It's been spoiled that drop pods and the units inside them are exempt from the tactical restraint rule.

I've encountered two interpretations of this.

In the one I favour the tactical restraint rule applies to your army ( reguardless of whether every unit is exempt). So in a 2000pt game you need a 1000pts on the table. If all your units are in drop pods they can't legally meet the 1000pt requirement so you would not be legally deploying by placeing all your units in drop pods. However by removing your units from the pods you would be able to legally deploy. So this is what you would need to do.

In the second interpretation the tactical reserves rule doesnt apply either because all units are exempt or because those points don't count as being in your army for the purposes of tactical reserves. So you can null deploy. What do people think

I think the Tactical Reserves rule applies to your army, but the Drop Pod (and the unit it carries) deducted from the total. As such, you could null deploy if you army was 100% embarked in Drop Pods. Since the rule is such that any units in the Drop Pod are also exempt from Tactical Reserves rule, an army that is 100% embarked in Drop Pods does not have any part of the Tactical Reserves rule apply to any unit. So you have to have 50% of your 0 points and 0 units start on the battlefield, which is 0. As such, yes, you can null deploy this way.

I'm not able to reason out a way that the Drop Pod could only ignore a portion of the Tactical Reserve rule without it specifically saying so. If you say that the Drop Pod still has to count towards your points and drops, then it's following the Tactical Reserve rule, which we're told to ignore. So if it has to follow that part of the rule, why wouldn't it have to follow the entire rule?

(rules for Drop Pods, for those interested: https://www.belloflostsouls.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/SM-droppod-datafax-2019.jpg)

My answer is I can see that both ways but if your saying the rule applies to your army and that the rule says half your army must be deployed.

Then it is a question of whether the units being exempted would change that initial calculation.

"When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield,"

If i have 2 hq 6 pods and 6 tac squads in my army -to me the answer would be 7 this is calculated before deployment so your not guessing what is a legal number.

Exempting from the tactical reserves rule wouldnt change that army level calculation of 7. Because it occurs before deployment. Even if you exempt pods it might not exempt the units inside because they are not inside and thus exempt till after deployment in the pod.

You could also view them as becoming exempt at the point they are put in the pod but that would only exempt from counting towards the 1000pts.

If you calculate after deployment you could run into a situation where especially with alternate deployments you have deployed all your units but the deployment is illegal

Drops pods and their embarked units ignore the tactical reserves rule, it doesnt apply to them. If you manage to put your entire army in drop pods you can have zero units on the table during deployment. You are not tabled because that cannot happen during the first battle round. Your entire army can deepstrike T1. Your drop pods can deepstrike on any turn. You can do this until the codex FAQ drops, where it will be changed.

 p5freak wrote:
Drops pods and their embarked units ignore the tactical reserves rule, it doesnt apply to them. If you manage to put your entire army in drop pods you can have zero units on the table during deployment. You are not tabled because that cannot happen during the first battle round. Your entire army can deepstrike T1. Your drop pods can deepstrike on any turn. You can do this until the codex FAQ drops, where it will be changed.

Speculation...There is nothing wrong with Null deployment, too much salt.

ThatMG wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Drops pods and their embarked units ignore the tactical reserves rule, it doesnt apply to them. If you manage to put your entire army in drop pods you can have zero units on the table during deployment. You are not tabled because that cannot happen during the first battle round. Your entire army can deepstrike T1. Your drop pods can deepstrike on any turn. You can do this until the codex FAQ drops, where it will be changed.

Speculation...There is nothing wrong with Null deployment, too much salt.

Just need to have enough infiltration type units to spread them 17" apart, so there's no where on the table that's not 9" from an enemy, and you'd prevent them from deploying at all. Highly unlikely, and a very focused-specialized army, but would be hilarious.

Wasn't there a battle where someone with bikes was prevented from deploying by the other player lining scouts up on his table edge? Something like that, bit harder this way though.

It depends on how you parse the Tactical Reserves rule.

 Kcalehc wrote:

ThatMG wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Drops pods and their embarked units ignore the tactical reserves rule, it doesnt apply to them. If you manage to put your entire army in drop pods you can have zero units on the table during deployment. You are not tabled because that cannot happen during the first battle round. Your entire army can deepstrike T1. Your drop pods can deepstrike on any turn. You can do this until the codex FAQ drops, where it will be changed.

Speculation...There is nothing wrong with Null deployment, too much salt.

Just need to have enough infiltration type units to spread them 17" apart, so there's no where on the table that's not 9" from an enemy, and you'd prevent them from deploying at all. Highly unlikely, and a very focused-specialized army, but would be hilarious.

It would be tricky, but an opponent with a fast enough army with enough bodies could flood the board on Turn 1 if they go first. Know your enemy!

Wasn't there a battle where someone with bikes was prevented from deploying by the other player lining scouts up on his table edge? Something like that, bit harder this way though.

There was infamous ETC game where a White Scars biker army deployed totally in reserves. They all would have needed to come on his board edge, so the Tau player lined the back end of the WS deployment zone with Kroot. Game Over before Turn 1 even started.

 alextroy wrote:

 Kcalehc wrote:
Wasn't there a battle where someone with bikes was prevented from deploying by the other player lining scouts up on his table edge? Something like that, bit harder this way though.

There was infamous ETC game where a White Scars biker army deployed totally in reserves. They all would have needed to come on his board edge, so the Tau player lined the back end of the WS deployment zone with Kroot. Game Over before Turn 1 even started.

And that was an arbitrary decision by a tournament judge to hand the game to the Tau player.

Nothing in the rules at the time gave a victory to anyone in that situation.


As for the OP. it looks like null deployment is back.

it was also a different edition

It's an exemption from the entirety of the rule, not just part of the rule.

 Kcalehc wrote:

ThatMG wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Drops pods and their embarked units ignore the tactical reserves rule, it doesnt apply to them. If you manage to put your entire army in drop pods you can have zero units on the table during deployment. You are not tabled because that cannot happen during the first battle round. Your entire army can deepstrike T1. Your drop pods can deepstrike on any turn. You can do this until the codex FAQ drops, where it will be changed.

Speculation...There is nothing wrong with Null deployment, too much salt.

Just need to have enough infiltration type units to spread them 17" apart, so there's no where on the table that's not 9" from an enemy, and you'd prevent them from deploying at all. Highly unlikely, and a very focused-specialized army, but would be hilarious.

Wasn't there a battle where someone with bikes was prevented from deploying by the other player lining scouts up on his table edge? Something like that, bit harder this way though.

If you can't block the entire board what you can do is force where they drop...what is obviously good. I have never had an issue with deploy from off the board armies in any edition as I feel it is thematic. It requires the players to be aware of what they are doing (Skill). Regardless if GW have had a total hatred of it in past editions.

AAANNNDDD, now we're back to the discussion as to whether a deployed drop pod should have the all the doors up or down or some up and some down, and can you change them about during your turn......

Cheers

Andrew

Probably should wait for FAQ on this. It's really not an issue anyways because to null deploy with droppods youd have an absolutely terrible army. Youd be putting 650 points into worthless immobile vehicles with a single storm bolter. Auto lose basically.

Also while they might be exempt for tactical reserve when it comes to 1st turn deep strike which was the intent of the rule they wrote. I would say it isn't immune to the clarifications regarding how much has to start on the table. Regardless of how it is worded.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Probably should wait for FAQ on this. It's really not an issue anyways because to null deploy with droppods youd have an absolutely terrible army. Youd be putting 650 points into worthless immobile vehicles with a single storm bolter. Auto lose basically.

Also while they might be exempt for tactical reserve when it comes to 1st turn deep strike which was the intent of the rule they wrote. I would say it isn't immune to the clarifications regarding how much has to start on the table. Regardless of how it is worded.

Agreed.

I can already hear the rules team groaning, having to write an FAQ to solve this painfully obvious issue.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It depends on how you parse the Tactical Reserves rule.

While this is true the parsing is quite easily done: all the three paragraphs of Tactical Reserves rules state "in matched play" and as DPs are exempt from the "Tactical Reserves Matched Play rules" they are exempt from all of those three paragraphs.

 Yarium wrote:
I think the Tactical Reserves rule applies to your army, but the Drop Pod (and the unit it carries) deducted from the total. As such, you could null deploy if you army was 100% embarked in Drop Pods. Since the rule is such that any units in the Drop Pod are also exempt from Tactical Reserves rule, an army that is 100% embarked in Drop Pods does not have any part of the Tactical Reserves rule apply to any unit. So you have to have 50% of your 0 points and 0 units start on the battlefield, which is 0. As such, yes, you can null deploy this way.

And to go a step ahead:
If you got one 300pt unit of "classic deep strikers" (e.g. Terminators), one 300pt unit starting on the board (e.g. Devastators) and then 1400pts in any number of units in Drop Pods, you could even deep strike the terminators, because -if you exclude the Drop Pods like the rule is written- you got 50% (the 300pts Devs) on the board and they allow you to deep strike the other 50% (the 300pts Terminators).

 Stux wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Probably should wait for FAQ on this. It's really not an issue anyways because to null deploy with droppods youd have an absolutely terrible army. Youd be putting 650 points into worthless immobile vehicles with a single storm bolter. Auto lose basically.

Also while they might be exempt for tactical reserve when it comes to 1st turn deep strike which was the intent of the rule they wrote. I would say it isn't immune to the clarifications regarding how much has to start on the table. Regardless of how it is worded.

Agreed.

I can already hear the rules team groaning, having to write an FAQ to solve this painfully obvious issue.

I actually suspect havibg read the rule via a leak that it's was intended to be completely exempted from the restrictions on all of the drop pod units, as when you actually dig into the rules you can still autoloose due to boots on the ground, can easily be screened off the entire board. It sounds brokenly powerful untill you actually think through the practical issues of playing a 100% drop pod list, it's basically you need a compliant opponent or your probably loosing.

As to the tactical reserves rules if drop pods and unit within them arn't discounted from those limits they may aswell not have bothered to change the rules as they will still be a could've been good but just arn't worthwhile.

I guess we'll see if there's a day one FAQ (or a week 2 FAQ or something).

It's possible it's intended I'll admit - it has been a thing in previous editions. It just seems to go so strongly against the philosophy of 8e.

I am happy to wait and see though, and the RAW is clear until then.

 Stux wrote:
I guess we'll see if there's a day one FAQ (or a week 2 FAQ or something).

It's possible it's intended I'll admit - it has been a thing in previous editions. It just seems to go so strongly against the philosophy of 8e.

I am happy to wait and see though, and the RAW is clear until then.

The entire second SM codex is "against the philosophy of 8e".

No USRs? Let's introduce codex-level mini-USRs.

No Model, No Rules? Captain gets a Bike, no-one else.

Lowered "Rules Bloat"? Everyone gets three hundred different special rules, half of which aren't on the datasheet anymore.

No more codex supplements/Minidexes? Well... you see how well that worked out.

Id say you completely ignore DPs and their passengers for Tactical Reserves as it's really not that obvious that they didn't mean for this to apply to the full rule.
Its not an issue to have it work like that outside of balance concerns, and balance isn't really how you determine whether or not a rule works as intended.

And balance wise I'd think it's a terrible idea to limit yourself to units in drop pods. You're missing out on anything that's not a classic space marine - terminators, vehicles, primaris, Centurions and so on.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I guess we'll see if there's a day one FAQ (or a week 2 FAQ or something).

It's possible it's intended I'll admit - it has been a thing in previous editions. It just seems to go so strongly against the philosophy of 8e.

I am happy to wait and see though, and the RAW is clear until then.

The entire second SM codex is "against the philosophy of 8e".

No USRs? Let's introduce codex-level mini-USRs.

No Model, No Rules? Captain gets a Bike, no-one else.

Lowered "Rules Bloat"? Everyone gets three hundred different special rules, half of which aren't on the datasheet anymore.

No more codex supplements/Minidexes? Well... you see how well that worked out.

You are right here. I'm quietly hopeful for the FAQ on this one, but I won't be totally surprised if it doesn't come.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

No Model, No Rules? Captain gets a Bike, no-one else.

Khan on a Bike?
That's still for sale at GW though.

Khan on a Bike is in the White Scars Codex Supplement, because he is a White Scars model. And he has no options, because the model has no options.

The errata that went live today suggests this was indeed intentional...

They didn't outright say it, but they made a reference to Sudden Death that implies they are aware of this implication.

 Stux wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Probably should wait for FAQ on this. It's really not an issue anyways because to null deploy with droppods youd have an absolutely terrible army. Youd be putting 650 points into worthless immobile vehicles with a single storm bolter. Auto lose basically.

Also while they might be exempt for tactical reserve when it comes to 1st turn deep strike which was the intent of the rule they wrote. I would say it isn't immune to the clarifications regarding how much has to start on the table. Regardless of how it is worded.

Agreed.

I can already hear the rules team groaning, having to write an FAQ to solve this painfully obvious issue.

To be honest they should expect this by now but there is no question in my mind they don't intend the 50% on the board rule to not apply to drop pods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:
The errata that went live today suggests this was indeed intentional...

They didn't outright say it, but they made a reference to Sudden Death that implies they are aware of this implication.

My god. Worst actual outcome. More light suggesting that total exemption is intended. Nothing worse than rules limbo.

Well, making the drop pods ignore tactical restraint makes sense if they're trying to sell more drop pods. I suspect sales haven't been good for a while for them.

 doctortom wrote:
Well, making the drop pods ignore tactical restraint makes sense if they're trying to sell more drop pods. I suspect sales haven't been good for a while for them.

Yeah...They should probably drop it's points to an acceptable value then.

 doctortom wrote:
Well, making the drop pods ignore tactical restraint makes sense if they're trying to sell more drop pods. I suspect sales haven't been good for a while for them.

It doesn't make sense if they're trying to kill Oldmarines though. The GW conspiracy people must be very confused!

If they didn't intend for drop pods to exempt from the entirety of the tactical reserves rule. Then they would have just said, "this unit can deep strike on turn 1 in matched play."

The only other explanation is that the rules writers don't know their own rules. Which would be crazy talk.

balmong7 wrote:
The only other explanation is that the rules writers don't know their own rules. Which would be crazy talk.

This is Games Workshop, this should be the default assumption.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Stux wrote:
The errata that went live today suggests this was indeed intentional...

They didn't outright say it, but they made a reference to Sudden Death that implies they are aware of this implication.

My god. Worst actual outcome. More light suggesting that total exemption is intended. Nothing worse than rules limbo.

From Warhammer Community today:

"One of the most hotly anticipated improvements is that Drop Pods will now be universally exempt from the Tactical Reserves rule in matched play. Loyal Space Marines can once again live up to their epithet as the Angels of Death, crashing down from orbit into the heart of the battle, just like they do in the lore. Whatever happens, though, don’t forget about missions that use the rules for Sudden Death – not even Space Marines can win a battle if they’re not actually there!"

There's also downloads of the rule for drop pod saying they're exempt from Tactical Reserves. No limbo at all.

I have to agree. The RAW was clear already, but this makes the intent pretty clear too. Unfortunately.

Sudden Death doesn't exist in CA2018 missions so weeee..

 doctortom wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Stux wrote:
The errata that went live today suggests this was indeed intentional...

They didn't outright say it, but they made a reference to Sudden Death that implies they are aware of this implication.

My god. Worst actual outcome. More light suggesting that total exemption is intended. Nothing worse than rules limbo.

From Warhammer Community today:

"One of the most hotly anticipated improvements is that Drop Pods will now be universally exempt from the Tactical Reserves rule in matched play. Loyal Space Marines can once again live up to their epithet as the Angels of Death, crashing down from orbit into the heart of the battle, just like they do in the lore. Whatever happens, though, don’t forget about missions that use the rules for Sudden Death – not even Space Marines can win a battle if they’re not actually there!"

There's also downloads of the rule for drop pod saying they're exempt from Tactical Reserves. No limbo at all.

I guess I am miss understanding then. Because the rule where 50% of your points have to start on the table is not sudden death. Drop pods are not exempt to that and it's not even alluded to. Null deploy implies starting your whole army in drop pods. You cant do that because 50% of your army has to start on the table. Right?

 Xenomancers wrote:
I guess I am miss understanding then. Because the rule where 50% of your points have to start on the table is not sudden death. Drop pods are not exempt to that and it's not even alluded to. Null deploy implies starting your whole army in drop pods. You cant do that because 50% of your army has to start on the table. Right?

It's the Tactical Reserves rule which says half of your army must be set up on the battlefield.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I guess I am miss understanding then. Because the rule where 50% of your points have to start on the table is not sudden death. Drop pods are not exempt to that and it's not even alluded to. Null deploy implies starting your whole army in drop pods. You cant do that because 50% of your army has to start on the table. Right?

It's the Tactical Reserves rule which says half of your army must be set up on the battlefield.

Yeah that is what I though. I see what they are saying.They make mistakes in these articles all the time. RAW yes it means you can null deploy but I am pretty confident that isn't what they mean. No argument about RAW - GW just doesn't know their own rules. The sad part is - at this point they might not even fix it. They might say. "Oh cool! So maybe people will stop complaining about drop pods now."

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I guess I am miss understanding then. Because the rule where 50% of your points have to start on the table is not sudden death. Drop pods are not exempt to that and it's not even alluded to. Null deploy implies starting your whole army in drop pods. You cant do that because 50% of your army has to start on the table. Right?

It's the Tactical Reserves rule which says half of your army must be set up on the battlefield.

And Drop Pods are exempt from that rule, meaning you don't count them for the purposes of that rule.

That means if all units are in Drop Pods, the rules state you must place half of 0 units and half of 0 points on the battlefield (so goes the argument).

Everything points to the rules saying exactly what they were intended to say (i.e., you can place your entire army in reserve at the start of the game if they're in drop pods).

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I guess I am miss understanding then. Because the rule where 50% of your points have to start on the table is not sudden death. Drop pods are not exempt to that and it's not even alluded to. Null deploy implies starting your whole army in drop pods. You cant do that because 50% of your army has to start on the table. Right?

It's the Tactical Reserves rule which says half of your army must be set up on the battlefield.

Yeah that is what I though. I see what they are saying.They make mistakes in these articles all the time. RAW yes it means you can null deploy but I am pretty confident that isn't what they mean. No argument about RAW - GW just doesn't know their own rules. The sad part is - at this point they might not even fix it. They might say. "Oh cool! So maybe people will stop complaining about drop pods now."

From the errata:

Add the following to the Drop Pod Assault ability:
‘Matched Play: This model and any units embarked aboard it are exempt
from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule.’

The article just reinforces what we are told in the rule. Being "pretty confident" that that isn't what them mean seems to be ignoring what they're saying. This is a case of you not accepting what they are saying rather then them just not knowing their own rules. You're not going to get them coming out and admitting directly "the drop pod kits aren't moving any more, so we need to make a rule that makes people want to use drop pods again". What we got is as close as what you're going to get for that. On the contrary, in this case they know their rules fully well and know what special rules they want to add to drop pods to make them desirable again.

 Ghaz wrote:
Everything points to the rules saying exactly what they were intended to say (i.e., you can place your entire army in reserve at the start of the game if they're in drop pods).

Agreed. And anyone who argues against it is missing a couple things:
A) As Xenos pointed out, you give up so many good units that can't go in pods, so your army would be horrible
B) It's a game and someone trying this is obviously just playing for fun, because no one would play this to power game (see A above)

-

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I guess I am miss understanding then. Because the rule where 50% of your points have to start on the table is not sudden death. Drop pods are not exempt to that and it's not even alluded to. Null deploy implies starting your whole army in drop pods. You cant do that because 50% of your army has to start on the table. Right?

It's the Tactical Reserves rule which says half of your army must be set up on the battlefield.

Yeah that is what I though. I see what they are saying.They make mistakes in these articles all the time. RAW yes it means you can null deploy but I am pretty confident that isn't what they mean. No argument about RAW - GW just doesn't know their own rules. The sad part is - at this point they might not even fix it. They might say. "Oh cool! So maybe people will stop complaining about drop pods now."

They have explicitly written the rules to allow it, highlighted that it is worded to allow this, isnt some autowin game breaking ability.
Yet you think you know better.
That it's clealry a mistake and that it's against the rules.
GSC can break the tactical reserves rules
GW specifically call out that you loose if you have 0 models.
A null deploment list sounds terrifying untill you actually think through the practical issues of playing a null deployment list in 8th edition, it's an auto loose.

Ice_can wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I guess I am miss understanding then. Because the rule where 50% of your points have to start on the table is not sudden death. Drop pods are not exempt to that and it's not even alluded to. Null deploy implies starting your whole army in drop pods. You cant do that because 50% of your army has to start on the table. Right?

It's the Tactical Reserves rule which says half of your army must be set up on the battlefield.

Yeah that is what I though. I see what they are saying.They make mistakes in these articles all the time. RAW yes it means you can null deploy but I am pretty confident that isn't what they mean. No argument about RAW - GW just doesn't know their own rules. The sad part is - at this point they might not even fix it. They might say. "Oh cool! So maybe people will stop complaining about drop pods now."

They have explicitly written the rules to allow it, highlighted that it is worded to allow this, isnt some autowin game breaking ability.
Yet you think you know better.
That it's clealry a mistake and that it's against the rules.
GSC can break the tactical reserves rules
GW specifically call out that you loose if you have 0 models.
A null deploment list sounds terrifying untill you actually think through the practical issues of playing a null deployment list in 8th edition, it's an auto loose.

Well it's not really a benefit because the drop pod is crap for 65 points. I guess you could go really all in on it and deep strike more than 1000 points of 2000 points. Cause everything in the pod is exempt. Now they will need to give us clarification as to how to calculate how much you can put in reserves. Do exempt units count towards your total point allotment? I guess they cant because if they did you would still auto lose because you don't have 50% of your army on the table. Right? GSC doesn't really break the rules ether. They deploy in ambush - they are technically on the table just in an undetermined position.

Ice_can wrote:

A null deploment list sounds terrifying untill you actually think through the practical issues of playing a null deployment list in 8th edition, it's an auto loose.

It's not if you can arrive turn 1 though. You don't lose until the end of the first Battle Round.

 Stux wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

A null deploment list sounds terrifying untill you actually think through the practical issues of playing a null deployment list in 8th edition, it's an auto loose.

It's not if you can arrive turn 1 though. You don't lose until the end of the first Battle Round.

And how many armies can if they go first totally zone out an entire table it's actually not as hard as you would think.

Drop pods will be a 1 or 2 per army thing tops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I guess I am miss understanding then. Because the rule where 50% of your points have to start on the table is not sudden death. Drop pods are not exempt to that and it's not even alluded to. Null deploy implies starting your whole army in drop pods. You cant do that because 50% of your army has to start on the table. Right?

It's the Tactical Reserves rule which says half of your army must be set up on the battlefield.

Yeah that is what I though. I see what they are saying.They make mistakes in these articles all the time. RAW yes it means you can null deploy but I am pretty confident that isn't what they mean. No argument about RAW - GW just doesn't know their own rules. The sad part is - at this point they might not even fix it. They might say. "Oh cool! So maybe people will stop complaining about drop pods now."

They have explicitly written the rules to allow it, highlighted that it is worded to allow this, isnt some autowin game breaking ability.
Yet you think you know better.
That it's clealry a mistake and that it's against the rules.
GSC can break the tactical reserves rules
GW specifically call out that you loose if you have 0 models.
A null deploment list sounds terrifying untill you actually think through the practical issues of playing a null deployment list in 8th edition, it's an auto loose.

Well it's not really a benefit because the drop pod is crap for 65 points. I guess you could go really all in on it and deep strike more than 1000 points of 2000 points. Cause everything in the pod is exempt. Now they will need to give us clarification as to how to calculate how much you can put in reserves. Do exempt units count towards your total point allotment? I guess they cant because if they did you would still auto lose because you don't have 50% of your army on the table. Right? GSC doesn't really break the rules ether. They deploy in ambush - they are technically on the table just in an undetermined position.

If they are exempt from the rule why would they be included in any calculation to so with said rule.
If you so desire as BCB said you can deploy 0 points and 0 units of your entire army as 50% of zero outside of a pod is 0 and 0 units.
Your clealry not getting it but you hate on drop pods I can see them actually becoming a meta list unit only 1 maybe 2 but I expect they will be in a few high placing list.

Ice_can wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

A null deploment list sounds terrifying untill you actually think through the practical issues of playing a null deployment list in 8th edition, it's an auto loose.

It's not if you can arrive turn 1 though. You don't lose until the end of the first Battle Round.

And how many armies can if they go first totally zone out an entire table it's actually not as hard as you would think.

Very few, unless they're running an extreme skew list specifically to build for it.

Hilariously the best army at doing this would be Marines doing a null deploy Drop Pod army - and getting first turn

Stux wrote:
It's not if you can arrive turn 1 though. You don't lose until the end of the first Battle Round.

You cannot be tabled in the first battle round.

Page 215 – Sudden Death
If at the end of any turn after the first battle round, one
player has no models on the battlefield, the game ends
immediately and their opponent automatically wins a
crushing victory....

Ice_can wrote:

And how many armies can if they go first totally zone out an entire table it's actually not as hard as you would think.

If you build a list to do that, most armies can. But you dont build a list for T1 area denial, so only a few armies will be able to do that.

Good catch.

Yeah, Space Marines really don't need to worry about losing without deploying unless that list so strong it becomes the meta list to beat.

Ice_can wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

A null deploment list sounds terrifying untill you actually think through the practical issues of playing a null deployment list in 8th edition, it's an auto loose.

It's not if you can arrive turn 1 though. You don't lose until the end of the first Battle Round.

And how many armies can if they go first totally zone out an entire table it's actually not as hard as you would think.

Drop pods will be a 1 or 2 per army thing tops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I guess I am miss understanding then. Because the rule where 50% of your points have to start on the table is not sudden death. Drop pods are not exempt to that and it's not even alluded to. Null deploy implies starting your whole army in drop pods. You cant do that because 50% of your army has to start on the table. Right?

It's the Tactical Reserves rule which says half of your army must be set up on the battlefield.

Yeah that is what I though. I see what they are saying.They make mistakes in these articles all the time. RAW yes it means you can null deploy but I am pretty confident that isn't what they mean. No argument about RAW - GW just doesn't know their own rules. The sad part is - at this point they might not even fix it. They might say. "Oh cool! So maybe people will stop complaining about drop pods now."

They have explicitly written the rules to allow it, highlighted that it is worded to allow this, isnt some autowin game breaking ability.
Yet you think you know better.
That it's clealry a mistake and that it's against the rules.
GSC can break the tactical reserves rules
GW specifically call out that you loose if you have 0 models.
A null deploment list sounds terrifying untill you actually think through the practical issues of playing a null deployment list in 8th edition, it's an auto loose.

Well it's not really a benefit because the drop pod is crap for 65 points. I guess you could go really all in on it and deep strike more than 1000 points of 2000 points. Cause everything in the pod is exempt. Now they will need to give us clarification as to how to calculate how much you can put in reserves. Do exempt units count towards your total point allotment? I guess they cant because if they did you would still auto lose because you don't have 50% of your army on the table. Right? GSC doesn't really break the rules ether. They deploy in ambush - they are technically on the table just in an undetermined position.

If they are exempt from the rule why would they be included in any calculation to so with said rule.
If you so desire as BCB said you can deploy 0 points and 0 units of your entire army as 50% of zero outside of a pod is 0 and 0 units.
Your clealry not getting it but you hate on drop pods I can see them actually becoming a meta list unit only 1 maybe 2 but I expect they will be in a few high placing list.

K lets just sazy you have 650 points in drop pods. Do you take the remaining 1350 points and divid by 2? So can you deep strike 675 points worth of other stuff? with 675 on the table? Or do they count the stuff that is in pods as part of your total army of 2000. They ether count as being part of your army or they don't. If they aren't part of your army you can't null deploy because you have 0 of 2000 on the table - tactical reserves is a rule for your army - not individual units. If they aren't part of your armies point allowance the most you can deep strike is what ever is not in pods up to the difference of total points - drop pods divided by 2. Seems to me you have to have at least 1 unit on the table not in deep strike in order to bring the rest of your army in pods.It is also clear this hasn't be thought out because it is not clarified. Which also leads me to believe it is not intended. Heck...why would they intend this? Null deploy was effing destroyed for tyrranids and they came up with the 50% of points must start on table rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:
Good catch.

Yeah, Space Marines really don't need to worry about losing without deploying unless that list so strong it becomes the meta list to beat.

0 risk of that space marines will have a hard enough time winning games without 65 point taxes for doing what other armies can do for free with m much more threatening units.

Drop your pods by objectives too.

Forces your opponent to pour firepower (or CC it) instead of targeting the rest of your army.

Right?

Also... don't know if this was answered... what about the pod's "doors"? Is it the hull? If so... that's a hella denial area.

 Xenomancers wrote:

K lets just sazy you have 650 points in drop pods. Do you take the remaining 1350 points and divid by 2? So can you deep strike 675 points worth of other stuff? with 675 on the table? Or do they count the stuff that is in pods as part of your total army of 2000. They ether count as being part of your army or they don't. If they aren't part of your army you can't null deploy because you have 0 of 2000 on the table - tactical reserves is a rule for your army - not individual units. If they aren't part of your armies point allowance the most you can deep strike is what ever is not in pods up to the difference of total points - drop pods divided by 2. Seems to me you have to have at least 1 unit on the table not in deep strike in order to bring the rest of your army in pods.It is also clear this hasn't be thought out because it is not clarified. Which also leads me to believe it is not intended. Heck...why would they intend this? Null deploy was effing destroyed for tyrranids and they came up with the 50% of points must start on table rule.

It's simple if you have 1000 points of your 2000 point list in drop pods you need to put 500 points and half of the number of units in that 1000 points not in drop pods on the table.

I really don't get what you think needs clarification this model and all models embarked are exempted from tactical reserves rules.

It couldn't be any more obviously intentional.

Just to really clarify this if every unit in your army is exempted from tactical reserves rules your army is exempted from tactical reserves rules.

Any percentage of 0 and 0 is still 0

It requires clarification. If these units are exempt in pods. They don't even count towards your deep strike allowance. You could deep strike however many points you want in pods and then deep strike 1/2 of your remaining forces as well. Therein lies the problem - they didn't tell us how to do that. Nothing limits this to use in a space marine mono army ether. You really think they intended to overrule the first big change they made to the game with deep strike reserves? The literally just want to allow you to deep strike turn 1 in a pod. It's not even reasonable otherwise. There is nothing to gain ether but breaking the rules.

Also for null deploy. 0% of 100% is not 50%. 0% of 0% is undefined. How can you have no army?

 Xenomancers wrote:
It requires clarification. If these units are exempt in pods. They don't even count towards your deep strike allowance. You could deep strike however many points you want in pods and then deep strike 1/2 of your remaining forces as well. Therein lies the problem - they didn't tell us how to do that. Nothing limits this to use in a space marine mono army ether. You really think they intended to overrule the first big change they made to the game with deep strike reserves? The literally just want to allow you to deep strike turn 1 in a pod. It's not even reasonable otherwise. There is nothing to gain ether but breaking the rules.

Also for null deploy. 0% of 100% is not 50%. 0% of 0% is undefined. How can you have no army?

You're not trying to determine 0% of 0%, you're determining 0% of an arbitrary value (say, 2000), which is always 0. The 100% in your example is simply 2000.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It requires clarification. If these units are exempt in pods. They don't even count towards your deep strike allowance. You could deep strike however many points you want in pods and then deep strike 1/2 of your remaining forces as well. Therein lies the problem - they didn't tell us how to do that. Nothing limits this to use in a space marine mono army ether. You really think they intended to overrule the first big change they made to the game with deep strike reserves? The literally just want to allow you to deep strike turn 1 in a pod. It's not even reasonable otherwise. There is nothing to gain ether but breaking the rules.

Also for null deploy. 0% of 100% is not 50%. 0% of 0% is undefined. How can you have no army?

Again from the Space Marines Errata:

‘Matched Play: This model and any units embarked aboard it are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule.’

The rule is clear. They are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule. No exceptions.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It requires clarification. If these units are exempt in pods. They don't even count towards your deep strike allowance. You could deep strike however many points you want in pods and then deep strike 1/2 of your remaining forces as well. Therein lies the problem - they didn't tell us how to do that. Nothing limits this to use in a space marine mono army ether. You really think they intended to overrule the first big change they made to the game with deep strike reserves? The literally just want to allow you to deep strike turn 1 in a pod. It's not even reasonable otherwise. There is nothing to gain ether but breaking the rules.

Also for null deploy. 0% of 100% is not 50%. 0% of 0% is undefined. How can you have no army?

If your army, for tactical restraint, has 0 points, you need to deploy 0 points on the table. It's really not that hard to do this, it's just that you don't want to accept it.

The proper calculation is 0 divided by 2. Not. That. Hard.

You are assuming that the point for units put into pods are subtracted from your armys total points for tactical restraint. This is an assumption no?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It requires clarification. If these units are exempt in pods. They don't even count towards your deep strike allowance. You could deep strike however many points you want in pods and then deep strike 1/2 of your remaining forces as well. Therein lies the problem - they didn't tell us how to do that. Nothing limits this to use in a space marine mono army ether. You really think they intended to overrule the first big change they made to the game with deep strike reserves? The literally just want to allow you to deep strike turn 1 in a pod. It's not even reasonable otherwise. There is nothing to gain ether but breaking the rules.

Also for null deploy. 0% of 100% is not 50%. 0% of 0% is undefined. How can you have no army?

Again from the Space Marines Errata:

‘Matched Play: This model and any units embarked aboard it are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule.’

The rule is clear. They are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule. No exceptions.

Exempt would impliy restrictions do apply to you. The rest of your army is not exempt and still has to comply with the half points have to start on the table requirement - this would remain true even if you don't have anymore army IMO - you still have a 2000 point army. So you are saying exempt units don't have a point value added to your whole armies total? I am assuming that is what you are assuming. Assuming is not good in a game based on rules.

Easy solution would be to take a single, easy to hide unit that isn't in a Pod and everything else in a Pod. So the Pods are exempt and you just deploy your 1 unit. Now 100% of your non-exempt units have been deployed. Rule satisfied

-

 Xenomancers wrote:
Exempt would impliy restrictions do apply to you. The rest of your army is not exempt and still has to comply with the half points have to start on the table requirement - this would remain true even if you don't have anymore army IMO - you still have a 2000 point army. So you are saying exempt units don't have a point value added to your whole armies total? I am assuming that is what you are assuming. Assuming is not good in a game based on rules.

Again, you're still trying to make the Tactical Reserves rule apply to units that are exempt to the rule.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You are assuming that the point for units put into pods are subtracted from your armys total points for tactical restraint. This is an assumption no?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It requires clarification. If these units are exempt in pods. They don't even count towards your deep strike allowance. You could deep strike however many points you want in pods and then deep strike 1/2 of your remaining forces as well. Therein lies the problem - they didn't tell us how to do that. Nothing limits this to use in a space marine mono army ether. You really think they intended to overrule the first big change they made to the game with deep strike reserves? The literally just want to allow you to deep strike turn 1 in a pod. It's not even reasonable otherwise. There is nothing to gain ether but breaking the rules.

Also for null deploy. 0% of 100% is not 50%. 0% of 0% is undefined. How can you have no army?

Again from the Space Marines Errata:

‘Matched Play: This model and any units embarked aboard it are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule.’

The rule is clear. They are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule. No exceptions.

Exempt would impliy restrictions do apply to you. The rest of your army is not exempt and still has to comply with the half points have to start on the table requirement - this would remain true even if you don't have anymore army IMO - you still have a 2000 point army. So you are saying exempt units don't have a point value added to your whole armies total? I am assuming that is what you are assuming. Assuming is not good in a game based on rules.

I read a rule that says that certain units are exempt from Tactical restrain. So I get to ignore any unit that's exempt.

If I put half my army in pods, the other half is what TR applies to. Since it ignores my exempt units, it'll consider my army to be whatever there is that isn't exempt.

If that's 1000 points and 5 units, you'll have to deploy at least 500 points and 3 units on the table.

If it's 0 points and 0 units, you must deploy half of that. And that's 0 points and 0 units.

Its not "assuming". It's applying the rules.

You're the one that assumes that this can't be correct, and that there has to be a way to prevent null deployment, and now you're grasping at straws to justify that opinion.

Just an FYI for everyone in this thread:

The rule in question is Tactical RESERVES.

Tactical Restraint is the one about capping the amount of CP you can generate.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Exempt would impliy restrictions do apply to you. The rest of your army is not exempt and still has to comply with the half points have to start on the table requirement - this would remain true even if you don't have anymore army IMO - you still have a 2000 point army. So you are saying exempt units don't have a point value added to your whole armies total? I am assuming that is what you are assuming. Assuming is not good in a game based on rules.

Again, you're still trying to make the Tactical Reserves rule apply to units that are exempt to the rule.

No I am not. Tactical reserves is a rule your army must follow. Some units being exempt does not make the rest of your army exempt. What I am saying is. If you are in a 2000 point game and even if all your units you are fielding are exempt you still have 0 points of 2000 on the battle field. No where in this clarification on the community article does it state that the calculation you should use here is "0 points of 0 points" - you still have a 2000 point army so 1000 points must be on the table even if all of those 2000 points are exempt. The tactical reserves rule applies to your army. Not any particular unit. In order to null deploy a clarification of how to calculate exempt units is needed. Anything less is an assumption. Assumption = not valid.

GW can't write rules - that isn't my fault. I think it is pretty clear what they are trying to do here. They are trying to allow you to deep strike turn 1 in a pod and also allow you to deep strike turn 4, 5, or 6.

 Xenomancers wrote:
you still have a 2000 point army so 1000 points must be on the table even if all of those 2000 points are exempt.

Exempt:
"free from an obligation or liability imposed on others"

So exempt does not mean exempt? If you still have to follow tactical reserves even if your entire army is exempt, then what does this rule do exactly? It seems pretty silly to look at this as "This says they're exempt, but they're not exempt." I know GW can't write rules well, but this stance is pretty silly. If a 2,000 point army has 500 points exempt from the reserves rule, then it has 1500 points that it applies to. Half of that, being 750, is what needs to be on the board. If you have 1500 exempt, you have 500 it applies to, and need 250 on the board. Saying that the rest of your army still has to follow the reserves rule for the full 2000 points (so 1000 on the board) is going against what it says, it doesn't say only the turn restriction, it says the tactical reserve rule, the whole thing.

 Xenomancers wrote:

GW can't write rules - that isn't my fault. I think it is pretty clear what they are trying to do here. They are trying to allow you to deep strike turn 1 in a pod and also allow you to deep strike turn 4, 5, or 6.

True, which doesn't change the fact that your entire army is exempt from the tactical reserves rule when it's in pods. Intended ? Maybe not, we will have to wait for the codec FAQ.

Cleric wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
you still have a 2000 point army so 1000 points must be on the table even if all of those 2000 points are exempt.

Exempt:
"free from an obligation or liability imposed on others"

So exempt does not mean exempt? If you still have to follow tactical reserves even if your entire army is exempt, then what does this rule do exactly? It seems pretty silly to look at this as "This says they're exempt, but they're not exempt." I know GW can't write rules well, but this stance is pretty silly. If a 2,000 point army has 500 points exempt from the reserves rule, then it has 1500 points that it applies to. Half of that, being 750, is what needs to be on the board. If you have 1500 exempt, you have 500 it applies to, and need 250 on the board. Saying that the rest of your army still has to follow the reserves rule for the full 2000 points (so 1000 on the board) is going against what it says, it doesn't say only the turn restriction, it says the tactical reserve rule, the whole thing.

its saying the tactical reserves rule applys to you army and the number of units you need on the field is calculated prior to deployment only at deployment do the units in pods become exempt - its a timing issue the pods themselves would arguably be exempt reguardless but not the content

 p5freak wrote:

True, which doesn't change the fact that your entire army is exempt from the tactical reserves rule when it's in pods. Intended ? Maybe not, we will have to wait for the codec FAQ.

I want to say I've already seen one, but I can't remember where, so I can't say if it was official, or a hobbyist site trying to parse this themselves.

I want to say it said the pods, and their units were exempt from the rule, so you applied to the rule to whatever percent of your army wasn't in pods, and it make a special effort to call out the rules for being tabled. Maybe that'll be enough info for someone who remembers this better to link it.

 p5freak wrote:
True, which doesn't change the fact that your entire army is exempt from the tactical reserves rule when it's in pods. Intended ? Maybe not, we will have to wait for the codec FAQ.

Is your army exempt, though? The units within it are, but the army itself doesn't gain unit abilities just because it consists of only that unit. The army requirement from Tac Res is that half be on the table.

Breton wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

True, which doesn't change the fact that your entire army is exempt from the tactical reserves rule when it's in pods. Intended ? Maybe not, we will have to wait for the codec FAQ.

I want to say I've already seen one, but I can't remember where, so I can't say if it was official, or a hobbyist site trying to parse this themselves.

I want to say it said the pods, and their units were exempt from the rule, so you applied to the rule to whatever percent of your army wasn't in pods, and it make a special effort to call out the rules for being tabled. Maybe that'll be enough info for someone who remembers this better to link it.

This is the kind of clarification I am looking for. How hard would it be to just make that clarification when they like...made the clarification?

dode74 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
True, which doesn't change the fact that your entire army is exempt from the tactical reserves rule when it's in pods. Intended ? Maybe not, we will have to wait for the codec FAQ.

Is your army exempt, though? The units within it are, but the army itself doesn't gain unit abilities just because it consists of only that unit. The army requirement from Tac Res is that half be on the table.

When my entire army is in pods my entire army is exempt from the tactical reserves rule.

 p5freak wrote:

dode74 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
True, which doesn't change the fact that your entire army is exempt from the tactical reserves rule when it's in pods. Intended ? Maybe not, we will have to wait for the codec FAQ.

Is your army exempt, though? The units within it are, but the army itself doesn't gain unit abilities just because it consists of only that unit. The army requirement from Tac Res is that half be on the table.

When my entire army is in pods my entire army is exempt from the tactical reserves rule.

Your units are all in pods, but your army still has a value of 2000. 1000 of those points need to be on the table. Regardless of whether you have pods or not your army's value is 2000.

Armies don't gain unit abilities.

dode74 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

dode74 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
True, which doesn't change the fact that your entire army is exempt from the tactical reserves rule when it's in pods. Intended ? Maybe not, we will have to wait for the codec FAQ.

Is your army exempt, though? The units within it are, but the army itself doesn't gain unit abilities just because it consists of only that unit. The army requirement from Tac Res is that half be on the table.

When my entire army is in pods my entire army is exempt from the tactical reserves rule.

Your units are all in pods, but your army still has a value of 2000. 1000 of those points need to be on the table.

Armies don't gain unit abilities.

Someone with a rulebook in front them check where in the rules it says that armies point values are locked in ahead of the game. I was under the impression that rules are not actually written with the idea that players are setting point totals in advance. but rather you just tally up the points of your army whenever the rules request it. Which would mean that in the case of this rule. You don't have a 2000pt army. You have a 0 pt army since everything is excluded from the rule. if you put 750 pts in drop pods, then you have a 1250 pt army.

This is for sure how it would work in open or narrative play. but the matched play rules may explicitly state that point values are locked in before a match.

BRB page 214

When choosing an army for a matched play game, your
army must be Battle-forged (pg 240) and its total points
value cannot exceed the limit set for your game.

...

POINTS LIMIT
In a matched play game, you will need to determine
with your opponent the points limit for your game.
Usually, both players will use the same limit, but this
does not need to be the case.
To use a points limit, you will need to reference
the points values, which are found in a number of
Warhammer 40,000 publications, such as codexes. In
these you will find the points costs for every model
and weapon described in that book. Simply add up the
points values of all the models and weapons in your
army, and make sure the total does not exceed the
agreed limit for the game.

That first paragraph states that your army has a total points value before the game.

For each mission:

THE ARMIES
Each player selects a Battle-forged army to an agreed
points limit.

Breton wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

True, which doesn't change the fact that your entire army is exempt from the tactical reserves rule when it's in pods. Intended ? Maybe not, we will have to wait for the codec FAQ.

I want to say I've already seen one, but I can't remember where, so I can't say if it was official, or a hobbyist site trying to parse this themselves.

I want to say it said the pods, and their units were exempt from the rule, so you applied to the rule to whatever percent of your army wasn't in pods, and it make a special effort to call out the rules for being tabled. Maybe that'll be enough info for someone who remembers this better to link it.

It makes sense logically to do that but we aren't instructed to do that.

dode74 wrote:
BRB page 214

When choosing an army for a matched play game, your
army must be Battle-forged (pg 240) and its total points
value cannot exceed the limit set for your game.

...

POINTS LIMIT
In a matched play game, you will need to determine
with your opponent the points limit for your game.
Usually, both players will use the same limit, but this
does not need to be the case.
To use a points limit, you will need to reference
the points values, which are found in a number of
Warhammer 40,000 publications, such as codexes. In
these you will find the points costs for every model
and weapon described in that book. Simply add up the
points values of all the models and weapons in your
army, and make sure the total does not exceed the
agreed limit for the game.

That first paragraph states that your army has a total points value before the game.

For each mission:

THE ARMIES
Each player selects a Battle-forged army to an agreed
points limit.

Technically it sets a limit. If I only bring 1750 points then does that mean I can deepstrike 1000pts because the limit is 2000? When do we determine the final cost of our army for the sake of tactical reserves if I'm not using drop pods?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, the argument I'm making here is that you only actually check the point value of your army when a rule calls for it. "Am i under the agreed point limit." "Is half my army in deepstrike."

So for the drop pods ignoring that rule. when you are checking if you army meets the requirements of it. Those units wouldn't be part of your army.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Probably should wait for FAQ on this. It's really not an issue anyways because to null deploy with droppods youd have an absolutely terrible army. Youd be putting 650 points into worthless immobile vehicles with a single storm bolter. Auto lose basically.

Also while they might be exempt for tactical reserve when it comes to 1st turn deep strike which was the intent of the rule they wrote. I would say it isn't immune to the clarifications regarding how much has to start on the table. Regardless of how it is worded.

Hey if someone wants to devote a 3rd of their army into drop pods, then I'm all game for it! God thing I have many long ranged guns and plenty of speed bumps! ^^

balmong7 wrote:
Technically it sets a limit. If I only bring 1750 points then does that mean I can deepstrike 1000pts because the limit is 2000? When do we determine the final cost of our army for the sake of tactical reserves if I'm not using drop pods?

It states that your "total points value cannot exceed the limit" and explains how to calculate the points value ensuring it is under the limit. The total points value is calculated before the battle. The bit in the missions under the "The Armies" heading sets what the limit is.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, the argument I'm making here is that you only actually check the point value of your army when a rule calls for it. "Am i under the agreed point limit." "Is half my army in deepstrike."

Source please.

dode74 wrote:
It states that your "total points value cannot exceed the limit" and explains how to calculate the points value ensuring it is under the limit. The total points value is calculated before the battle. The bit in the missions under the "The Armies" heading sets what the limit is.

Yes, the rule says when to calculate the size of the army *for the purpose of ensuring it doesn't exceed the agreed-upon limit*. RAW never says this size of an army is to be used for any other calculations.

Source please.

You can see it posted here, a few posts earlier, or you can read the BRB, pg. 214.

The tactical reserves rule, which is pg. 215 of BRB requires half the total number of units in your army to be set up on the battlefield during Deployment. However, if all the units in an army are exempt from the rule, then you're left with 0 units to apply the rule to, and 0/2 = 0, and so if you do have 0 units on the table, you're meeting the rule.

The updated version, from WH40k update, April 2019, says this: When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined points value of all the units you set up on the battlefield during deployment (including those that are embarked aboard Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your army’s total points value, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.

This means that the combined points value of an army for the purpose of this rule, and the number of units, is determined during deployment (When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game), and by that time, the drop pod army's units are already exempt from the rule, and again we get the 0/2=0 result.

the rule says when to calculate the size of the army *for the purpose of ensuring it doesn't exceed the agreed-upon limit*.

No it doesn't. It says how to calculate it and that it must not be greater than that limit, but does not state that calculating it is for that purpose.

RAW never says this size of an army is to be used for any other calculations.

Nor does it say the value gets recalculated at any other time, nor that it changes.

There is no source for your statements because you assume, contrary to the rulebook, that you recalculate the "total points value" of your army every time.

dode74 wrote:

the rule says when to calculate the size of the army *for the purpose of ensuring it doesn't exceed the agreed-upon limit*.

No it doesn't. It says how to calculate it and that it must not be greater than that limit, but does not state that calculating it is for that purpose.

RAW never says this size of an army is to be used for any other calculations.

Nor does it say the value gets recalculated at any other time, nor that it changes.

There is no source for your statements because you assume, contrary to the rulebook, that you recalculate the "total points value" of your army every time.

Ummm, to quote the page 214 of the BRB: In a matched play game, you will need to determine with your opponent the points limit for the game.

The rule says nothing about the *size of an army*, it is a point limit for *the game*. You add up the points of models and weapons *in* an army, to make sure you're within the limit for the game, but you're not calculating the size *of* an army.

I posted all the relevant rules above. It specifically refers to the "total points value" in the preface para and later on tells you that you have to agree to a limit and how to calculate the points value, and that it must not exceed the total.

When choosing an army for a matched play game, your
army must be Battle-forged (pg 240) and its total points
value cannot exceed the limit set for your game.
...
POINTS LIMIT
In a matched play game, you will need to determine
with your opponent the points limit for your game.
Usually, both players will use the same limit, but this
does not need to be the case.
To use a points limit, you will need to reference
the points values, which are found in a number of
Warhammer 40,000 publications, such as codexes. In
these you will find the points costs for every model
and weapon described in that book. Simply add up the
points values of all the models and weapons in your
army, and make sure the total does not exceed the
agreed limit for the game.

Okay, so go and read what you've posted. I'll highlight the important sequence here:

In a matched play game, you will need to determine
with your opponent the points limit for your game.

See? The points limit of a *game*, not a size of an army. The term "size of an army" is nowhere in the text you've quoted. The text repeatedly uses the term "points limit", and says the sum of all points values in an army must not exceed the limit, but it never introduces a size of an army as a defined value.

i do not get why people still think DP can't Null delpoy.

Tactical Reserves rules had a limit of
Half your units (changed an faq)
Half Points Value (2nd nerf hammer)
Liimts on Turn Numbers.

If you have an army that entirely consists of Drop Pods and units inside said drop pods. You ignore ALL restrictions on the above.

You have 0 units, 0 points, an can deploy when ever you want to. An if you not an idiot you should play CA2018 missions where sudden death isn't a thing sooo weee.

People are way overacting to the strength of this army.

Battle Round One

SM player: “Haha I null deploy and go first! You can’t kill anything!”

Probably doesn’t score much.

Eldar player: <zooms infantry, jetbikes, Serpents and planes out across the board>


Battle Round Two

SM player: “Ummm yeah I can’t place my doods...”

Eldar player: “Oh well!”

noname_hero wrote:
Okay, so go and read what you've posted. I'll highlight the important sequence here:

In a matched play game, you will need to determine
with your opponent the points limit for your game.

See? The points limit of a *game*, not a size of an army. The term "size of an army" is nowhere in the text you've quoted. The text repeatedly uses the term "points limit", and says the sum of all points values in an army must not exceed the limit, but it never introduces a size of an army as a defined value.

Now you read the relevant bit:

your
army must be Battle-forged (pg 240) and its total points
value cannot exceed the limit set for your game

I've even bolded and underlined it for you.

ThatMG wrote:
i do not get why people still think DP can't Null delpoy.

Tactical Reserves rules had a limit of
Half your units (changed an faq)
Half Points Value (2nd nerf hammer)
Liimts on Turn Numbers.

If you have an army that entirely consists of Drop Pods and units inside said drop pods. You ignore ALL restrictions on the above.

You have 0 units, 0 points, an can deploy when ever you want to. An if you not an idiot you should play CA2018 missions where sudden death isn't a thing sooo weee.

People are way overacting to the strength of this army.

Tactical Reserves rules had a limit of
Half your units (changed an faq)
Half Points Value (2nd nerf hammer)
Liimts on Turn Numbers.

This is correct

If you have an army that entirely consists of Drop Pods and units inside said drop pods. You ignore ALL restrictions on the above.

This is assumption not fact.

Tactical reserves applys to your army when does this happen?

Your assumption is that the check happens after deployment so 0 models count if that is the case then you are correct.

However if the check happens after list construction or prior to deployment the units you subsequently choose to deploy in the
Pods are not in the pods so are not exempt at that time. You would then have to deploy half your army -drop pods reguardless of whether they later chose to deploy in the pods


Finnally if we dont check till after deployment would it be acceptable in a 2000pt game useing alternate deployment to deploy 1500 pts in reserve see where you positioned your troops and then determine i had put too many in reserve because if the check doesnt happen till after deployment as you assume i could do that

The check obviously happens when you put units into reserves. Because the rule is about putting units into reserves. This is during deployment. In order to have a legal deployment you have to have 1/2 of your total points (exempt units still contribute to this total as they are part of your army - they aren't exempt from being part of your army unless otherwise clarified). So Beit as it may you have a full exempt army. You still have to deploy half of your points on the table to have a legal deployment.

 Xenomancers wrote:
In order to have a legal deployment you have to have 1/2 of your total points (exempt units still contribute to this total as they are part of your army - they aren't exempt from being part of your army unless otherwise clarified).

It seems that you do not know what exempt means.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The check obviously happens when you put units into reserves. Because the rule is about putting units into reserves. This is during deployment. In order to have a legal deployment you have to have 1/2 of your total points (exempt units still contribute to this total as they are part of your army - they aren't exempt from being part of your army unless otherwise clarified). So Beit as it may you have a full exempt army. You still have to deploy half of your points on the table to have a legal deployment.

They are exempt for the purpose of that rule. That's literally what the drop pods rules say.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
In order to have a legal deployment you have to have 1/2 of your total points (exempt units still contribute to this total as they are part of your army - they aren't exempt from being part of your army unless otherwise clarified).

It seems that you do not know what exempt means.

This...they are like doing 4+4 = 9 guys I can math!

I think the rules are written are far from clear and without an FAQ to make it clear we will be going around in circles.

Of the three paragraphs that make up the Tactical Reserves rules the last two concerning
1) No turn 1 deployment, and
2) Being considered destroyed if they haven’t arrived by the end of Turn 3
Both explicitly solely target those units held in reserves.

Thus, with Drop Pods and their embarked units being exempt from the Tactical Reserve rules there isn’t an argument on whether they can turn up on Turn 1, 4,5,6 or 7.


However, the 1st Paragraph would seem to target ‘your army’ rather than the specific consistent units of that army (which individually may be exempt). This posses 2 questions which seem to be the core of the current discussion.
1) Is rule applied at the army level?
and
2) If any army is entirely composed of units that are exempt from the rule does this make the entire army exempt?


So in trying to answer 1)
To me the phrasing on the 1st paragraph appears to target, and thus place the restrictions on ‘Your Army’. So whilst constituent elements of the army may not have to obey this rule, the army, as a whole still does (it is the army, as a whole that must meet the requirement). Thus the 50% restrictions are still applicable to the army.

In considering 2)
Whilst I can see the logic behind going
‘All the units in my army are exempt from Tactical Reserves thus my Army is exempt’ this transfer/ inheritance of exemption isn’t specially laid out.

There is discussion on how drops pods and units embarked unit interact with other units and the ability of other units to be held in reserve. Which I think can prove valuable to answer the above,

Whilst the drop pods and units embarked within them are exempt from the Tactical Reserves rule (the answers to 1 and 2 actually don’t matter). Any element of the army that is still bound by Tactical Reserves Rules must adhere to it.

The calculation for determining the minimum number of units (and their pts value) is clearly based on the entire army. Whilst some elements of the army may be exempt from a restriction, we are not instructed to exclude any exempt units in determining these restrictions for other elements, or the greater whole, so these units must be considered in determining what the non-exempt units can do. There is not currently a clear explicit rationale for excluding the drop pods and embarked units when determining the minimum number and values of units that must be deployed.

So, in a 2k pts game if there 1k pts of drop pods and embarked units that leaves 0pts of reserves for anything else. Similarly, if there are 500 pts of drop pods and embarked units that leaves 500pts of reserves for anything else

This does pose an interesting conundrum should more than 50% of the army (in terms in units and pts) be exempt, and there be any non-exempt element; It will not be possible to adhere to the rules of deploying 50% of army’s units and points using only the non-exempt elements as require to do so for those non-exempt element. The only way to satisfy the requirements of Tactical Reserves in this case is by deploying some of the exempt element such that at least ½ the army is deployed.

Critically this entirely consistent with to 50% restrictions being levied and meet by the army as a whole. Whilst more than 50% of the army may be exempt from the rule, in order to satisfy the rule as it applied to different units (or potentially your entire army) then such units may be required to be deployed. Granted this could be used as evidence to ‘exclude’ any ‘exempt’ element, however at no point is excluding such units mentioned. Such excluding is entirely inferred in order to make the alternative solution possible.

This does potentially create of special case where 100% of the army is drop pods/ in drop pods. Given that the only answer to the 60% in pods 40% not only works if some of the ‘exempt’ element is deployed such that 50% of the army is deployed, which inturn supports the restrictions being applied at, and adhered to at they army level, and that is solution will also work here I don’t see the need for a special case of allowing nothing above 50% in reserve in pods except 100% in pods.

The part “Whatever happens, though, don’t forget about missions that use the rules for Sudden Death – not even Space Marines can win a battle if they’re not actually there!” has been used to support the ‘Null Deployment’ interpretation – However this could equally be a reminder that having drop pod(s and embarked units) won’t stop ‘Sudden Death’ on later turns (e.g. In a game where sudden death does apply and it is the end of turn 4 and you have no models alive on the table but have a couple of drop pods still held in reserve you’d still lose).

All words contained in the "tactical reserves" rule are ignored by units in drop pods or are drop pods. Thus you have 0 units 0 points and can deploy in turn 1 or 7 (however lose) if Sudden Death is in play. What in CA2018 missions isn't in play and are popular outside of organised events.

In organised events it's up to the TO's or some figurehead of the specific brand ergo ITC/NOVA/ETC to make an official stance.

dode74 wrote:

noname_hero wrote:
Okay, so go and read what you've posted. I'll highlight the important sequence here:

In a matched play game, you will need to determine
with your opponent the points limit for your game.

See? The points limit of a *game*, not a size of an army. The term "size of an army" is nowhere in the text you've quoted. The text repeatedly uses the term "points limit", and says the sum of all points values in an army must not exceed the limit, but it never introduces a size of an army as a defined value.

Now you read the relevant bit:

your
army must be Battle-forged (pg 240) and its total points
value cannot exceed the limit set for your game

I've even bolded and underlined it for you.

OK. I agree to play you and we decide to set a limit of 2,000 points. You bring 1,997 points of models, and I bring 1,034 (because I want to make it challenging). You have a 1,997-point army and I have a 1,034-point army. You need to det up at least 1997/2 = 999 points on the table, and I need to set up at least 517 points. Neither of us need to set up 1,000 points, because even though the limit for the game is 2,000 points, neither of us has a 2,000-point army.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

OK. I agree to play you and we decide to set a limit of 2,000 points. You bring 1,997 points of models, and I bring 1,034 (because I want to make it challenging). You have a 1,997-point army and I have a 1,034-point army. You need to det up at least 1997/2 = 999 points on the table, and I need to set up at least 517 points. Neither of us need to set up 1,000 points, because even though the limit for the game is 2,000 points, neither of us has a 2,000-point army.

Make it really challenging. Take a 500 point army in a 2,000 point game. I can't imagine much more difficult things to do than deploy 1000 points of units with a 500 point list.

ThatMG wrote:
All words contained in the "tactical reserves" rule are ignored by units in drop pods or are drop pods. Thus you have 0 units 0 points and can deploy in turn 1 or 7 (however lose) if Sudden Death is in play. What in CA2018 missions isn't in play and are popular outside of organised events.

In organised events it's up to the TO's or some figurehead of the specific brand ergo ITC/NOVA/ETC to make an official stance.

I think the argument he and I are making is extremely clear. It just needs clarification because I can think of any number of ways to apply their ruling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
In order to have a legal deployment you have to have 1/2 of your total points (exempt units still contribute to this total as they are part of your army - they aren't exempt from being part of your army unless otherwise clarified).

It seems that you do not know what exempt means.

Someone actually posted the definition above. I guess I can't read ether.

Chaos player wading in, hoping to provide some insight into how this works in similar scenarios.

We've had similar issues with summoning lists since the last Big FAQ. The Tactical Reserves rule says you must field:

- At least half your units

- At least half the army's total points value

But what happens when you set aside 500 points for summoning? Are reinforcement points part of the army's total points value or something else entirely?

In the BRB, page 214, it talks about Reinforcement Points and tells you to record them on your roster. In general, Reinforcement Points are treated as a meta-unit. The points don't count towards the number of units but do count towards the army's total points.

Example: I'm playing a 2000 point game and set aside 500 Reinforcement Points, then I take a 300 point Kharbydis Assault Claw for deep striking. That leaves me with 200 points for the occupants. Because I have to have at least 1000 points of stuff on the table to meet the requirements of Tactical Reserves.

It would be a lot easier if I could say the army's total points is 1500, which would give me 350 points for the occupants. But that's not what the rules say.

I haven't seen the exact wording for Drop Pods, but if they are 'exempt' from Tactical Reserves, I would assume this means they are treated the same way as Reinforcement Points. They don't count towards half the units but they do count towards the army's total points. So you would still need to have 1000 points on the table in a 2000 point matched play game, because the rest of your army is not exempt from the rule.

Just a perspective. Looking forward to knowing how this gets decided.

Reinforcement points have nothing to do with this.

 p5freak wrote:
Reinforcement points have nothing to do with this.

Just another example of not being able to deep strike more than 1000 points in a 2000 points game. Totally relevant - sets a precedent.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Chaos player wading in, hoping to provide some insight into how this works in similar scenarios.

We've had similar issues with summoning lists since the last Big FAQ. The Tactical Reserves rule says you must field:

The minor difference here is that RP do not have a rule that says they're exempt from the Tactical Reserves rule. But at least it's more relevant than dividing by zero for no reason.

Yes you can currently null deploy- however it is highly constrained and difficult.

Matched play tactical reserves requires you to have half your units and at least half your points on the table- it's not permission to take things off table but rather requirements to have things on the table.

The drop pod exemption from tactical reserves makes them and their contents exempt.

Effectively if you have 1200 pts in drop pods and units inside them they don't count against your tactical reserves. The next question is do you count the remaining 800 pts as the army for purposes of tactical reserves or the entire 2k.

If you count it as 2k then you can't put anymore units in reserves, because you have to have 1000 pts on table and at 800 you can't do that but the drop pods are exempt so you get a pass.

If you count the remaining army as 800pts technically you could put 400pts of them and half units in reserves.

There is no rules as written permission to count the remaining 800 as the total army,.drop pod rule doesn't grant it and it's not anhywhere else- so we are left with the 1200 pts in reserves.

This might actually be a timing issue with current RAW.

If you put the drop pods in reserves first then you are stuck with other units that have to obey tactical reserves. If you put other units into reserves first then put in exempt drop pods...

Of course there is no question if your whole army is in drop pods-null deploy away. May run into games where you lose versus fast horde armies because you have nowhere to deploy though..

blaktoof wrote:
Yes you can currently null deploy- however it is highly constrained and difficult.

Matched play tactical reserves requires you to have half your units and at least half your points on the table- it's not permission to take things off table but rather requirements to have things on the table.

The drop pod exemption from tactical reserves makes them and their contents exempt.

Effectively if you have 1200 pts in drop pods and units inside them they don't count against your tactical reserves. The next question is do you count the remaining 800 pts as the army for purposes of tactical reserves or the entire 2k.

If you count it as 2k then you can't put anymore units in reserves, because you have to have 1000 pts on table and at 800 you can't do that but the drop pods are exempt so you get a pass.

If you count the remaining army as 800pts technically you could put 400pts of them and half units in reserves.

There is no rules as written permission to count the remaining 800 as the total army,.drop pod rule doesn't grant it and it's not anhywhere else- so we are left with the 1200 pts in reserves.

This might actually be a timing issue with current RAW.

If you put the drop pods in reserves first then you are stuck with other units that have to obey tactical reserves. If you put other units into reserves first then put in exempt drop pods...

Of course there is no question if your whole army is in drop pods-null deploy away. May run into games where you lose versus fast horde armies because you have nowhere to deploy though..

So if I understand this correctly (and the case presented by various others) then actually null deployment is possible so long as at least ½ the army is drop pods, units to be embarked on them and the remainder of the army is deep strike capable (terms, jump packs etc..:

During deployment you start by deploying your non-drop pod deep strike capable units into deepstrike (which by this rationale is legal, as at the time the units are deployed it is technically possible to deploy sufficient number and value of units from your amy to adhere to the rules of Tactical Reserves). Then having deployed a maximum of one half of your army in deepstrike (through ‘conventional’ units), you then systematically embark units on the drop pods as you deploy the pods into deepstrike (as although you could choose to deploy any and all of these units on the table top to adhere to tactical reserves, you can choose not to as these units are exempt from the rule).

Correct?

An obvious counter point which undermines this is sequencing that is required... Embarking units on transports is made when you deploy the transport.

Combat Squads, which also a choice which is decided during deployment must be made before any model are set-up (whether on the table or elsewhere)., Critically and importantly this creates a constant number of units during the process of deploying the units - Before any models are placed the total number of units in the army is determined, so setting the minimum number of units to be deployed (the minimum points of those units remains unchanged).
The cases for allowing more than 50% deployed in deep strike in drop pods (and potentially 50% of the remainder) require that either a) the minimum deployment requirements in both terms of number of units, and the value of those units to be recalculated after each unit is deployed and/ or b) the ability to choose to embark into a drop pod (and then into deep strike) such that potentially previously legal deployments are rendered illegal.

If Tactical Reserves was worded along the lines of ‘In a Matched play game a minimum amount of each army must be deployed before the 1st turn. Each unit contributes 0.5 to the number of units that must be so deployed, and each unit and any reinforcement points contribute ½ their values to the points value of those units to be deployed. When calculating the number of units and the points values only round after adding up the totals for the army. This check is performed once the army is deployed.’ Then there wouldn’t be any questions. The duty to deploy a certain amount of the army is built up by evaluating each of the constituent units of the army. Thus with this (or similar) wording you could deploy as much as you’d like in drop pods, and deploy upto ½ the rest in deepstrike through the usual means.

As it is the wording of Tactical Reserves uses properties of the army which aren’t defined in the Tactical Reserves rule (the number of units and the points value of those units), and as such Drop Pods, and any units which will eventually embark on them will be included in these values. The minimum deployment requirements would appear to be determined before any units are deployed.

Time to give this one a rest until we get an FAQ for it, methinks.

Moving on.