down and watch some youtube battle reports or something at some point?

  11. Cephalobeard June 8, 2016 1:17 pm #

    I’m warry about the instant ruling of “we’ll just ignore this part of the FAQ” that I read above.

    You guys do a lot of good, but I’d hate to see it turn more into the “ITC Rules” instead of “40K Rules”, with certain things being ignored, or cherry picked as we go.

    I know it’s difficult, especially trying to balance things for a competitive setting, I just get nervous when that’s the snap response, and things can be changed so much about the game, etc.

    I have faith in you, regardless.

    • Threllen June 8, 2016 1:52 pm #

      Ummm… have you read the ITC FAQ and scenarios? It literally already is ITC rules. Changes to the missions that are played, how invisibility works, how ranged D weapons work, etc etc. These changes all made because everyone inherently understands there are parts of GWs game that just aren’t tenable for competitive play. So what’s wrong with adding “ignoring drop pod doors” to the list? The ITC FAQ already has that written into it.

      And, technically, the ITC FAQ on drop pods was already a diversion from “40k rules.” RAW there is nothing saying drop pod doors AREN’T a part of the model. I don’t remember doors being included in the list of antennae, sails, wings, etc that are ignored. So we’ve all already been playing the game “incorrectly” because most people decided playing it “correctly” would be silly. So what’s the problem with just continuing to ignore the new FAQ as we ignored the RAW interpretation before it?

      • AngryPanda June 8, 2016 1:53 pm #

        Even outside the ITC and in the most RAW environments I know Doppod doors have been ignored so far.

      • Cephalobeard June 8, 2016 2:10 pm #

        Calm down, friend. Just sharing a feeling. Made a point to state I have faith they’ll make thw right call regardless of how I my feel.

        • Threllen June 8, 2016 2:39 pm #

          I’m perfectly calm. Just mentioning how we all ignore/modify many game rules all the time. No one, whether it is ITC or a few friends drinking beer and playing in their basement, plays this game the same way. Almost no one plays the game exactly as it is written. There are just far too many things that break the game and aren’t fun. So why get worked up when someone suggests “maybe this is another one we should pretend doesn’t exist.”

          • Cephalobeard June 8, 2016 2:55 pm

            Never got worked up, Friend.

            As you can read, it was the “instant nope” without review that made me Warry.

            Have a great day!

    • Reecius June 8, 2016 2:12 pm #

      That is a fair thing to say, but what I meant was not that we’d just outright say no way jose, but that the community will instantly reject it. It’s not a solid ruling, IMO. The rest of them are good though, I like them.

      • Cephalobeard June 8, 2016 2:53 pm #

        I appreciate the clarity, Reece.

        Keep fighting the good fight, ya tan bastard.

      • ryan bridges June 8, 2016 4:05 pm #

        I mean honestly, yet another FAQ that nearly mirrors the IT rulings.

        • ryan bridges June 8, 2016 4:08 pm #


      • HotSauceMan June 8, 2016 6:23 pm #

        This is a draft that we can comment on.

  12. gigasnail June 8, 2016 2:50 pm #

    yeah the drop pod ruling is exceptionally derp. rest of it is decent. didn’t see them nerfing the CT like that, it’s not even implied in the rules as DA/SW/etc don’t *have* chapter tactics, but w/e at least they’re somewhat consistent with that and the formation/unit special rules interaction.

    too bad it still doesn’t do much about the worst offender SW/DA wolfstars.

  13. Dakkath June 8, 2016 2:56 pm #

    Shadow Captain Shrike can join jump marines and let them infiltrate. Hopefully this sets a precedent that Shadowsun can hang with something other than kroot, too.

    • Bryan June 8, 2016 4:08 pm #

      I wouldn’t count on it 🙁

      GW probably think players run her with stealth suits, not their bigger crisis suit brothers who appreciate her stealth and shrouding much more!

      • westrider June 8, 2016 10:25 pm #

        Also, Shrike has a unique Special Rule that heavily implies, but fails to actually state, that he can Join Jump Infantry Units during Deployment, overriding the general FAQ about Infiltrating ICs.

        • Ragnulf June 9, 2016 6:45 am #

          Plus he had no options for deployment as written, since he could only join jump units on deployment, but because he had infiltrate, and there are no jump infiltrators for SM, he could not be deployed with a unit.

  14. SonsofVulkan June 8, 2016 5:13 pm #

    So the battle-brothers can’t taxi-ride each other’s transport still stands? Admech using BA drop pods?

    • Dakkath June 8, 2016 5:24 pm #

      By themselves, no. But if you attach an IC from the transport’s detachment to the unit, then they can because the combined unit counts as both factions.

      • Threllen June 8, 2016 5:57 pm #

        Except, if you’re going to go that “rules laywer-y” on it, I would argue you can’t. Much like the chicken-and-egg scenario with infiltrators before the FAQ. You attach an IC to a squad by nominating that he is deploying with them either after they are put on the field or after they are put in their transport (in which case the IC is just in the transport with them). So he isn’t a part of the squad until they are “Deployed together.” They can’t deploy together because the unit from the other faction could never get in the transport in the first place.

        • Threllen June 8, 2016 6:02 pm #

          Also, while the overall unit is comprised of both factions, there is nothing saying every model within it is suddenly becomes bound to multiple factions. The ruling says “battle-brothers” cannot deploy on each other’s transports. Not “units made entirely of battle-brothers cannot deploy in a friendly transport.” The models that aren’t from that faction can’t deploy in that a transport.

      • AbusePuppy June 8, 2016 8:02 pm #

        It counts as both factions, but keep in mind that a Battle Brother unit still can’t start the game embarked on someone else’s transport. So joining a SM character to an IG unit may be a unit that is both SM and IG, but IG units still can’t start in Drop Pods so you won’t be able to use it.

  15. CNitram June 8, 2016 6:38 pm #

    What’s stopping you from opening the Drop Pod doors for your shooting, then closing them before your opponent’s turn to block LOS? (Other than the desire to be a good person to play against, of course)

    • NathanD June 8, 2016 8:23 pm #

      Why would closing the doors to block LOS make you a bad person if it’s according to the rules?

    • gigasnail June 8, 2016 9:10 pm #

      aside from the rules?

      • CNitram June 9, 2016 12:04 am #

        Just curious, but in what book and on what page are the rules for Drop Pod Doors located? Specifically, the door deployment order of operations

        (Hint: there aren’t any because GW said they had no effect on any rules and model interactions, until today’s FAQ draft.)

        • Charlie June 9, 2016 3:14 am #

          The other question I would ask is where are the rules that allow one to reposition/alter a model once it is placed on the table?

          As there are no rules that cover it, I can’t see that as having permission to do so.

          • Threllen June 9, 2016 5:18 am

            So you can’t swivel your vehicles once they’re on the field? You can’t re-position their weapons? Where is the rule saying all movable parts must remain static once they’re on the field?

        • gigasnail June 9, 2016 5:26 pm #

          you don’t have any permission to do anything you don’t have permission to do. that’s kind of the entire point of rules. it’s not ‘i can do this because nothing says i can’t.’

  16. NathanD June 8, 2016 7:38 pm #

    It sickens me how GW is trying to put forward poorly written rules and now as a sign of goodwill ,to us customers, publishing this FAQ with more rules that are not properly worded. They need to put themselves in the players viewpoint (or actually play a competitive game themselves) before writing rules. The way they word their rules is far from full proof or abusable. Sure having open-ended rules where me and my opponent can decide whats right or wrong works if we are fluff masters with army lists that consist of random models with no strategy in mind, it doesn’t for anyone who has passed that phase and are more appealed to challenging and competitive matches with army lists that work tightly with all rules in taken in mind.

    My dude at my FLG will be laughing hard when I show up and show my drop pods that have sandbags on the inside doors that have increased length as well. I mean it’s all according to the rules right – “as constructed” ?

    Also that Battle Brothers can’t enter each others transports is another disappointment. What was GW thinking? They come up with allied matrix but don’t go through one of the most simple possibilities people might do namely enter allied transports during deployment, no this has to be clarified a year later in a FAQ that’s just as poorly written as the BRB. The same can be said about the apothecary that’s able to take special weapons.

    Nonetheless have to say thanks GW for doing “something” at least.

    • Alex R June 9, 2016 6:11 am #

      oh no back to good old days aye, just means you have to construct your lists differently wont hurt

    • Threllen June 9, 2016 6:38 am #

      First you argue about them not having tight enough rules to avoid abuse. Then you get mad when they say you can’t deploy in your BB transport so you can’t do broken shenanigans. Make up your mind.

      Also, “as modeled” doesn’t mean you can throw on random parts that don’t come with the kit to alter the shape and size. That’s been pretty universally understood since forever.

      • NathanD June 9, 2016 6:26 pm #

        Theres is alot of sarcasm involved.

    • Ragnulf June 9, 2016 6:43 am #

      Altering drop pods in the way you describe would be modelling for advantage, and is generally not allowed. You would play it as the base model.

  17. Venkarel June 9, 2016 6:52 am #

    So what exactly are fast attack drop pods used for now? The only unit I can think of that can use a drop pod but is not able to take them as dedicated transports are Centurions.

    • Venkarel June 9, 2016 6:56 am #

      Whops I forgot HQ’s and Termies, how could I forget Terminators?

    • tag8833 June 9, 2016 7:12 am #

      You can combat squad tac marines, and put 1 squad in the dedicated drop pod, and the other in a Fast Attack Drop pod.

      Still lots of uses for them.

      I’m just sad that all those Flesh Tearer Taxi Drivers are out of work. They have kids to feed.

      • SweegyVulkan August 1, 2016 7:44 pm #

        Can You?

        Are you sure?

    • Threllen June 9, 2016 7:46 am #

      There are still plenty of guys that can get in transports that can’t take them as dedicated. Plus, that was never the intent of making transports fast attacks. They did it so they could claim they were units/models in their own right (not exclusively requiring another unit). Not so they could be used as BB taxis (especially since I believe the FA transports started in 6th edition which was before you could share rides).

      • westrider June 9, 2016 7:46 pm #

        Nope. The trend of moving them to Fast Attack began with the Ork Dex, which was the first of 7th. The last one from 6th was the Astra Militarum, which still has a separate Dedicated Transports section.

    • Reecius June 9, 2016 9:33 am #

      Anything in the same army, they’re quite good for.

  18. SweegyVulkan August 1, 2016 7:41 pm #

    IF… this rule has not changed… I thought that when a unit selects a dedicated transport, it must choose to deploy outside it, or inside it… but was forbidden from embarking in any other transport before deployment… explicitly…

    it could enter any transport normally at any point later in the game… but only allowed to Deploy within it Dedicated Transport… Like wise … the Dedicated Transport can deploy with its dedicated unit… or none at all… (along with any Ind. Characters that have joined the unit) …

    This would prevent a Tactical Squad from using “Combat Squads” to use 2 drop pods… one dedicated and the other Fast Attack. I suppose, however, that you could purchase the Tactical Squad… Combat Squad separate it, and place each five man unit into a separate Fast Attack , having used 2 Fast Attack Slots to purchase 2 Drop Pods…

    But at that point, why go to so much trouble?

    Also, in a recent previous edition they had jumped our Drop pods up to hold 12 models… so that we could have some Independent Characters join the Squad at all… that has changed…

    I am very curious about one thing…

    How would you ever Deploy Sgt Telion with Scouts inside of a Land Speeder Storm… when it can hold max 5 models… and Sgt Telion is no longer an upgraded Sergeant model… but an Independent Character who may choose to join a scout unit… but it is not possible to take a unit of scouts with less than 5 scouts…

Leave a Reply