Reserves, Storm Ravens, Embarked Dreadnoughts

[relasine]

Quick question:

Can a Dreadnought held in reserve start the game embarked upon a Storm Raven so that when the Storm Raven comes in on reserves, the Dreadnought does as well?

[crashwell]

I'd say so, yes.

pg. 94 of the rulebook under "Preparing Reserves"

In that section it allows only for infantry units and Independent Characters being joined with a transport, however.

Since a vehicle (walker) has never been able to embark aboard a transport previously, it's not covered in the BRB. I'd say it's simplest to allow it.

A hardline interpretation would be that no, since it specifically doesn't mention walkers or vehicles being allowed to organize their reserves as infantry and Independent Characters.

In the end; Ask your TO.

Be well, Dave

[Nabterayl]

I see no reason why not. Any argument I can think of that would disallow a Storm Raven in Reserve from carrying a Dreadnought would also disallow Drop Pods in Reserve from carrying a Dreadnought.

[Bigthunda]

I see no reason why not. Any argument I can think of that would disallow a Storm Raven in Reserve from carrying a Dreadnought would also disallow Drop Pods in Reserve from carrying a Dreadnought.

Yes I agree with this reasoning, I'd say that as far as RAI goes they can come on together

[relasine]

Those were my thoughts. Based on the RAW, it suggested you couldn't but the precedent for Dreadnoughts in Drop Pods seems to suggest otherwise. Thanks!

[AbusePuppy]

...Why would that even be an issue? Part of the SR's transport capacity is "one Dreadnought." Models are allowed to start the game embarked on a transport that can hold them (unless it's another unit's dedicated transport.) Ergo, you can start with the Dread in the Stormraven. Whether the Stormraven is in reserve or deployed is irrelevant, but you must declare the Dread's status (embarked or not) when deploying your forces.

[Nabterayl]

The OP's point, I think, was that the rules don't actually say units can start in a transport in reserve. If you want to get technical, they say that infantry can start in a transport in reserve. My point was that if one gives credence to that logic, dreadnoughts can't start in drop pods, either, which either means that dreadnoughts can take a transport option they can never actually use, or that we shouldn't "get technical" about this point, and read the rule as you do.

[Rapture]

Not sure if it makes a difference, but aren't all drop pods dedicated transports?

[Nabterayl]

It doesn't change the OP's point about what the rules technically say, but it does make the drop pod counterexample stronger. It would be one thing if dreads could not start in reserve in optional transports. But drop pods are dedicated transports, which means if we go by the strict letter of the rules, dreadnought drop pods would always have to be dropped empty, which seems pretty absurd.

[Demonus]

yep, sometimes the rules need be read with common sense.

[relasine]

If you want to get technical, they say that infantry can start in a transport in reserve.

This was exactly my point, but the consensus seems clear: RAI suggests yes, but always ask your TO.

[Tynskel]

This was exactly my point, but the consensus seems clear: RAI suggests yes, but always ask your TO.

Yeah, you better ask your TO about putting Jump Infantry too, because the rulebook doesnt mention them either.


That's dumb. The Stormraven carries two types of things that cannot be carried normally. This is a question that should not be asked.

If someone tries this BS at a tournament i'd tell them to shove it. The transport can carry these things, it can carry them in reserves as well.

[Wildeybeast]

There is no reason to revert to RAI, people just need to read the rulebook a little more carefully. P66, under the section transport capacity it states that only infantry models can embark on transports "unless a Codex book states otherwise". The SM codex clearly allows Dreadnoughts (and Thunderfire cannons) to embark on Drop Pods and I'm assuming Storm Ravens are classed as transports, so they can go on there too. The rule in reserves section is written with the assumption that since this codex exception has already been established elsewhere in the RB, there is no need to repeat it again.