Can Terminators be held passed the 50% limit, because under terminator armor says they can always be held in reserve. If they cant can you please explain why they cant.

Can =/= must. So no.

They CAN be held in researves IF they are DEEP STRIKING. Even if the rules do not allow for Deep Striking OR Researves. But they CAN be placed on the board and deployed regularly. So to answere your question YES they still count as the number of units you must deploy.

ok kool thats what I thought i was just making sure. thanks.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Can =/= must. So no.

Incorrect. They MAY always go in reserves to DS, and preventing them would break this rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Can =/= must. So no.

Incorrect. They MAY always go in reserves to DS, and preventing them would break this rule.

(Can is not equal to Must). This is true. They "may" go in reserves or may start on the board, so they do count.

Yes they may always go into reserves to DS but that doesn't override the limit on 50%. Only units that must begin in reserve don't count. Where does it say they must be in reserve?
Can you deploy them normally? Yes. Do they have an option to be in reserve? Yes.
Choice =/= mandatory reserves.

The rules read to me that they always have the option even when a mission doesn't allow DS.

Yup, they have the option, not a requirement to do so. So you can always choose to keep them in Reserve, but would still have to observe the limits imposed by the Reserve rules on how many units can be Reserved.

Nothing in the DS rules say that it overrides the reserves limits. By that logic anything that can DS could ignore the Reserves limits and there would be no need to include that units that must DS are ignored.

 Captain Antivas wrote:
Nothing in the DS rules say that it overrides the reserves limits. By that logic anything that can DS could ignore the Reserves limits and there would be no need to include that units that must DS are ignored.

What about the part that says "they may always start the game in reserve and arrive using deep strike rules, even if it is not a part of the mission being played". Granted if your army was half terminators and half other stuff the other stuff couldn't do it, but I think the rule is clear enough to allow an all terminator army to fully reserve and deep strike.

However an all Terminator army would automatically lose by that reasoning, as at the end of Game Turn 1 you would have nothing on the table.

Of course I don't know of any way to give Troops Terminator armour.

The key is the mission being played. It says even if the rules of the mission does not allow reserves or deep strike you can deepstrike terminators. That is the only thing "always allowed to DS" refers to. It is right in the very rule you quoted!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:
However an all Terminator army would automatically lose by that reasoning, as at the end of Game Turn 1 you would have nothing on the table.

Of course I don't know of any way to give Troops Terminator armour.

With a Master of the Deathwing Dark Angels Terminators can be brought as troops.

GK terminators are troops, deathwing can, not sure about space wolves, maybe with Logan?

There are ways to bring in reserves turn 1, I believe death wing assault can, and wolves can take pods.

Kevlar wrote:
GK terminators are troops, deathwing can, not sure about space wolves, maybe with Logan?

There are ways to bring in reserves turn 1, I believe death wing assault can, and wolves can take pods.

Yep Logan can have terminators as troops but space wolves terminators can only walk on or take a transport.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Kevlar wrote:
GK terminators are troops, deathwing can, not sure about space wolves, maybe with Logan?

There are ways to bring in reserves turn 1, I believe death wing assault can, and wolves can take pods.

Yep Logan can have terminators as troops but space wolves terminators can only walk on or take a transport.

Wolf Guard can take a Drop Pod.

A drop pod is a transport....

Kevlar wrote:

 Captain Antivas wrote:
Nothing in the DS rules say that it overrides the reserves limits. By that logic anything that can DS could ignore the Reserves limits and there would be no need to include that units that must DS are ignored.

What about the part that says "they may always start the game in reserve and arrive using deep strike rules, even if it is not a part of the mission being played". Granted if your army was half terminators and half other stuff the other stuff couldn't do it, but I think the rule is clear enough to allow an all terminator army to fully reserve and deep strike.

No it isn't. It still only says they may do it, which is a choice, not a requirement.

The "may always" part is a left over from 4th edition and custom missions that did not allow any deep strikes. IF you were to play a similar mission, you still can deep strike, ignoring the restriction.

It has nothing to do with ignoring reserve restrictions.

As above.

Its in the event of a mission disallowing Deep Striking it still allows terminators to Deep Strike.

Kevlar wrote:

 Captain Antivas wrote:
Nothing in the DS rules say that it overrides the reserves limits. By that logic anything that can DS could ignore the Reserves limits and there would be no need to include that units that must DS are ignored.

What about the part that says "they may always start the game in reserve and arrive using deep strike rules, even if it is not a part of the mission being played". Granted if your army was half terminators and half other stuff the other stuff couldn't do it, but I think the rule is clear enough to allow an all terminator army to fully reserve and deep strike.

This.

Note how the part about mission is "even if"? That means this allowance still works even if the mission does not allow it. This does not mean that the allowance is ONLY to DS when a mission does notr allow it.

Lobukia wrote:The "may always" part is a left over from 4th edition and custom missions that did not allow any deep strikes. IF you were to play a similar mission, you still can deep strike, ignoring the restriction.

It has nothing to do with ignoring reserve restrictions.

Incorrect, this was to always allow you to DS even if only certain units could DS, as existed in certain 4th edition WD missions.

Two things are true with terminators:
1) They may ALWAYS Deepstrike. You cannot prevent them from DS *ever*
2) They still count towards the 50% limit, and can thus prevent *other* units from being able to be put into reserve

So you can have Belial + 6 DW termi units, and ALL 6 units INCLUDING Belial "may always" start in reserve. However if you had 3 landspeeders *none* of the landspeeders may start in reserve with them, because 50% of your units (10 units, so 5) must start on the board.

Your two truths are inconsistent with the wider rules. In your world a 100% terminator army that auto-fails on turn one can be built, this not only breaks but pisses on the 50% rule.

So now we have 3 types of unit by your reading.
1) Those that must start in reserve.
2) Those that may always start in reserve.
3) Those that may start in reserve.


Only two of these are mentioned in a rulebook that is aware of the existence of four codices that contain terminator squads. I don't think you have done enough to justify type two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the other hand, since for 3 of the codices you can have a maximum of 5 terminator units then it us unlikely there will be competitive lists out there using this build.

Yes, it can be built. I didnt say it was a good idea now, did I?

"May always start the game in reserve" is an ABSOLUTE statement, and as specific beats general overrides the rule stating only 50% may start in reserve. You cannot contest this. The existence of the rule is enough to justify type 2. Type 2 also makes no reference towards not counting towards the 50% limit, so they still do so - they just get to ignore it as far as THEY are concerned

Loganwing can have 6 units, Deathwing can have 6, GK can have 6.....

Small gedanken for you: 3 units of Deathwing terminators, with belial. Nothing else in the army

That is 4 units, all in terminator armour.

The 50% rule requires 2 to start on the table. So two units are in reserve - belial and his upgraded squad, for example

You now put the third unit into reserve - why? Because your rule says you may *always* start in reserve.

You now put the 4th unit into reserve - why? Becauswe your rule says you may *always* start in reserve

Again, only by misreading "even" to mean "only" can you revert this specific permission to start in reserve to only apply to missions without the reserves rule. Literally you can only hold your current position if you change the words of the rule to mean something entirely different

I'm with Nosferatu on this one, I don't necessarily think it's RAI, but I think the RAW is absolutely clear, they are given permission to always have the option to be Reserved for a Deep Strike, and then this is further clarified to not be dependent on Deep Strike being permitted by the mission being played.

 Drunkspleen wrote:
I'm with Nosferatu on this one, I don't necessarily think it's RAI, but I think the RAW is absolutely clear, they are given permission to always have the option to be Reserved for a Deep Strike, and then this is further clarified to not be dependent on Deep Strike being permitted by the mission being played.

They are given the option to be kept in reserve even if the mission type doesnt allow it. It says nothing about if the rules don't allow it. Just saying its a bit diferent.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Drunkspleen wrote:
I'm with Nosferatu on this one, I don't necessarily think it's RAI, but I think the RAW is absolutely clear, they are given permission to always have the option to be Reserved for a Deep Strike, and then this is further clarified to not be dependent on Deep Strike being permitted by the mission being played.

They are given the option to be kept in reserve even if the mission type doesnt allow it. It says nothing about if the rules don't allow it. Just saying its a bit diferent.

No, They are given the option to be kept in reserve at all times, regardless of other factors, the fact that it goes on to clarify that the mission type has no bearing doesn't change what the initial statement was, which is "They may always start the game in Reserve and arrive using the Deep Strike rules" (From the Dark Angels dex, there might be slight variations on wording in others)

"Always" is a very powerful word.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Drunkspleen wrote:
I'm with Nosferatu on this one, I don't necessarily think it's RAI, but I think the RAW is absolutely clear, they are given permission to always have the option to be Reserved for a Deep Strike, and then this is further clarified to not be dependent on Deep Strike being permitted by the mission being played.

They are given the option to be kept in reserve even if the mission type doesnt allow it. It says nothing about if the rules don't allow it. Just saying its a bit diferent.

WRONG. Seriously.

"may always be held in reserve" = unqualified permission to be held in reserve
"even if" = means that, in a mission that does not have Reserves as a rule, this unqualified permission still holds.

This is not something you can dispute. The rule is absiolutely incontestable when you parse it according to standard, basic English.

In order for it to say what you are positing it woul dhave to say "only", in order to limit / restrict the unqualified permission. It does not say that

In this case must=always (must be allowed to is the same as is always allowed to by your argument). Can't trumps must, even you have argued that before. Can't is covered by the 50% reserves rule, and is not specifically overridden by the rule. Therefore, since can't trumps must, must equals always, can't trumps always, unless specifically stated. 50% reserves, can't deepstrike. Mission rules say no reserves, can deepstrike. Basic logic.

Permissive ruleset. You need specific permission to override a restriction. You don't have it.

Advanced overrides Basic. Basic is trying to prevent you from being put into reserves, when your unqualified "may always" say you can be put into reserves.

Try again

liturgies of blood nailed it with the first answer...simplicity at it finest

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Advanced overrides Basic. Basic is trying to prevent you from being put into reserves, when your unqualified "may always" say you can be put into reserves.

Try again

Your advanced rule doesn't give you permission to ignore reserves restrictions.

Of course it does, that is exactly what it does.


the codex rule *clearly* states that a Termie squad can *always* be kept in reserves if DSing... How much more explicit can a rule get??

So if you have 6 terminator squads, you can always DS them... *always*..... It does not matter how many other units you have in the army.

If at any point you try and keep me from DSing a Termie unit, I can point to the codex, where it says I can *always* do it. If you are stopping me, it is breaking the specific, advanced, codex rule.

 Captain Antivas wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Advanced overrides Basic. Basic is trying to prevent you from being put into reserves, when your unqualified "may always" say you can be put into reserves.

Try again

Your advanced rule doesn't give you permission to ignore reserves restrictions.

When a rule in a codex contradicts a rule in the rulebook, the codex wins out

You are trying to prevent, using a BRB rule, a model being put into reserves when it may ALWAYS be put into reserves

This explicitly overrides restrictions on Reserves. The clue is in the actual rule.

No, you are extending the permissions beyond what the rule allows. You are exploiting the wording of a 5th edition codex, where there was no reserves restriction, to say it gives you permission when it does not.

 Captain Antivas wrote:
No, you are extending the permissions beyond what the rule allows. You are exploiting the wording of a 5th edition codex, where there was no reserves restriction, to say it gives you permission when it does not.

p.7 "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this
rulebook, and one printed in a codex.'Where this occurs, the
rule printed in the codex always takes precedence."

Funnily the people arguing for RAW in this case are mostly against using pg7. for EL vs SA.

I think on further reading that an all terminator army in most codices can be completely reserved. Terrible idea but valid rules wise.

Kevlar wrote:

 Captain Antivas wrote:
No, you are extending the permissions beyond what the rule allows. You are exploiting the wording of a 5th edition codex, where there was no reserves restriction, to say it gives you permission when it does not.

p.7 "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this
rulebook, and one printed in a codex.'Where this occurs, the
rule printed in the codex always takes precedence."

How does page 7 give you permission to do something the specific codex rule gives you no permission to do?

Because the two rules are in conflict?
You are using the BRB rule to deny the specific allowance to ALWAYS put them in reserve. Not only does specific beat general here, page 7 also says you are wrong on this.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Funnily the people arguing for RAW in this case are mostly against using pg7. for EL vs SA.

I think on further reading that an all terminator army in most codices can be completely reserved. Terrible idea but valid rules wise.

Sorry for the OT but I thought the new edition rules, or the faq update clarified that everliving always works even against SA?

Lol. A thread that went on for over 12 pages on that very subject would argue that there is a bit of discussion to be had.

Kevlar wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Funnily the people arguing for RAW in this case are mostly against using pg7. for EL vs SA.

I think on further reading that an all terminator army in most codices can be completely reserved. Terrible idea but valid rules wise.

Sorry for the OT but I thought the new edition rules, or the faq update clarified that everliving always works even against SA?

Nope, not at all. the core to the rule, which prevents EL from working, has not changed in 3 editions now. SA still prevents EL

The part of the rule that was used to justify the no EL for SA until july is now gone. The current justification for this stance is based on a subjective reading of a phrase that holds little water.

What, the part that says "no special rule"? That rule hasnt changed in 3 editions. Try again, but in another thread.

I did, you didn't listen.
It's the bit just after no special rule, the one that sets a limit on that limitation.

Again, the one that hasnt changed in 3 editions. Youre going to try the duration argument again, arent you. The one defeated by WBB.

lol. Keep trying.

No need to, ts been proven often enough to those who understand rules.

Ah, personal comments. Ad hominum is always a good argument.

Thats not an Ad Hominum attack. It just says if you understood the rules you could actually see this.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats not an Ad Hominum attack. It just says if you understood the rules you could actually see this.

My mistake it was an attack on my intelligence and my ability to read, not an attack on my arguments based on demeaning me.

Nowhere did he call you stupid or an idiot. You just don't understand the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Because the two rules are in conflict?
You are using the BRB rule to deny the specific allowance to ALWAYS put them in reserve. Not only does specific beat general here, page 7 also says you are wrong on this.

I think you're misreading context here. The context of the rule is to override mission restrictions. Not all restrictions ever.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Nowhere did he call you stupid or an idiot. You just don't understand the rules.

Exactly. The actual rules that disallow EL have not changed in 3 editions. Those are the relevant rules that prevent EL, and always will do. Changing to RaaC has had absolutely no effect on this.

When you apply the correct rules, with the correct context, this is abundantly clear.

I gave you the reading of that rule in that thread, I don't care that you have decided that you are the holder of objective truth.

At rigeld: So you are on the line that the always allowed to be put in reserves is just a general allowance that doesn't override the 50% reserves?
I know RAI you are correct but due to the loose wording I am not convinced. The context is not clear if it is specific or general in it's allowance. The second clause could be seen to be an additional clarification.

Yes, a reading of the rules that managed to ignore the written rules and context in favour of a leap to something entirely different. Your reading is plain wrong by all objective standards of analysis.

The second clause if confirming this applies even if Reserves is not a mission rule; it is not worded as a restriction, despite peoples suggestions otherwise

This question will most surely be answered when the chaos codex hits later this month. I'm sure the 50% rule will be addressed in the chaos terminator section.

You are probably right that chaos will clear this up, ironic eh?

@nos:
You can continue to argue that but objective analysis is not something you have. I ignored nothing I read the rules and there was no leap of logic. The two rules occur at different stages and do not interact.

Wrong, as pointed out to you over and over in that thread, yet you refused to comprehend the salient facts. WBB occurred even later than EL and was the canonical EXAMPLE of a special rule that did not function. Your timing argument is belied by a rule that, in the crucial specific, has not altered in 3 editions. This is indisputable by those who can read and objectively parse rules, and do not choose to ignore the pieces of context and actual rules directives given in the SA rule.

Make a thread and discuss it there. I am sure you can claim objective truth there too.

The difference Nos with Drop Pods and Terminators is the word "Must". All Drop Pod models must start the game in reserves. Due to the terminology of Deepstrike, units put into those pods do not count towards the 50% for Preparing Reserves. Terminators "May" start the game in reserves. This RAW with English applied states that they can go into reserves, and if they do, they may use the rules for Deepstrike to enter the battlefield. However, to get to that point, the Terminators have to go through the Preparing Reserves rule to get there first before they can qualify to use Deepstrike.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Wrong, as pointed out to you over and over in that thread, yet you refused to comprehend the salient facts. WBB occurred even later than EL and was the canonical EXAMPLE of a special rule that did not function. Your timing argument is belied by a rule that, in the crucial specific, has not altered in 3 editions. This is indisputable by those who can read and objectively parse rules, and do not choose to ignore the pieces of context and actual rules directives given in the SA rule.

Your arguments have devolved from "here is a rule, this is what it says" to thinly veiled attacks on people's ability to process logic and reading comprehension. You don't have to call someone stupid to call them stupid. You have decided your way of reading it is correct. Rather than stating why you simply state it is and everyone who disagrees with you doesn't understand the rules. Your argument is weak at best and your reliance on thinly veiled attacks hurts your credibility further.

May always is different to may. Units that must go into reserves are one thing but a unit that may always go into reserve is another. While units that "must" have an explicit exception to counting towards the 50% rule, those with "may always" are an anomaly that are probably not RAI but under RAW they seem to be allowed.

Xzerios wrote:
The difference Nos with Drop Pods and Terminators is the word "Must". All Drop Pod models must start the game in reserves. Due to the terminology of Deepstrike, units put into those pods do not count towards the 50% for Preparing Reserves. Terminators "May" start the game in reserves. This RAW with English applied states that they can go into reserves, and if they do, they may use the rules for Deepstrike to enter the battlefield. However, to get to that point, the Terminators have to go through the Preparing Reserves rule to get there first before they can qualify to use Deepstrike.

Yes, there is a difference.

They may ALWAYS be put in reserve
They still count towards the 50% limit

The latter means they can prevent other units from entering reserve, but you CANNOT prevent them from entering reserves through that rule.

Captain - your post literally added zero to the topic, and your opinion that the argument is weak is belied by fact. Start an EL thread if you wish to actually argue it, the weight of rules evidence against EL working is overwhelming.

Nos, I'm not talking about EL...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Wrong, as pointed out to you over and over in that thread, yet you refused to comprehend the salient facts. WBB occurred even later than EL and was the canonical EXAMPLE of a special rule that did not function. Your timing argument is belied by a rule that, in the crucial specific, has not altered in 3 editions. This is indisputable by those who can read and objectively parse rules, and do not choose to ignore the pieces of context and actual rules directives given in the SA rule.

The fact that you use WBB as a reference says much. You keep saying nothing changed over the last 3 editions. I would ask you to show me WBB in any 5th Edition Necron book.

Your talking of the Black Templars Codex. You REALLY need to read your FaQ sir.

Point still stands, your Terminators still have to go through the 50% for Preparing Reserves. If they dont meet the prerequisites, they may not be placed in Reserves.

Guys let's keep on this topic. That thread was locked and all that needed to be said was said there.

Terminators may always be placed in Reserve to deep strike. But unlike units which always must start in reserve, termies still count against your limit, for purposes of determining how many other units can reserve.

The FaQ replaces the second sentence of the "Teleport" section with "They have the Deep Strike special rule".

Your "may always" is now gone. Moving along~

Xzerios wrote:
The FaQ replaces the second sentence of the "Teleport" section with "They have the Deep Strike special rule".

Your "may always" is now gone. Moving along~

Where is this found? I'm not seeing it.

Which FAQ? Which page? Not seeing that in Codex: SM FAQ.

Which FAQ? Defo not BA and I don't see it in the C:SM

Dark Templars in respects to the "teleport" section on all terminator models.

Xzerios wrote:
The FaQ replaces the second sentence of the "Teleport" section with "They have the Deep Strike special rule".

I'm curious as to where you are finding this. I'm not seeing it in any of the Legio Astartes FAQs.

I found it, its for the list entry in the BT codex, but it doesn't change the armory entry, which reads the same as SM or DA.

So not relevant to the discussion, as it edits one of two places in the BT codex only without changing the other

Might I add, I still think its crystal clear that this is only referring to mission restrictions not reserve restrictions. One has to read the whole sentence, not just to the comma

English, the more you know

 Lobukia wrote:
I found it, its for the list entry in the BT codex, but it doesn't change the armory entry, which reads the same as SM or DA.

So not relevant to the discussion, as it edits one of two places in the BT codex only without changing the other

Might I add, I still think its crystal clear that this is only referring to mission restrictions not reserve restrictions. One has to read the whole sentence, not just to the comma

English, the more you know

"you may always take a drink from my refrigerator, even if there is only 1 drink left" does not mean you can take my last drink and only my last drink and no drinks prior to it.

I hate to have to rephrase it like this, I feel it's a bad way to argue, but your high and mighty "I read english better than you" position is simply fictitious, it's not that we aren't reading past the comma, it's that the comma combined with the use of the word "even" fundamentally encapsulates the first half of the sentence as it's own structure of rules before applying additional restrictions (or lack thereof) to it.

 Drunkspleen wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
I found it, its for the list entry in the BT codex, but it doesn't change the armory entry, which reads the same as SM or DA.

So not relevant to the discussion, as it edits one of two places in the BT codex only without changing the other

Might I add, I still think its crystal clear that this is only referring to mission restrictions not reserve restrictions. One has to read the whole sentence, not just to the comma

English, the more you know

"you may always take a drink from my refrigerator, even if there is only 1 drink left" does not mean you can take my last drink and only my last drink and no drinks prior to it.

I hate to have to rephrase it like this, I feel it's a bad way to argue, but your high and mighty "I read english better than you" position is simply fictitious, it's not that we aren't reading past the comma, it's that the comma combined with the use of the word "even" fundamentally encapsulates the first half of the sentence as it's own structure of rules before applying additional restrictions (or lack thereof) to it.

Apples and Oranges. Your real life example is not the same example as the rule. Again, you are exploiting an old rule and ignoring the actual context of the codex entry.

C:SM Terminator armor. "Any model wearing Terminator armour can be teleported onto the battlefield. They may always start the game in reserve and arrive using the deep strike rules, even if it is not part of the mission being played."


Reserves. 'When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy up to half of their units (rounding up) keeping them as Reserves to arrive later.


Terminator armor gives two abilities and you can break the sentence at the "and" and see what they are.

1. They may always start the game in reserve, even if is not part of the mission being played.
2. They may always arrive using Deep Strike rules, even if is not part of the mission being played.

Neither of those permissions states that they can break the 50% reserve rule. Both of those permissions are giving the Terminators the Deep Strike and Reserve rule if the mission being played does not allow it. (Which the standard ones do)

 Drunkspleen wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
I found it, its for the list entry in the BT codex, but it doesn't change the armory entry, which reads the same as SM or DA.

So not relevant to the discussion, as it edits one of two places in the BT codex only without changing the other

Might I add, I still think its crystal clear that this is only referring to mission restrictions not reserve restrictions. One has to read the whole sentence, not just to the comma

English, the more you know

"you may always take a drink from my refrigerator, even if there is only 1 drink left" does not mean you can take my last drink and only my last drink and no drinks prior to it.

I hate to have to rephrase it like this, I feel it's a bad way to argue, but your high and mighty "I read english better than you" position is simply fictitious, it's not that we aren't reading past the comma, it's that the comma combined with the use of the word "even" fundamentally encapsulates the first half of the sentence as it's own structure of rules before applying additional restrictions (or lack thereof) to it.

"Johnny may always walk home, even if the other students are told not to walk home that day"

If Johnny then stands up and leaves the classroom in the middle of day, he's good at understanding rules like you do. The part after the comma, frames the context that we are talking about modes of getting home, not about Johnny ignoring all other restrictions on students heading home.

By the same token, you are trying to use the permission to override one restriction, as shown by the rest of sentence, to override ALL restrictions... even ones made so much later, that they clearly have no connection to the sentence in question what so ever (in grammar, context, or intention). Look, I'm a die-hard SM player, who uses Terminator and DP tandem drops like no one I know. I'd love for you guys to be right, but RAI (clearly) and RAW (apparently not so), you aren't.

If "may always" overrides reserve restrictions, why not turn restrictions to? It either only applies to the restriction referred to, or it applies to all restrictions, not some weird half way point that is more reasonable than the latter.

You may always cast a vote in Ireland, even if you are in prison.

There is an example that follows the same sentence structure. You can always vote even in situations where you would think you cannot.

The context is not as explicit as all that, in fact the context of the BA codex makes it more explicitly a general allowance than you are seeing. They can be teleported... they may always be placed in reserve.... I think that makes it clear that they are allowed to always be put in reserve.

Old rules are exploited but they also hamper your ability more often than not.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
You may always cast a vote in Ireland, even if you are in prison.

There is an example that follows the same sentence structure. You can always vote even in situations where you would think you cannot.

The context is not as explicit as all that, in fact the context of the BA codex makes it more explicitly a general allowance than you are seeing. They can be teleported... they may always be placed in reserve.... I think that makes it clear that they are allowed to always be put in reserve.

Old rules are exploited but they also hamper your ability more often than not.

If you then showed up 2 days early to vote, and wondered why no one was there to give you a ballot, you'd be over applying the lifting of one restriction to all restrictions.

The lifting of one restriction is that they may always be put into reserves. The second restriction is lifted in the second clause where it allows the putting of the unit into reserves and using DS even when the scenario doesn't allow it.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
The lifting of one restriction is that they may always be put into reserves. The second restriction is lifted in the second clause where it allows the putting of the unit into reserves and using DS even when the scenario doesn't allow it.

If in Ireland you can vote 10 months before an election, and if Johnny should be able to walk home after the first bell, then yes. Otherwise no, the sentence is the context for the restriction being lifted

What? Absurd allowances due to the removal of two restrictions are all well and good but they have little to do with the debate.


The paragraph covers the general abilities of a model wearing terminator armour. It covers the saves, then talks about it's teleport ability, then ends with transports. The context of the two sentences in the middle is that the models can teleport into play. This is a form of DS that has some other rules that interact with it such as teleport homer.
The next sentence is how teleport works, the model can always go into reserves and ds into play. The second clause of that sentence allows the first part to happen in games where you would not normally be allowed to put units in reserve or ds.

You do realize that the last post proves our point and refuted yours, right?

The first part is not dependent on the second. The second is an expansion.

 Captain Antivas wrote:
You do realize that the last post proves our point and refuted yours, right?

How so? Your argument is that it is a general rule that just allows the model to ds in games that don't allow ds.
RAW the sentence doesn't support that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
The first part is not dependent on the second. The second is an expansion.

Exactly.

I'm no grammar wiz (but can spell grammar).
If I have 2 scout squads, a lone terminator HQ and 3 squads of terminators, how many can I put in reserve?

50% rule would say 3 of my 6 units.
So 3 units of terminators go into reserve. Now the 4th unit wants to. It's got a rule that says it may always go into reserve, that's a specific codex rule. Since specific > general, and codex > BRB, where's the more specific codex rule that prevents it?

Now, I couldn't put half the scouts in reserve and then try and squeeze in all the terminators.


Think of reserves a bus. It has enough seats for half your units, or all your terminators. Units that MUST start in reserve don't ride the bus.

-Matt

Not sure where you are getting the it's either half the units or all of the terminators. If you had more terminator units 4-5 you could still put something else into reserve first and then put the rest of the terminators into reserve.

Thing is while this is RAW, I don't think it would work very well. You could get situations of people putting their scout squad into reserve and then telling their opponent that they are always allowed to put their terminators in reserve.

They are following the RAW but they are completely TFG.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Not sure where you are getting the it's either half the units or all of the terminators. If you had more terminator units 4-5 you could still put something else into reserve first and then put the rest of the terminators into reserve.

Thing is while this is RAW, I don't think it would work very well. You could get situations of people putting their scout squad into reserve and then telling their opponent that they are always allowed to put their terminators in reserve.

They are following the RAW but they are completely TFG.

Right, its almost like the terminator rule works like demons. It gives the player the choice though. We already have an exception in the BRB for units that must start in reserve. Terminators don't have the "must" rule, but have a similar "may always" rule that is up to the controlling player.

Right now I read the RAW as treating the terminators like demons, if the player so chooses, they don't count against your 50% allowance. We'll soon see how terminators are worded in the upcoming CSM codex to know for sure.

Thing is while this is RAW, I don't think it would work very well. You could get situations of people putting their scout squad into reserve and then telling their opponent that they are always allowed to put their terminators in reserve.

There is no order of operations in putting units in Reserve, though.

You just organize them all at once, and before the game can start, you need to make sure you've made all the appropriate declarations (which units characters are joining, any units in non-dedicated transports, combat squads in a transport, Outflanking or Deep Striking), and followed the maximum on reserves.

So if you have three units of scouts, three of terms, and a term HQ, You can reserve any mix of four of those units (half of 7, rounding up).

If you had only two units of scouts is the question. Because then normal reserve allowance would only be three units. Per my understanding, you could choose to reserve all four units in term armor (including the character), but you would then be forced to deploy the scouts, because the terminators still count against the limit.

I agree. You can always place the terminators.. but they still 'count', so you can't place other units.

HawaiiMatts example is spot on.

As above.

This is the way the rule literally reads. The "even if" does not make the first part ot the sentence contingent on the second.

So in the end, you can go over the 50% limit on reserves, but only if the models going over the limit are in terminator armor or MUST be placed in reserves(Drop Pods, Flyers, etc...)

Absolutely correct.

Reading it any other way requires you to ignore the written rules, which is a bad start to any argument...

As a deathwing player i'd say you can because you are using a (special rule) deepstike ur not choosing to put them into reserves ur choosing to use a special rule which then follows the reserves rules.


deep strike rule page 36: "In order for a unit to be able to Deep Strike, all models in the unit must have the Deep Strike special rule and the unit must start the game in reserve. When placing the unit in reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike

At what point in there dose it say i'm choosing to put my unit into reserves ?? none its saying to use that special rule i must start the game in reserves.

You have the order off there.
To DS you must be have the DS rule and must start in reserve.
DS is conditional on those two points, after that it is still a choice to deploy the unit in this way.
I can place terminators on the board but I may always place them in reserve, nowhere there is there a must.
You have to choose to put them in reserves, that is where and when the choice is made.