1- the wording is generic rather than specific, I'd say it applies to all armies.
2- none

As to Rug, he was wrong on barrages ;-)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I don't think it does. It was asked in relation to the Marine list and specifically in regard to how those transport options are chosen and the impact they have on deployment.

That question and was not ever meant to be taken out of context and used for armies in general.

No problem.

I was getting ahead myself a bit mixed up in my reply just then; I think what I said initially is that the option given to marines is explicitly limited to rhinos and pods and can't be said to apply to tacticals. I can't remember if I said when I thought the choice should be made. Looking at the rulebook now, it says "you don’t have to take Rhinos if you don’t want to" and "you may choose to replace a detachment’s Rhinos with Drop Pods". It doesn't say when the choice is made, so it depends on your interpretation of "take" and "deploy". Notably, the army list does not actually say "rhinos", it says "transport" and it is mandatory (with the special rule giving the player the choice whether to take them, or swap them for drop pods). So the army list says "6 tacticals plus transport" and the time when the choice is made is undefined.

So, I think both the NetEA and EpicUK interpretations are valid.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Ah, ignore the "when the choice is made is undefined" bit in my post above, I missed the post about the official FAQ. So there we go: the situation with marines is clear.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

+1. The answer even uses the same "transport options" terminology as the question, which is specifically about marines.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Can we agree on some points ?
We talk about game rules.
You can only do things as part of the game or in the game which are written down explicitly in the rules. This writing down might be ambiguous and open for interpretation, but the concept has at least to be presented.
Actions and concepts not presented in the rules are not part of the game.
Army lists or army books might add or change rules and concepts for the armies they are written for.

If we agree on the above my train of thought would be (it is my tot anyway regardless if we agree on the above or not )
The concept of not deploying all units of a formation or dropping units of formation on deployment is nowhere to be found in the rules. It is nowhere implied that you can change a formations composition at deployment. The chapter about garrison only states that certain requirements must be met by a formation to garrison, but it not even hints that you may drop units in order to make a formation meet this requirements.
This is also no common or universal game concept, neither in board games nor in tabletops. In tabletops the army composition is usually done before deployment. If your unit has to fulfill certain requirements it must do so when you "create" it.

The only reference to dropping units is in the SM army list. As this is an army list and no reference is made to other armies, there is no reason to suspect that this new concept (new, because it has not be presented before in the rules) could also be used with other armies.

As there is no concept for dropping units (except for SMs) for garrison requirements I do not know why it should be possible for any other reason - like cramming a formation into a WE.

And it doesn't matter whether Jervis might have intended to do this - it didn't make it into the rules.

That reminds me when infantry doesn't move - the troopers will usually lay down and try to make a target as small as possible. So my infantry has to be treated as being in cover when they didn't move. It's nowhere in the rules, makes sense and I would like to have it that way. That's about the same qualification as the dropping units rule.

Anyway - if whatever the procedure might be - it is decided to make a rule change and put this concept (of dropping units at deployment and not getting cover for not moving) in word into the rules, I'm happy with it. But without that written addition to the rules, I think it's not rules conform - because it's just not in the rules.

Regards
SH

Bad example - that's what cover save (including cover modifier) for Overwatch represents

I think this possibly could be like the 6+ save for units in destroyed transports... Intended to be part of the rules, but JJ forgot to actually include it in the rulebook.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

And the cover save also would also work with sustained fire - yeaaah.

In fact it's not a bad example - it shows another similarity.
In both cases are other ways to get similar results.
You can take a different action to get the cover save or you can select different troops to put into the flyer, or put the Guardians plus Wraithguard in Wave Serpents.

That's more of a technical limitation - overwatch already requires a marker, so it's easy to see what infantry get cover in the open. Sustained fire does not, so if that was covered you'd need a new "stationary" token, taking another step on the path to token hell.

Nope. Issue came up very early on in the playtest and it wasn't included.

That narrative also applies to the transport dismount save.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

It would not be a problem I can remember who moved and who didn't

It doesn't matter whether the rule is practical, feasible, or sensible - it's only interesting property is that it has the same foundation as the drop units at deployment rule.
None, except that Jervis probably wanted it, but has forgotten about it.

Regards
SH

+1
This is clearly a clarification to the Marines special rule.

I don't see this as an across the board directive.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

there is absolutely no reference of any sort of system-wide rule regarding dropping units in any portion of the rulebook
there is a marine specific rule that allows a minimal ability to drop certain units in certain circumstances

if it was a system wide rule, it would A) be present in the RULEBOOK and B) not require a special rule for marines to be able to do so

since neither A or B are true, it cannot possibly be a rule

even if you completely ignore the "there are no provisions to suggest you are able to do so" part of the rulebook, then surely the fact that they made a special rule specifically to allow it in one instance must tell you that it cannot be a rule that already applied.

likewise, since the special rule for marines was included in the initial release of the game, if the rule was intended to be used by everyone, it would have been placed in the earlier sections of the rulebook, not the marine specific section.

if people want to debate if it SHOULD be a rule, thats an entirely seperate kettle of fish (the answer is no, it shouldnt, btw :P) but could the people who want it to be a rule please stop acting as though it already is

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~