So with the new drop pod rule ignoring the reinforcement rules can you now start the game with virtually everything in reserves so long as you still have a single model on the table?
Actually the earlier discussion was inconclusive in reaching a concensuss on the matter. Certainly I still believe that RAW null deployment is not allowed.
Cornishman wrote: Actually the earlier discussion was inconclusive in reaching a concensuss on the matter. Certainly I still believe that RAW null deployment is not allowed.
There is no doubt. Drop pods and their embarked units are exempt from the tactical reserves rule, it doesnt exist for them. You can null deploy and have your entire army in drop pods, and arrive as reinforcements turn 1.
Matched Play: This model and any units embarked aboard it are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule, except that if it and any units embarked aboard it have not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round, they count as having been destroyed.
Exactly, the FAQ did happen and it clarified only that they can't come in past turn 3. other then that the entire Tactical reserves rule is ignored... hence turn one drops and no need to have 50 % on the table.
On that note, if your playing a mission with boots on the ground, make sure there is something on the field by the end of BR 2.
Type40 wrote: Exactly, the FAQ did happen and it clarified only that they can't come in past turn 3. other then that the entire Tactical reserves rule is ignored... hence turn one drops and no need to have 50 % on the table.
On that note, if your playing a mission with boots on the ground, make sure there is something on the field by the end of BR 2.
The only thing the FAQ changed with respect to the previous discussions was needing to come on by turn 3 or be destroyed.
The errata about turn 3 is actually consistent with both interpretations.
Null deployment possible - see it is except from Tactical Reeves other than the part about turn 3 therefor it supports null deploymentt
Null Deployment not possible - The first paragraph doesn't levy the restrictions directly on the units, it's a requirement that must be meet by the army as a whole. The FAQ doesn't need to errata this not to apply as it doesn't apply to start with.
Everything else concerning the two possible interpretations remains the same, and thus inconclusive.
Type40 wrote: Exactly, the FAQ did happen and it clarified only that they can't come in past turn 3. other then that the entire Tactical reserves rule is ignored... hence turn one drops and no need to have 50 % on the table.
On that note, if your playing a mission with boots on the ground, make sure there is something on the field by the end of BR 2.
The only thing the FAQ changed with respect to the previous discussions was needing to come on by turn 3 or be destroyed.
The errata about turn 3 is actually consistent with both interpretations.
Null deployment possible - see it is except from Tactical Reeves other than the part about turn 3 therefor it supports null deploymentt
Null Deployment not possible - The first paragraph doesn't levy the restrictions directly on the units, it's a requirement that must be meet by the army as a whole. The FAQ doesn't need to errata this not to apply as it doesn't apply to start with.
Everything else concerning the two possible interpretations remains the same, and thus inconclusive.
‘This model and any units embarked aboard it are
exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule
If your interpretation was correct, it would also not levy the restrictions about turn one deployment,,, because they must be meat by the army as a whole lol. Meaning the inclusion of the rule, at all, means nothing and doesn't affect the game what so ever.
The syntax on the restrictions are the same, so either we acknowledge the unit is completely exempt, or we decide that the drop pod rule means nothing because the TR rule affects the army as a whole.
Though to some extent you are correct. This is why the stipulation that all units in reserve must all be drop pods. Models that are not drop pods would still need to count the drop pods as part of the 50%. But if every model in reserve is exempt from the rule, then you can have null deployment... i.e. null deployment drop pods have been in the game since 3rd, it doesn't surprise me that this is the intent.
This is why the stipulation that all units in reserve must all be drop pods. Models that are not drop pods would still need to count the drop pods as part of the 50%.
If that were true, then the drop pods would not be exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule...
So the drop pods can not count as part of the 50%, if you are counting them, then they are not exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule.
So this did not get an FAQ? Safe to say GW doesn't even understand the problem? I say go for it. Want to play 1500 points vs 2000 - youll lose - but could be fun.
This is why the stipulation that all units in reserve must all be drop pods. Models that are not drop pods would still need to count the drop pods as part of the 50%.
If that were true, then the drop pods would not be exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule...
So the drop pods can not count as part of the 50%, if you are counting them, then they are not exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule.
Tactical reserves says
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
So yes, drop pods need not adhere to this,
but any unit that does have to follow this rule does have to follow the restriction and does not ignore drop pods as part of what's on the battlefield and whats not on the battlefield.
i.e.
I am playing 2000 pts. I have already placed 1000 pts of drop pods on the battlefield,,, I go to deploy my next drop pod and I check if there is any restrictions,,, nope no restrictions,,, so I deploy the drop pod.
Alternatively
I have already deployed 1000 pts of drop pods on the battlefield. I am preparing to deploy my terminators in a teleport chamber. I can not do this, as the terminators MUST follows the TR restriction. 50% of my army is not set up on the battlefield so I do not have permission to set up the terminators in a teleport chamber when checking the restriction at the end of deployment.
This has nothing to do with the drop pods being exempt or not. It has to do with the wording on the restriction given to everything else. Is 50 % on the battlefield at the end of my deployment, if yes , all is good for models that follow tactical reserves, if 50% is not on the battlefield, it is illegal to set up the terminators,,, it is not illegal to set up drop pods. Drop pods are exempt from following the restriction, they are not exempt from being counted as or not being counted as a model set up on the battlefield.
unlike the GSC exception which says
Matched Play: In matched play, units set up in ambush using
this rule count as being set up on the battlefield for the purposes
of Tactical Reserves.
If drop pods also had that exception, you would be right. But they do not.
Null deployment is only allowed if everything set up as reinforcements are drop pods. Otherwise, any non-drop pod set up in reserves will not be following the restriction outlined in TR because they MUST check to see whether or not 50% of the army is on the battlefield.
They do not "count as being set up on the battlefield" they just don't care whether or not 50% is on the battlefield themselves. They don't remove that restrictions from others.
Type40 wrote: you do not even need a single model on the table. As long as every model in reserves is a drop pod.
thats op as hell
You're not serious, are you? That's very far from OP. In order to do this, you'd have to build your entire list to be able to fit into Pods, which is a limited set of units (no Primaris at all, Devs, Sternguard, Tacticals basically) and you'd have to pay for all those pods (which is theoretically 1/3 of your army point for models that do nearly nothing once dropped)
Could you build a decent list around this? Sure, but you're joking if you think it would be OP It's a gimmick list, but after the "shock and aww" of it, it will get it's butt handed to it quickly as it will be fighting at a handicap from then on
Bohême Jonathan wrote: Basically, you simply don't count the drop pods and their content.
So if your 2.000 pts army have a grand total of 18 units, including 4 drop pods and the 4 units embarked in them, for a subtotal of 800pts, then you'll follows Tactical Reserve as if you only had a 1.200 points army made of 10 units.
Warhammer 40,000 wrote: Hi Robert - as we play it in the Community office, we agree with Bohême. This may be worth feeding back as a question to the FAQ and rules team at 40kFAQ@gwplc.com so they can look into clarifying this specifically on a future FAQ for us all.
So when they say that they're exempt from the Tactical Reserve rule, then they're exempt from the whole rule unless noted otherwise (i.e., the requirement to be on the battlefield at the end of the third battle round).
Bohême Jonathan wrote: Basically, you simply don't count the drop pods and their content.
So if your 2.000 pts army have a grand total of 18 units, including 4 drop pods and the 4 units embarked in them, for a subtotal of 800pts, then you'll follows Tactical Reserve as if you only had a 1.200 points army made of 10 units.
Warhammer 40,000 wrote: Hi Robert - as we play it in the Community office, we agree with Bohême. This may be worth feeding back as a question to the FAQ and rules team at 40kFAQ@gwplc.com so they can look into clarifying this specifically on a future FAQ for us all.
So when they say that they're exempt from the Tactical Reserve rule, then they're exempt from the whole rule unless noted otherwise (i.e., the requirement to be on the battlefield at the end of the third battle round).
Well, if that's how they play it. But it's definitely not RAW.
My examples do make them exempt from the WHOLE rule. again, the rule has nothing to do with what is and is not on the battlefield. It doesn't care whether or not something is exempt from the rule. The rule simply says "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 must be at least half your army's total point value."
So for a unit that is not exempt from the rule, they simply check how many points are or are not on the battlefield. TR says literally nothing about being considered to be on or off the battlefield.
Exempt from the WHOLE rule. Sure. but that doesn't mean my terminators are exempt from any part of the rule. Is the drop pod a model that can be on or off the battlefield. Yes, definitely. Does the TR rule say anything about what counts as being on or off the battlefield. Nope does not. How does being exempt from a rule that has nothing to do with "on/off battlefield" status magically make it not count towards the number of models / points of your army that is not on the battlefield ? It doesn't have to check the restriction, sure, but that doesn't magically remove it from being counted towards how many models are on the battlefield, it doesn't magically make it not a part of the total points included in your list.
Being exempt from TR doesn't give it special permission to be exempt from anything other then specifically following the rules of TR . i.e. it doesn't have to check how much is on the battlefield, everything else does. TR isn't a rule that defines what is or is not on the battlefield, it is only a rule that checks to see what is or is not on the battlefield, so how can a drop pod be considered to be exempt from the "on/off battlefield" status just because it is exempt from a rule that says to check for that status?
Ghaz wrote: Yep. You're still trying to make the 'Tactical Reserves' rule apply to a unit that is exempt from the rule.
How ?
please point out how I am doing that ?
In my explanation, TR rule doesn't apply to the drop pod.
It applies to everything else.
again, TR says
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
The drop pod ignores this.
Other unit has to follow this restriction
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
So other units can not ignore this.
Again, the drop pod being exempt from the rule does not change whether or not it is considered to be on the battlefield for everything that does follow the rule.
Just because my Terminators HAVE to follow this rule, does not make my drop pod magically not exempt from the rule. It just means the terminators are not exempt from it.
What part of the terminators being restricted means the drop pod is not exempt ?
The only way it works is with a null deploy. If you have a single unit deployed on the table you must also deploy 50% of your "ARMY" not 50% of your army that isn't exempt from tactical reserves. The only reason Null deploy works is questionable anyways because it is an absurd fraction - a bizarre anomaly of mathematics. 0/0=1 1 = 100%.
I think what a lot of your aren't realizing here is that units are part of your "army" even if they are exempt from tactical reserves.
Xenomancers wrote: The only way it works is with a null deploy. If you have a single unit deployed on the table you must also deploy 50% of your "ARMY" not 50% of your army that isn't exempt from tactical reserves. The only reason Null deploy works is questionable anyways because it is an absurd fraction - a bizarre anomaly of mathematics. 0/0=1 1 = 100%.
I think what a lot of your aren't realizing here is that units are part of your "army" even if they are exempt from tactical reserves.
Exactly this.
The TR rule (which everything but a DP must follow) checks the % of your army units/pts on the table. That is it. Nothing about being exempt from needing to do that makes the DP not a part of the % of your army which is or isn't on the table because nothing about the TR rule defines what is or isn't on the table. This means that if you want to legally deploy your terminators, 50% of the army needs to be on the table, including DPs. Even though the DPs are exempt and you can legally deploy them without needing to check that restriction. The termies are not exempt and do check the % of units/pts on the table, including the DPS, because what part of being exempt from checking how much is on the table makes you exempt from being considered to be on the table ? termies following the defined restrictions of TR does not mean the DPs are not exempt,,, they continue to be exempt, even though the termies are not and must follow that rule.
Not sure what the math formula is @Xenomancers XD.
English isn't precise enough, at least in this situation:
Exempt: "free from an obligation or liability imposed on others."
Free from Obligation: You are free of the obligation to set these specific units up on the table in regards to Tactical Restraint.
This reading could mean that if you have 1500 Pods/contents and 500 non-Pods/contents, you are obligated to set up 1000 points up on the table. But that 1500 points of pods/contents can't be obligated. So the pods/contents aren't obligated to be set up on the table, but the other points could still be obligated.
Free from liability: You are free of the liability of the pods/contents. So, again with 15000 points of Pods/contents and 500 otherwise, you're obligated to set up 250 points.
And that's just two variants. "Exempt" has too many readings, some of which contradict. So this question cannot be answered authoritatively RAW (unless/until WOG, which would be an FAQ).
Xenomancers wrote: The only way it works is with a null deploy. If you have a single unit deployed on the table you must also deploy 50% of your "ARMY" not 50% of your army that isn't exempt from tactical reserves. The only reason Null deploy works is questionable anyways because it is an absurd fraction - a bizarre anomaly of mathematics. 0/0=1 1 = 100%.
I think what a lot of your aren't realizing here is that units are part of your "army" even if they are exempt from tactical reserves.
Exactly this.
The TR rule (which everything but a DP must follow) checks the % of your army units/pts on the table. That is it. Nothing about being exempt from needing to do that makes the DP not a part of the % of your army which is or isn't on the table because nothing about the TR rule defines what is or isn't on the table. This means that if you want to legally deploy your terminators, 50% of the army needs to be on the table, including DPs. Even though the DPs are exempt and you can legally deploy them without needing to check that restriction. The termies are not exempt and the termies following the defined restriction does not mean the DPs are not exempt,,, they continue to be exempt, even though the termies are not.
Not sure what the math formula is @Xenomancers XD.
The % of your army units/pts on the table is a liability. One reading of 'exempt' is a freedom from liability. As such, it's an entirely reasonable reading for the 'exempt' to impact that rule.
Pretend there's a rule that 50% of lunches must be collected as tax. Someone takes 50% of everyone's food at lunch as a tax. If you're exempt from tax, he takes 50% of everyone else's lunch - but can't take 50% of yours. So the tax collected is less than 50% of *all* exempted-included lunches, but is still 50% of all exempted-excluded lunches. That's how exemptions frequently work.
Bharring wrote: English isn't precise enough, at least in this situation:
Exempt: "free from an obligation or liability imposed on others."
Free from Obligation: You are free of the obligation to set these specific units up on the table in regards to Tactical Restraint.
This reading could mean that if you have 1500 Pods/contents and 500 non-Pods/contents, you are obligated to set up 1000 points up on the table. But that 1500 points of pods/contents can't be obligated. So the pods/contents aren't obligated to be set up on the table, but the other points could still be obligated.
Free from liability: You are free of the liability of the pods/contents. So, again with 15000 points of Pods/contents and 500 otherwise, you're obligated to set up 250 points.
And that's just two variants. "Exempt" has too many readings, some of which contradict. So this question cannot be answered authoritatively RAW (unless/until WOG, which would be an FAQ).
No
once again TR says
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
This means being exempt for this rule would be
Drop pods do not nead to abide by the following : 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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
The English language is clear on this. If you are exempt from a rule, you are exempt from that EXACT rule. It doesn't mean you are exempt from everything related to that rule in every minute way.
If I had a rule "every person gets 1 cookie"
and then "john is exempt from this cookie rule"
John can have 0 - infinite cookies.
It doesn't mean john isn't considered to be a person.
Xenomancers wrote: The only way it works is with a null deploy. If you have a single unit deployed on the table you must also deploy 50% of your "ARMY" not 50% of your army that isn't exempt from tactical reserves. The only reason Null deploy works is questionable anyways because it is an absurd fraction - a bizarre anomaly of mathematics. 0/0=1 1 = 100%.
0/0 is not an absurd fraction. It's nonsesnse. It doesn't parse. The closest concept is "0 of 0", which is not the same thing.
"0 of 0" would be 100% for questions like "How many of the things don't fit $condition". But 0% for things like "How many of the things fit $condition".
Beyond that, it's just looking for trouble. "0 of 0" has no percentage value, but "50% of 0" is 0. So, if you had 0 counted items (everything were exempt), you'd have 50% of your army deployed. (And 100%. And 0%. And 200%.)
I think what a lot of your aren't realizing here is that units are part of your "army" even if they are exempt from tactical reserves.
Typically, exempting something from a rule modifies the entire body that rule applies to. So, if something is exempt from a rule of "At least 50% of $army must $condition", they aren't counted in $army for the purpose of that rule. So if you have 1500 points of pods/contents and 500 other points, the "army" the rule refers to is 2000 - 1500, or the 500 non pods/contents points. With that reading, you're required to set up 250 of those points.
It's an entirely reasonable - and the most frequently used - reading of "exempt".
All that said, it's no the only valid/reasonable reading.
The % of your army units/pts on the table is a liability. One reading of 'exempt' is a freedom from liability. As such, it's an entirely reasonable reading for the 'exempt' to impact that rule.
Pretend there's a rule that 50% of lunches must be collected as tax. Someone takes 50% of everyone's food at lunch as a tax. If you're exempt from tax, he takes 50% of everyone else's lunch - but can't take 50% of yours. So the tax collected is less than 50% of *all* exempted-included lunches, but is still 50% of all exempted-excluded lunches. That's how exemptions frequently work.
You are ignoring the precise language used for this rule.
Because of the precise language your example is as follows.
"in order to eat lunch at least half the total number of lunches brought to school must be taxed by John"
"this does not apply to lunches brought to school by people named Alex"
If everyone at school is named Alex, they may all eat lunch with no restrictions.
Now if Terry comes to school with his lunch. It is no longer possible for terry to eat lunch unless half the total amount of lunches are taxed by john. Even though Alex may eat his lunch without being taxed. Terry can not, because he does not meet the restriction.
Type40 wrote: I have already deployed 1000 pts of drop pods on the battlefield. I am preparing to deploy my terminators in a teleport chamber. I can not do this, as the terminators MUST follows the TR restriction. 50% of my army is not set up on the battlefield so I do not have permission to set up the terminators in a teleport chamber when checking the restriction at the end of deployment.
what this is saying in different angle?
Bharring wrote: Typically, exempting something from a rule modifies the entire body that rule applies to. So, if something is exempt from a rule of "At least 50% of $army must $condition", they aren't counted in $army for the purpose of that rule. So if you have 1500 points of pods/contents and 500 other points, the "army" the rule refers to is 2000 - 1500, or the 500 non pods/contents points. With that reading, you're required to set up 250 of those points.
Say, if 2k pt army has 20 units comprised of: -5x drop pod + 5x drop pod contents (1,000 pts) -5x units with deepstrike (500 pts) -5x units without deepstrike (500 pts)
And, at deployment, the drop pods with contents embarked in it were deployed first, leaving the remaining 1,000 pts of non-drop pod units not yet deployed.
Given that Drop pods and its contents are exempt from the TR rules, the 5x deepstriking units would not be able to be placed in reserves unless the 500 pts of non-deepstriking units were placed on the battlefield.
Is your argument "deployed droppods are no longer exempt from TR rule because it has been placed on the battlefield"?
Xenomancers wrote: The only way it works is with a null deploy. If you have a single unit deployed on the table you must also deploy 50% of your "ARMY" not 50% of your army that isn't exempt from tactical reserves. The only reason Null deploy works is questionable anyways because it is an absurd fraction - a bizarre anomaly of mathematics. 0/0=1 1 = 100%.
0/0 is not an absurd fraction. It's nonsesnse. It doesn't parse. The closest concept is "0 of 0", which is not the same thing.
"0 of 0" would be 100% for questions like "How many of the things don't fit $condition". But 0% for things like "How many of the things fit $condition".
Beyond that, it's just looking for trouble. "0 of 0" has no percentage value, but "50% of 0" is 0. So, if you had 0 counted items (everything were exempt), you'd have 50% of your army deployed. (And 100%. And 0%. And 200%.)
I think what a lot of your aren't realizing here is that units are part of your "army" even if they are exempt from tactical reserves.
Typically, exempting something from a rule modifies the entire body that rule applies to. So, if something is exempt from a rule of "At least 50% of $army must $condition", they aren't counted in $army for the purpose of that rule. So if you have 1500 points of pods/contents and 500 other points, the "army" the rule refers to is 2000 - 1500, or the 500 non pods/contents points. With that reading, you're required to set up 250 of those points.
It's an entirely reasonable - and the most frequently used - reading of "exempt".
All that said, it's no the only valid/reasonable reading.
Again, this is wrong because of the precise wording.
You are right, the drop pods are not counted because they ignore the condition. But again only drop pods. You are missing that $army is a global variable and $condition is a function not a variable [condition()]
$army (the total points and unit construction of your army is defined outside of the rule and something being exempt from this particular rule does not change this value)
Condition() checks the global venerable of $army and if it is met then it is legal.
what is on and off the battlefield is not contained ONLY to this rule and your army total is not contained ONLY to this rule. This numbers don't change just because you are exempt for THIS rule. you are only
your example should look more like this
global $army = X
function TR() {
50% of $army must have condition() return as true.
}
if (deploying a unit that /= drop pod) then {
TR ()
}
its not as simple as you are trying to make it.
As soon as you deploy something that is not a DP you MUST check to see how much is on the battlefield. That variable is not defined by TR rule (or function) and therefor is not changed based on whether or not something is exempt from it.
What is and isn't on the battlefield and what your total army amount is defined elsewhere in the game, being exempt from the TR rule does not change those variables. Because TR does not define those variables.
Xenomancers wrote: The only way it works is with a null deploy. If you have a single unit deployed on the table you must also deploy 50% of your "ARMY" not 50% of your army that isn't exempt from tactical reserves. The only reason Null deploy works is questionable anyways because it is an absurd fraction - a bizarre anomaly of mathematics. 0/0=1 1 = 100%.
0/0 is not an absurd fraction. It's nonsesnse. It doesn't parse. The closest concept is "0 of 0", which is not the same thing.
"0 of 0" would be 100% for questions like "How many of the things don't fit $condition". But 0% for things like "How many of the things fit $condition".
Beyond that, it's just looking for trouble. "0 of 0" has no percentage value, but "50% of 0" is 0. So, if you had 0 counted items (everything were exempt), you'd have 50% of your army deployed. (And 100%. And 0%. And 200%.)
I think what a lot of your aren't realizing here is that units are part of your "army" even if they are exempt from tactical reserves.
Typically, exempting something from a rule modifies the entire body that rule applies to. So, if something is exempt from a rule of "At least 50% of $army must $condition", they aren't counted in $army for the purpose of that rule. So if you have 1500 points of pods/contents and 500 other points, the "army" the rule refers to is 2000 - 1500, or the 500 non pods/contents points. With that reading, you're required to set up 250 of those points.
It's an entirely reasonable - and the most frequently used - reading of "exempt".
All that said, it's no the only valid/reasonable reading.
There is a lot of reasoning and assuming going on to think that this rule gives you permission to subtract the total points of exempt units from your total army points total. Not saying it's not reasonable but applying the same level of reasoning - we have a rule which it's intent is to explicitly not allow null deploy tactics because they dominated events with such tactics as tyranids. The is literally no reason drop pods should be exempt from the tactical reserves point restrictions. The intent of this rule is clear - they want drop pods to be able to come in turn 1. Null deploy is just some gimmick of wording. RAW I would say Nulldeploy is allowed. But the permission to exceed 1000 points in reserve while still deploying some units on the table is not. Maybe something is lost in translation with the meaning of exempt. IDK about that.
Xenomancers wrote: The only way it works is with a null deploy. If you have a single unit deployed on the table you must also deploy 50% of your "ARMY" not 50% of your army that isn't exempt from tactical reserves. The only reason Null deploy works is questionable anyways because it is an absurd fraction - a bizarre anomaly of mathematics. 0/0=1 1 = 100%.
0/0 is not an absurd fraction. It's nonsesnse. It doesn't parse. The closest concept is "0 of 0", which is not the same thing.
"0 of 0" would be 100% for questions like "How many of the things don't fit $condition". But 0% for things like "How many of the things fit $condition".
Beyond that, it's just looking for trouble. "0 of 0" has no percentage value, but "50% of 0" is 0. So, if you had 0 counted items (everything were exempt), you'd have 50% of your army deployed. (And 100%. And 0%. And 200%.)
I think what a lot of your aren't realizing here is that units are part of your "army" even if they are exempt from tactical reserves.
Typically, exempting something from a rule modifies the entire body that rule applies to. So, if something is exempt from a rule of "At least 50% of $army must $condition", they aren't counted in $army for the purpose of that rule. So if you have 1500 points of pods/contents and 500 other points, the "army" the rule refers to is 2000 - 1500, or the 500 non pods/contents points. With that reading, you're required to set up 250 of those points.
It's an entirely reasonable - and the most frequently used - reading of "exempt".
All that said, it's no the only valid/reasonable reading.
Again, this is wrong because of the precise wording.
You are right, the drop pods are not counted because they ignore the condition. But again only drop pods. You are missing that $army is a global variable and $condition is a function not a variable [condition()]
$army (the total points and unit construction of your army is defined outside of the rule and something being exempt from this particular rule does not change this value)
Condition() checks the global venerable of $army and if it is met then it is legal.
what is on and off the battlefield is not contained ONLY to this rule and your army total is not contained ONLY to this rule. This numbers don't change just because you are exempt for THIS rule. you are only
your example should look more like this
global $army = X
function TR() {
50% of $army must have condition() return as true.
}
if (deploying a unit that /= drop pod) then {
TR ()
}
its not as simple as you are trying to make it.
As soon as you deploy something that is not a DP you MUST check to see how much is on the battlefield. That variable is not defined by TR rule (or function) and therefor is not changed based on whether or not something is exempt from it.
What is and isn't on the battlefield and what your total army amount is defined elsewhere in the game, being exempt from the TR rule does not change those variables. Because TR does not define those variables.
Hypothetical Rule: I must pay at least 6% sales tax on the *total* of *all* sales
Exemption: Food is exempt from this tax.
Scenaro: I sell $100 dollars total (pre-tax) of video games, and $100 dollars total (pre-tax) of food.
Result:
The *total* of *all* sales is $200.
The *total* of *all* sales, for the purpose of Sales Tax, is $100.
I pay at least $6 of Sales Tax (it can be more, it can't be less).
I charge an extra $6 to the person buying the video games.
I do not charge $12 to the person buying video games because someone else is going to buy food. The food is exempt.
Some of you guys think way to complicated. Imagine the GW rules team as a bunch of 10 year olds. Which isnt far from the truth when you look how horrible some rules are written, and that they keep making the same mistakes over and over again. When they say a drop pod and its embarked unit(s) are exempt from the TR rule, then it means that the entire TR rule doesnt apply to the pod and embarked unit(s). If they wanted to let drop pods arrive turn 1 they could have written something like : This unit, and any embarked units, can arrive from reinforcements on turn 1, even when using the tactical reserves rule. All other restrictions from tactical reserves would still apply. The way its written now, drop pods and embarked units ignore the entire tactical reserves rule.
Xenomancers wrote: The only way it works is with a null deploy. If you have a single unit deployed on the table you must also deploy 50% of your "ARMY" not 50% of your army that isn't exempt from tactical reserves. The only reason Null deploy works is questionable anyways because it is an absurd fraction - a bizarre anomaly of mathematics. 0/0=1 1 = 100%.
0/0 is not an absurd fraction. It's nonsesnse. It doesn't parse. The closest concept is "0 of 0", which is not the same thing.
"0 of 0" would be 100% for questions like "How many of the things don't fit $condition". But 0% for things like "How many of the things fit $condition".
Beyond that, it's just looking for trouble. "0 of 0" has no percentage value, but "50% of 0" is 0. So, if you had 0 counted items (everything were exempt), you'd have 50% of your army deployed. (And 100%. And 0%. And 200%.)
I think what a lot of your aren't realizing here is that units are part of your "army" even if they are exempt from tactical reserves.
Typically, exempting something from a rule modifies the entire body that rule applies to. So, if something is exempt from a rule of "At least 50% of $army must $condition", they aren't counted in $army for the purpose of that rule. So if you have 1500 points of pods/contents and 500 other points, the "army" the rule refers to is 2000 - 1500, or the 500 non pods/contents points. With that reading, you're required to set up 250 of those points.
It's an entirely reasonable - and the most frequently used - reading of "exempt".
All that said, it's no the only valid/reasonable reading.
There is a lot of reasoning and assuming going on to think that this rule gives you permission to subtract the total points of exempt units from your total army points total.
Reading "Exempt" to mean "free from an obligation or liability imposed on others", and applying that as the exempt units being free of liability imposed by the rule? That's "a lot of reasoning and assuming"? That's "A textbook application of the dictionary definition".
Not saying it's not reasonable but applying the same level of reasoning - we have a rule which it's intent is to explicitly not allow null deploy tactics because they dominated events with such tactics as tyranids.
Like how they removed Move And Fire Without Penalty? Slot Shifting? Reactive movement? Hardly conclusive.
The is literally no reason drop pods should be exempt from the tactical reserves point restrictions.
This model and any units embarked aboard it are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule
I'd say a rule that says "$thing are exempt from the Tactical Reserves [rule]" would be reason that $thing should "be exempt from the tactical reserves rule". The points restrictions are part of the rule.
The intent of this rule is clear - they want drop pods to be able to come in turn 1. Null deploy is just some gimmick of wording. RAW I would say Nulldeploy is allowed. But the permission to exceed 1000 points in reserve while still deploying some units on the table is not. Maybe something is lost in translation with the meaning of exempt. IDK about that.
The language is ambiguous at best. There's as much reason to think that they intended to reenable Steel Rain as they intended just to bring back a couple T1 pods. I think I like the latter better, but both are possible technical readings of the same words.
Xenomancers wrote: The only way it works is with a null deploy. If you have a single unit deployed on the table you must also deploy 50% of your "ARMY" not 50% of your army that isn't exempt from tactical reserves. The only reason Null deploy works is questionable anyways because it is an absurd fraction - a bizarre anomaly of mathematics. 0/0=1 1 = 100%.
0/0 is not an absurd fraction. It's nonsesnse. It doesn't parse. The closest concept is "0 of 0", which is not the same thing.
"0 of 0" would be 100% for questions like "How many of the things don't fit $condition". But 0% for things like "How many of the things fit $condition".
Beyond that, it's just looking for trouble. "0 of 0" has no percentage value, but "50% of 0" is 0. So, if you had 0 counted items (everything were exempt), you'd have 50% of your army deployed. (And 100%. And 0%. And 200%.)
I think what a lot of your aren't realizing here is that units are part of your "army" even if they are exempt from tactical reserves.
Typically, exempting something from a rule modifies the entire body that rule applies to. So, if something is exempt from a rule of "At least 50% of $army must $condition", they aren't counted in $army for the purpose of that rule. So if you have 1500 points of pods/contents and 500 other points, the "army" the rule refers to is 2000 - 1500, or the 500 non pods/contents points. With that reading, you're required to set up 250 of those points.
It's an entirely reasonable - and the most frequently used - reading of "exempt".
All that said, it's no the only valid/reasonable reading.
Again, this is wrong because of the precise wording.
You are right, the drop pods are not counted because they ignore the condition. But again only drop pods. You are missing that $army is a global variable and $condition is a function not a variable [condition()]
$army (the total points and unit construction of your army is defined outside of the rule and something being exempt from this particular rule does not change this value) Condition() checks the global venerable of $army and if it is met then it is legal.
what is on and off the battlefield is not contained ONLY to this rule and your army total is not contained ONLY to this rule. This numbers don't change just because you are exempt for THIS rule. you are only your example should look more like this
global $army = X function TR() { 50% of $army must have condition() return as true. }
if (deploying a unit that /= drop pod) then { TR () }
its not as simple as you are trying to make it. As soon as you deploy something that is not a DP you MUST check to see how much is on the battlefield. That variable is not defined by TR rule (or function) and therefor is not changed based on whether or not something is exempt from it.
What is and isn't on the battlefield and what your total army amount is defined elsewhere in the game, being exempt from the TR rule does not change those variables. Because TR does not define those variables.
Hypothetical Rule: I must pay at least 6% sales tax on the *total* of *all* sales Exemption: Food is exempt from this tax.
Scenaro: I sell $100 dollars total (pre-tax) of video games, and $100 dollars total (pre-tax) of food.
Result: The *total* of *all* sales is $200. The *total* of *all* sales, for the purpose of Sales Tax, is $100.
I pay at least $6 of Sales Tax (it can be more, it can't be less). I charge an extra $6 to the person buying the video games.
I do not charge $12 to the person buying video games because someone else is going to buy food. The food is exempt.
No this is wrong again because of the PRECISE WORDING.
Imagine if you were not allowed to buy anything with sales tax.
Sure if you go to the store and ONLY buy food you do not have to pay sales tax. But if you go to the store and try to get a purchase with BOTH food and electronics you will be denied. The food is exempt, but with the TR rule we are not talking about a TAX we are talking about a precisely worded condition for a BAN. This also doesn't behave like taxes.
The drop pod IS exempt from the rule. The rule says " CHECK IF THERE ARE 50% OF THE UNITS IN YOUR ARMY ARE ON THE TABLE DURING YOUR DEPLOYMENT PHASE" THE DROP POD DOES NOT CHECK FOR THIS EVERYTHING ELSE DOES !
its really not complicated... its not some random TAX its not some random limit, it is a simple rule. CHECK IF THERE ARE 50% of the models on the table. if yes then your breaking the rules.
drop pods DO NOT CHECK THIS. so if you only include drop pods,,, do what ever you want... the second you include something that is not exempt YOU MUST CHECK TO SEE IF 50 % OF THE ARMY IS ON THE BATTLEFIELD. that is the RAW. no exceptions, no weird wording. no tyranids exception.
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
I have a list with 1500 points of Pods, and 500 points of non-Pods (and every 250pts is it's own unit, for simplicity).
I deploy 250 points of non-Pods on the table.
I deploy the other 250 points of non-Pods in reserve.
"the total number of units" in my army is 8. However, 6 of those are "exempt" specifically to the TR rule. So 6 of those are free from liability. So do not count against me. So the total number of units in my army, in respect to this rule, is 2. I have 1 on the table, which is 50%. So I meet both requirements.
Whether a tax or a ban, reading "exempt" as "free from liability" frees us from liability.
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
I have a list with 1500 points of Pods, and 500 points of non-Pods (and every 250pts is it's own unit, for simplicity).
I deploy 250 points of non-Pods on the table.
I deploy the other 250 points of non-Pods in reserve.
"the total number of units" in my army is 8. However, 6 of those are "exempt" specifically to the TR rule. So 6 of those are free from liability. So do not count against me. So the total number of units in my army, in respect to this rule, is 2. I have 1 on the table, which is 50%. So I meet both requirements.
Whether a tax or a ban, reading "exempt" as "free from liability" frees us from liability.
Right. They are exempt as a whole from the calculations for TR.
drop pods DO NOT CHECK THIS. so if you only include drop pods,,, do what ever you want... the second you include something that is not exempt YOU MUST CHECK TO SEE IF 50 % OF THE ARMY IS ON THE BATTLEFIELD. that is the RAW. no exceptions, no weird wording. no tyranids exception.
Exempted doesn't just mean "do not check". It means "do not count". Counting the unit in regards to what you can do is a *liability*.
You're not free to violate a rule just because no active decision deliberately violates it. A rule must be met at all times. So if "Exempt" only meant "Do not apply while deploying, but still count", you'd be unable to use it. Because you would have violated the rule.
drop pods DO NOT CHECK THIS. so if you only include drop pods,,, do what ever you want... the second you include something that is not exempt YOU MUST CHECK TO SEE IF 50 % OF THE ARMY IS ON THE BATTLEFIELD. that is the RAW. no exceptions, no weird wording. no tyranids exception.
Exempted doesn't just mean "do not check". It means "do not count". Counting the unit in regards to what you can do is a *liability*.
You're not free to violate a rule just because no active decision deliberately violates it. A rule must be met at all times. So if "Exempt" only meant "Do not apply while deploying, but still count", you'd be unable to use it. Because you would have violated the rule.
Ok, but when you check you are ignoring the drop pods, so you don't count their point cost in the value of your army. So your army's point cost for the purposes of the rule is 0. 50% of 0 is 0, so you don't need any units on the board.
Again, this is wrong because of the precise wording.
Okay, precise wording.
Matched Play: This model and any units embarked aboard it are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule, except that if it and any units embarked aboard it have not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round, they count as having been destroyed.
It doesn't specify a part of the Tactical Reserves matched play rule, they (both the drop pods and units embarked in them) are exempt from the whole rule, which includes counting those units as part of the army for determinining what can can can't be placed in reserves.
Scenaro: I sell $100 dollars total (pre-tax) of video games, and $100 dollars total (pre-tax) of food.
Result:
The *total* of *all* sales is $200.
The *total* of *all* sales, for the purpose of Sales Tax, is $100.
I pay at least $6 of Sales Tax (it can be more, it can't be less).
I charge an extra $6 to the person buying the video games.
I do not charge $12 to the person buying video games because someone else is going to buy food. The food is exempt.
So if...
25% (500pts) of your army is drop pods, 25% (500pts) is in the drop pods
25% (500pts) of your army are deepstrikers, 25% (500pts) of your army deploys as normal
Then
"25% (500pts) of your army is drop pods, 25% (500pts) is in the drop pods" means that 50% (1000pts) of your army is now exempt from the Tactical Reserves rule, thanks to the new drop pod rule.
Then you have to deal with the remaining 50% (1000pts)
"25% of your army are deepstrikers, 25% of your army deploys as normal", so now thats 50% (500pts) of your remaining army are deepstrikers, and 50% (500pts) of your army deploys as normal.
That does sound like a reasonable interpretation of the rules, and play-wise makes sense to me. The reality is that anything on the table turn 1 500pts is a known quantity, up to 1000pts might show up turn 1, so it messes up counter deploying, and a couple hundred points of the army is wasted on drop pods. Lots of uncertainty, but your playing against a smaller army. I think its fair.
The Tactical Reserves rules is split into 3 sections
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in ambush, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. 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.
Furthermore, in matched play games, units that are not placed on the battlefield during deployment in order to arrive on the battle mid-game as reinforcements cannot arrive on the battlefield during the first battle round.
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.
The post-errata Pod Pod Assault rule
This model and any units embarked aboard it are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule, except that if it and any units embarked aboard it have not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round, they count as having been destroyed.’
Let’s start by looking at the parts that everyone is in agreement on: Looking at the Tactical Reserves rule in reverse order it is clear that the 3rd section specifically places a restriction on a unit held in reserves ‘Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield’, thus by the initial section of Drop Pod Assault the pod (and embarked) units would be able to turn up on turn 4 or later (as was the case pre-errata), however the 2nd part of Drop Pod Assault ‘except that if it and any units…’ effectively removes the exemption from this point by re-introducing it.
The second part again clearly places a restriction on a unit in reserves ‘in matched play games, units that are not placed’, and without any specific instructions modifying this within the Drop Pod Assault Rule the drop pod and any embarked unit is exempt and can thus arrive on turn 1.
Now looking at the first paragraph which is where there is disagreement: Again units are mentioned, however this is initially done so as a general introduction ‘…during deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums…’. Following this introduction units are used to describe what must be done to adhere to the rules in relation to the amount of the army that must be deployed. Hence it would appear that restriction is levied upon, calculated, and directed at the army as a whole ‘When setting up your army during deployment…’ ‘…must be at least half of your army’s total points value…’ Thus individual (or even all units) being exempt doesn’t change the size of the obligation, nor the target of that obligaton as the units aren't being targeted by the rule.
The size of the army, and the number of units are pretty much fundamental properties of the army and are not determined by Tactical Reserves. If your army totals 1997 pts of which consists of 15 units totalling 1350 points and 647 reinforcements then your army size is 1997pts, and 15 units. It doesn’t matter how many of those points or units are or are not drop pods. Thus, you must deploy at least 8 units totalling 999 points. Drop pods that are selected by the very definition form part of your army and thus contribute the army totals.
An ‘Army’ consists is all the units that have been selected for a force, plus any reserve points for that force. Nothing about Drop Pod Assault tells us to exclude exempt units for the purposes of determining deployment requirements. Whilst this may be what is intended the RAW, or FAQs simply don’t state to do this, and any such exclusion would need to be added to the Errata/FAQ.
Null deployment also raises the question of timing in respect to both determining the minimum deployment requirement, and then checking adherence to it.
Assuming that the basic principles of deployment, and thus drop pod use are same irrespective of mission then the Missions from the main 40k rule book show us that deployment is a sequence of events. Player One selects a single unit, and deploys it (with the option to embark units in it if the unit is a transport) and then the other player similarly chooses a unit to deploy and so on and so forth until all units have been deployed. Thus the only difference would seem to be the whether players alternate in selecting a single unit.
As an instruction to do something the only logical place to determine the deployment requirement is prior to any unit being deployed. Thus, at the time of determining the deployment requirements any and all units which are intended to be embarked can not be embarked, as units can only embark when the transport is deployed. As such any units to be embarked must be included in the calculation to determine the minimum deployment requirements, even if they later embark on a drop pod. It would require an FAQ or Errata to place determining the deployment requirements, and adherence to them to at the end of Deployment. Space Marines have the ability to alter the number of units in the army through combat squadding, thus logically this the number of the units in the army must be finalised prior to determing the minimum number of units. This is consistent with the requirement to make the decision on combat squadding prior to any unit being set up.
So how do you end up with 100% of the army either drop pods, units deployed in drop pods, and everything held in reserve? The argument seems to be either that 1) Drop Pod and any embarked units are excluded from the army when determining the deployment size
As laid out above Drop Pods and the units which are intended to be embarked on are part of the army and thus must form part of an army’s total points values and the number of units in an army. There is nothing in the RAW to indisputably support excluding them from determing the deployment requiremnt, at best this exclusion is assumed on the interpretation that the rule is trying to, but failing to allow null deployment and thus would seem to fall under RAI. This also creates the problem of when the deployment requirements would seem to be calcuated (immediately prior to any units being set up), that the units to be embarked are not yet exempt, and therefor must be included in the totals (even if the drop pods themselves are not). Excluding them completely from determing the requirement and checking adherence to them would place determination of the requirement at the end of deployment which runs contrary to the instruction to do something, hence the only way to get around this is 2) below.
If the deployment requirements was described as ‘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 this clearly levies the requirement on each of the continent units of the army, and places determination after units have embarked. Without the later point of checking once the army is deployed then there is the issue of the units to be embarked contributing towards the army total as they are not yet embarked.
2) That as the drop pod and any embarked units are exempt from Tactical Reserves, thus you can not be forced to deploy them onto the table to confirm to the requirements Tactical Reserves. This opens a whole pandora’s box of unintended consequences. If Deployment is to work the same in all games, other than players alternating choosing units then this would allow null deployment so long as at least ½ the army is drop pods or units to be embarked on them, and the remainder can be deployed into reserves by conventional means.
Simply place the units that can go into reserve conventionally into reserve first such that at maximum one half your army in terms of points and/or number of units are in reserve (as the remaining 1/2 is coud still be placed on the board to adhere the to requirements), and then proceed to use the exemption to place the drop pods and now embarked units into reserve too.
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
I have a list with 1500 points of Pods, and 500 points of non-Pods (and every 250pts is it's own unit, for simplicity).
I deploy 250 points of non-Pods on the table.
I deploy the other 250 points of non-Pods in reserve.
"the total number of units" in my army is 8. However, 6 of those are "exempt" specifically to the TR rule. So 6 of those are free from liability. So do not count against me. So the total number of units in my army, in respect to this rule, is 2. I have 1 on the table, which is 50%. So I meet both requirements.
Whether a tax or a ban, reading "exempt" as "free from liability" frees us from liability.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: No, because summoned units aren't part of your army until they arrive.
From what I have seen described in previous posts. Reinforcements from summons count as being points in deep strike reserve.
There is no unit associated with summoning until a unit is successfully summoned and is placed on the table. The points set aside for summoning are treated like the unspent points in any other army.
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 must be at least half your army's total point value
I have a list with 1500 points of Pods, and 500 points of non-Pods (and every 250pts is it's own unit, for simplicity).
I deploy 250 points of non-Pods on the table.
I deploy the other 250 points of non-Pods in reserve.
"the total number of units" in my army is 8. However, 6 of those are "exempt" specifically to the TR rule. So 6 of those are free from liability. So do not count against me. So the total number of units in my army, in respect to this rule, is 2. I have 1 on the table, which is 50%. So I meet both requirements.
Whether a tax or a ban, reading "exempt" as "free from liability" frees us from liability.
This is the correct way to apply the rules.
I agree, and to put it another way for those that INSIST the total number HAS to include all units, you could think of it like this:
Those same 8 units, each 250 pts, including 2 non-Pod units could be broken down like this: 3 Pod units & 1 non-Pod unit can be in reserves. Leaving 3 Pod units & 1 non-Pod unit must deploy 50% satisfied. Now the 3 Pod units that had to deploy can go in reserves because they ignore the TR rule
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
I have a list with 1500 points of Pods, and 500 points of non-Pods (and every 250pts is it's own unit, for simplicity).
I deploy 250 points of non-Pods on the table.
I deploy the other 250 points of non-Pods in reserve.
"the total number of units" in my army is 8. However, 6 of those are "exempt" specifically to the TR rule. So 6 of those are free from liability. So do not count against me. So the total number of units in my army, in respect to this rule, is 2. I have 1 on the table, which is 50%. So I meet both requirements.
Whether a tax or a ban, reading "exempt" as "free from liability" frees us from liability.
This is the correct way to apply the rules.
IF this is the case would you be kind enough to address some of the issues I have raised?
Principly it would appear that the minimum deployment requirements are determined prior to units being embarked (as instruction to do something first we must determine what must be done), and thus are determined before any units to be embarcked are excluded from the calculations are you are proposing.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: No, because summoned units aren't part of your army until they arrive.
From what I have seen described in previous posts. Reinforcements from summons count as being points in deep strike reserve.
There is no unit associated with summoning until a unit is successfully summoned and is placed on the table. The points set aside for summoning are treated like the unspent points in any other army.
I would disagree with this. As per pg. 214 Reinforcement points must be recorded on the army rooster, and must come out of the agreed points limits. If there is a 2,000 pt limits and I choose to bring 1,750pts of units and 0 reinforcement points, then my army size is 1750pts, not 2,000.
[...] Thus individual (or even all units) being exempt doesn’t change the size of the obligation, nor the target of that obligaton as the units aren't being targeted by the rule. [...]
That is the core of the disagreement.
Being exempt means to be freed of obligation or liability. Your argument here is that being exempt doesn't free the units of their liability. The argument that "other units don't have the rule" might cover the freedom from obligation meaning of "exempt", but if you're counting those units against a figure that includes the affected units, you've not freed the affected units from their *liability* under the rule.
As such, while everything before it was well formed and logical, this particular claim is disputed.
[...]Nothing about Drop Pod Assault tells us to exclude exempt units for the purposes of determining deployment requirements.
Determining deployment requirements, in this case, is applying Tactical Reserves. "exempt" units are explicitly "exempt" from that rule. Again, we're back to "If I buy $100 of taxable goods and $100 of nontaxable goods, do I pay tax on $200?" Tactical Reserves establishes a liability produced by every unit and point you put in the army. Being exempt to TR means not generating that liability.
It gets hazy because liability is an ephemeral value, not an explicit action.
[...]As an instruction to do something the only logical place to determine the deployment requirement is prior to any unit being deployed.
If you'd refer back to the actual text of the rule, the rule governs state not actions. It does not say "When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game [do $thing]". IT says "When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game [$condition]". It's not telling you steps you must take. It's telling you conditions you must meet.
Yeah, the way I see it, you become exempt when you become exempt.
Meaning if you have 10 units in your army, only 5 must deploy. But if 8 of those units become exempt at any time, whether by being Drop Pods or choosing to embark in them, you "new" total of units that must still abide by TR is altered to 2, thus only 1 must deploy
If everything in your list is a Pod or chooses to embark in Pods, your total becomes 0, thus 0 units must deploy
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
I have a list with 1500 points of Pods, and 500 points of non-Pods (and every 250pts is it's own unit, for simplicity).
I deploy 250 points of non-Pods on the table.
I deploy the other 250 points of non-Pods in reserve.
"the total number of units" in my army is 8. However, 6 of those are "exempt" specifically to the TR rule. So 6 of those are free from liability. So do not count against me. So the total number of units in my army, in respect to this rule, is 2. I have 1 on the table, which is 50%. So I meet both requirements.
Whether a tax or a ban, reading "exempt" as "free from liability" frees us from liability.
This is the correct way to apply the rules.
IF this is the case would you be kind enough to address some of the issues I have raised?
Principly it would appear that the minimum deployment requirements are determined prior to units being embarked (as instruction to do something first we must determine what must be done), and thus are determined before any units to be embarcked are excluded from the calculations are you are proposing.
Cornishman wrote: The Tactical Reserves rules is split into 3 sections
[...] Thus individual (or even all units) being exempt doesn’t change the size of the obligation, nor the target of that obligaton as the units aren't being targeted by the rule. [...]
That is the core of the disagreement.
Being exempt means to be freed of obligation or liability. Your argument here is that being exempt doesn't free the units of their liability. The argument that "other units don't have the rule" might cover the freedom from obligation meaning of "exempt", but if you're counting those units against a figure that includes the affected units, you've not freed the affected units from their *liability* under the rule.
As such, while everything before it was well formed and logical, this particular claim is disputed.
As laid out I have freed the units from the liabilties that are imposed on them (e.g. the restriction no turn 1 arrival does not apply), I am then asserting that the deployment liabilities are calculuated and levied upon the army and it's properties, not on any specific individual units within that army.
I would agree that it's not clear. And both cases have had to make some assumptions, and those are different.
I did try to avoid re-openning this entire can of worms with my inital post.
[...]Nothing about Drop Pod Assault tells us to exclude exempt units for the purposes of determining deployment requirements.
Determining deployment requirements, in this case, is applying Tactical Reserves. "exempt" units are explicitly "exempt" from that rule. Again, we're back to "If I buy $100 of taxable goods and $100 of nontaxable goods, do I pay tax on $200?" Tactical Reserves establishes a liability produced by every unit and point you put in the army. Being exempt to TR means not generating that liability.
It gets hazy because liability is an ephemeral value, not an explicit action.
In effect Tactical Reserves could be said to apply a liability on each any every consistient part of an army through that elements contribution to the total size (whether in points or number of units).
Equally Tactical Reserves could be said to place no such liability on any specific unit. For instance in terms of fullfilment there is no requirement to use any specifc or given unit(s) to fulfil the requirement, nor the the requirment calculated on a 'per unit' basis.
Overall I think many a high paid lawyers would have a field day arguing for both cases.
[...]As an instruction to do something the only logical place to determine the deployment requirement is prior to any unit being deployed.
If you'd refer back to the actual text of the rule, the rule governs state not actions. It does not say "When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game [do $thing]". IT says "When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game [$condition]". It's not telling you steps you must take. It's telling you conditions you must meet.
The criteria for adherence still seems to be determined prior setting up any model...
[...]Nothing about Drop Pod Assault tells us to exclude exempt units for the purposes of determining deployment requirements.
Determining deployment requirements, in this case, is applying Tactical Reserves. "exempt" units are explicitly "exempt" from that rule. Again, we're back to "If I buy $100 of taxable goods and $100 of nontaxable goods, do I pay tax on $200?" Tactical Reserves establishes a liability produced by every unit and point you put in the army. Being exempt to TR means not generating that liability.
It gets hazy because liability is an ephemeral value, not an explicit action.
In effect Tactical Reserves could be said to apply a liability on each any every consistient part of an army through that elements contribution to the total size (whether in points or number of units).
Equally Tactical Reserves could be said to place no such liability on any specific unit. For instance in terms of fullfilment there is no requirement to use any specifc or given unit(s) to fulfil the requirement, nor the the requirment calculated on a 'per unit' basis.
Overall I think many a high paid lawyers would have a field day arguing for both cases.
That's why lawyers get paid. Systems are hard. Nontrivial systems are incredibly hard.
That said, a liability is a liability whether you want to call it that or not. Taking a 200 point unit adds a liability to deploy another 100 points and half a unit under Tactical Reserves. Regardless of the intermediate steps (how you count points), the liability is incurred from the unit.
This is why I'm trying to fall back on tax. Discussing liability and exemption is complicated, but people have experience working with it via tax. So it seems simpler in those examples.
[...]As an instruction to do something the only logical place to determine the deployment requirement is prior to any unit being deployed.
If you'd refer back to the actual text of the rule, the rule governs state not actions. It does not say "When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game [do $thing]". IT says "When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game [$condition]". It's not telling you steps you must take. It's telling you conditions you must meet.
The criteria for adherence still seems to be determined prior setting up any model...
No, the criteria for adherence is a condition over a timeframe - specifically, that half your army not be in reserves, and during deployment. It's not targetted at any one specific point in time or action.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To add; thank you for being so even-handed and positive in this discussion. We can disagree, and recognize that the other is "wrong". But we don't need to be incivil or unfriendly about it. Thank you for your attitude.
That said, a liability is a liability whether you want to call it that or not. Taking a 200 point unit adds a liability to deploy another 100 points and half a unit under Tactical Reserves. Regardless of the intermediate steps (how you count points), the liability is incurred from the unit.
This is why I'm trying to fall back on tax. Discussing liability and exemption is complicated, but people have experience working with it via tax. So it seems simpler in those examples
The criteria for adherence still seems to be determined prior setting up any model...
Would the tax analogy be more akin to:
Silly Sales Law:
Goods may not be sold before 8am Monday
Goods may not be sold afer 10pm Friday
A premium equal to 10% total value of all goods purchased is payable per transaction.
Some goods are exempt from this. Thus they can sold prior to 8am Monday and after 10pm Friday.
How much purchsing £100 worth of 'exempt' good will end up costing I think would only be determined in highest courts of the land.
I bet the relevant taxation authority will be adamant that as the premium is levied on the total value of goods purchased, rather than 10% added to the value of each every goods purchased that even if a transaction is purchasing only items that are 'exempt' that they are still entitled to thier 10%.
Hence why I initially said 'Actually the earlier discussion was inconclusive in reaching a concensuss on the matter.'
Until there is a clear FAQ or errata indicating which is correct I doubt the matter can be settled.
Again, this is wrong because of the precise wording.
Okay, precise wording.
Matched Play: This model and any units embarked aboard it are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule, except that if it and any units embarked aboard it have not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round, they count as having been destroyed.
It doesn't specify a part of the Tactical Reserves matched play rule, they (both the drop pods and units embarked in them) are exempt from the whole rule, which includes counting those units as part of the army for determinining what can can can't be placed in reserves.
Your right, again they are exempt from the ENTIRE rule. So if I can maybe not be the only one who keeps quoting the actual TR rule, please read what the actual rule says.
The drop pods ignore the rule that says "50% of your army must be on the battlefield" nothing else ignores that rule. The TR rule does not dictate what does and doesn't count as being on the battlefield, we can see this when we read the TR rule and it doesn't mention anything about what does and doesn't count as being on the battlefield. So if something is exempt from this TR rule, how can you argue that it is also exempt from being considered to be off the battlefield... TR has no dictate of what is and isn't on the battlefield, it just isn't written in there. You can't claim to be exempt from something that isn't in the rule you are exempt from.
The rule checks whether or not 50% is on the battlefield... That's it. Having only drop pods means you don't have to check,,, but if you have something that does have to check,,, then you HAVE to check,,, and as I explained, DPs are exempt from the TR rule (the checking for 50% itself) there is nothing that says they are exempt from any rule thay dictates what is and isn't on the battlefield... Those are different rules, unconnected to TR,, that drop pods are not exempt from,, seriously, read the TR rule, it's just not there. Nothing ever says "deployed units are not considered to be on the battlefield" so drop pods are not exempt from that. Just like they aren't exempt from any other regular reinforcement rules.
People are claiming drop pods are exempt from a different rule not even mentioned in TR, just read it. Does TR address what gives or does not give the status of being on the battlefield?
It does address checking for what is and isn't on the battlefield, drop pods are exempt from this check, as that is the rule, nothing more nothing less. They are not exempt from what gives it the on/off battlefield status, that's a different rule and not covered in TR.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you went to a school where you manditorialy had to stay on school property between 9 and 3. Then
If I told you that you were exempt from gym class, that doesn't mean you are also exempt from needing to be on school property. You must still follow other rules outside of what you have been exempt from. You don't have to be in gym class, what does that have to do with whether or not you are on school property.
DPs do not need to check to see whether or not 50%of units are on the battlefield. What does that have to do with whether or not they themselves are considered to be on the battlefield?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And for those who don't like that I keep saying they don't have to "check"
I will put it like this :
DPs are exempt from a rule that says
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 must be at least half of your army's total points value
What does being exempt from this have to do with whether or not a unit is considered to be on or off the battlefield ?
This rule has nothing to do with that status. No where in this are DPs exempted from being considered to be off the battlefield. That's status is not a part of the TR rule and DPs are not exempt from regular reinforcement rules. They can only be on the battlefield during deployment, or not on the battlefield during deployment. They are exempt from the rule that cares whether or not things are on the battlefield but they themselves are not exempt from the status of being on or off the battlefield.
So what happens when something comes along that isn't exempt from the TR rule ? the rule doesn't care whether or not the DP is exempt from not being allowed to be deployed if 50% of the army is not on the battlefield, it only cares whether or not the DP has that status of being on/off the battlefield. A different set of parameters dictates this, not the TR rule. It is simple, they are considered to be off the battlefield, because of a completely different set of parameters that they are not exempt from. They are ONLY exempt from the TR rule, NOTHING ELSE.
We can't just pretend DPs are exempt from ALL reinforcement rules and all reinforcement related game states because they are exempt from the TR rule, the TR rule doesn't cover ALL of those things. TR rule only covers what it says it covers, nothing extra. So being exempt from that rule means just that. They don't need to use that rule BUT OTHER MODELS DO. Nothing about the TR rule makes something considered to be on/off the table and therefor the DP is not exempt from what ever IS making it considered to be on/off the table.
Cornishman wrote: Until there is a clear FAQ or errata indicating which is correct I doubt the matter can be settled.
Except the matter can be settled if you do not ignore what the word "exempt" means.
As I've explained I'm not ignoring what the word 'exempt' means. I have freed the drop pods and any embarked units from any obligations and restrictions placed upon them from the Tactical Reserves Rule. Hence why I'm not disputing that Drop Pods (and embarked units) can arrive on turn 1 (or pre-errata could arrive on turn 4 or later)
The issue is that that the deployment requirement isn't derived directly against the units.
The process as written appears to be takes the totals points value of your army (so this includes reinforcement points) V, take the number of units in your army N. Halve each of these two numbers (round up), This is the deployment requirement.
It doesn't matter what the specific unit make up of the army is, all the matters is the points value V, and the total number of units N as the army isn't exempt from Tactical Reserves, nor are these properties determined by Tactical Reserves.
The process isn't:
The points cost of any of the N units in the army is C such that the costs of unit n is Cn, and R is the number of reinforcement points.
The minimum deployment requirement in terms of value = (sum between 1 and N of (50% x Cn) ) + (1/2 R), and in terms of number of units = (sum between 1 and N of (50% x1) ). Rounding up any factions after summing.
This would be altered should a unit n be exempt E from the rule. The exemption, or not of the nth units can be expressed as En = 1 if the unit isn't not exempt, and En=0 if it is exempt. This the calculation becomes.
The minimum deployment requirement in terms of value = (sum between 1 and N of (50% x Cn x En) )+ (1/2 R), and in terms of number of units = (sum between 1 and N of (50% x 1 x En) ). Rounding up any factions after summing.
Yes in the first proposal, the points value of the army V is determined by summing the cost of each of the N units in the army, and can be described points along the lines of where the cost of any of the N units in the army is C such that the costs of unit n is Cn, and R is the number of reinforcement points that V = (sum between 1 and N of Cn) + R , and N = (sum between 1 and N of 1). However as these values V and P are not determined by the Tactical Reserves rule it is completely unaffected by the tactical reserves rules and/or exemption from the tactical reserves rule. Just because in practice where units are not exempt you can get the same results through either of the methods doesn't mean that the 2nd method is the one being used.
...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...
'...total number of units in your army...' would appear to be N, thus '...at least half the total number of units in your army..' = N/2
'...half of your army’s total points value...' would appear to by V, thus '...must be at least half of your army’s total points value...' = V/2.
The process as written appears to be takes the totals points value of your army (so this includes reinforcement points) V, take the number of units in your army N. Halve each of these two numbers (round up), This is the deployment requirement.
And the totals points value of your army does not include units that are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule
TACTICAL RESERVES FAQ rules wrote:
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in ambush, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. 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 within 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.
Furthermore, in matched play games, units that are not placed on the battlefield during deployment in order to arrive on the battle mid-game as reinforcements cannot arrive on the battlefield during the first battle round.
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.
(Emphasis mine)
See the underlined section? well Drop Pods are exempt from that, so they are not counted in the total number of units, or the combined points value of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment.
Stop trying to count units in the total that are exempt from the rule.
The process as written appears to be takes the totals points value of your army (so this includes reinforcement points) V, take the number of units in your army N. Halve each of these two numbers (round up), This is the deployment requirement.
And the totals points value of your army does not include units that are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule
TACTICAL RESERVES FAQ rules wrote:
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in ambush, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. 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 within 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.
Furthermore, in matched play games, units that are not placed on the battlefield during deployment in order to arrive on the battle mid-game as reinforcements cannot arrive on the battlefield during the first battle round.
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.
(Emphasis mine)
See the underlined section? well Drop Pods are exempt from that, so they are not counted in the total number of units, or the combined points value of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment.
Stop trying to count units in the total that are exempt from the rule.
Honestly, how is being exempt from not being able to deploy if half 50 % of the army is on the battlefield mean the unit is not included as 50% of the units not on the battlefield ? These are different things. TR says one thing, being considered to be on or off the battlefield is something else. emphasis on what you underlined. Again, its all well and good that a DP can ignore that line when you deploy it . But what bearing does that line have on giving it the status of on and off the battlefield. Yes it is exempt and can ignore the line. Sure. It is not exempt from any rule that qualifies it as being on/off the battlefield. Being on/off the battlefield has nothing to do with TR. DPs ignore that line other things do not.
Honestly, how is being exempt from not being able to deploy if half 50 % of the army is on the battlefield mean the unit is not included as 50% of the units not on the battlefield ? These are different things.
Because the 50% stipulation is part of the rule that podded units are exempt from. These arent Schrodinger's Drop Pods.
Honestly, how is being exempt from not being able to deploy if half 50 % of the army is on the battlefield mean the unit is not included as 50% of the units not on the battlefield ? These are different things.
Because the 50% stipulation is part of the rule that podded units are exempt from. These arent Schrodinger's Drop Pods.
Exactly. Exempt means Exempt. They ignore the Tactical Reserves rule, that means ALL of the rule.
I am not,
I am exempting it from the line provided in the TR rule and nothing extra. You are claiming it should be exempt from something not directly stated in the TR rule. It is exempt from needing 50% of all models to be on the battlefield in order to be deployed. Sure, it is totally exempt from that. What does that have to do with whether it counts as being or not being on the table ? TR doesn't address whether it is or is not on the table.
Because the 50% stipulation is part of the rule that podded units are exempt from. These arent Schrodinger's Drop Pods.
Yes ! and the DP does ignore that ! Other units do not ignore that. It isn't considered on or off the table because of the TR rule, it is considered to be on/off the table because of other rules and it is not exempt from other rules. Other models MUST follow the rule. The DP gets to ignore that rule all it wants. It doesn't change whether it is or is not on the table, whether it is or is not on the table is NOT stipulated in the TR rule and is not something it is exempt from.
DPs don't get to be exempt from all related rules just the EXACT rules outlined in TR. How can you claim that it applies to how OTHER units must follow the rule. The DP ignores it, other units do not. Nothing in TR dictates an on/off the table status. The DPs do not get to ignore that status, they only get to ignore the line DeathReaper highlighted.
How does ignoring this line make it not count as being off the table ?
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 within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your army’s total points value,
It totally ignores this line. It totally doesn't abide by it. Other models must abide by this line and nothing about this line or ignoring it determines whether or not a unit is on/off the table. Nothing about ignoring this line or being exempt from it allows other models to also ignore certain parts of it.
I am not,
I am exempting it from the line provided in the TR rule and nothing extra. You are claiming it should be exempt from something not directly stated in the TR rule. It is exempt from needing 50% of all models to be on the battlefield in order to be deployed. Sure, it is totally exempt from that. What does that have to do with whether it counts as being or not being on the table ? TR doesn't address whether it is or is not on the table.
What rule, outside of TR, are you seeing that addresses "whether it's on the table" for some sort of 50% rule?
Because the 50% stipulation is part of the rule that podded units are exempt from. These arent Schrodinger's Drop Pods.
Yes ! and the DP does ignore that ! Other units do not ignore that. It isn't considered on or off the table because of the TR rule, it is considered to be on/off the table because of other rules and it is not exempt from other rules. Other models MUST follow the rule. The DP gets to ignore that rule all it wants. It doesn't change whether it is or is not on the table, whether it is or is not on the table is NOT stipulated in the TR rule and is not something it is exempt from.
DPs don't get to be exempt from all related rules just the EXACT rules outlined in TR. How can you claim that it applies to how OTHER units must follow the rule. The DP ignores it, other units do not. Nothing in TR dictates an on/off the table status. The DPs do not get to ignore that status, they only get to ignore the line DeathReaper highlighted.
How does ignoring this line make it not count as being off the table ?
What rule other than Tactical Reserves, then, requires 50% of units to be on the table?
As for your "exempt from Gym Class", there are two seperate rules:
A) Students must take Gym. At least 50% of all classes a student takes must be Phsical Education.
B) Students must be on school grounds from 9 to 3
If the student is exmpet from (A), not only does he not need to take Gym, but also he doesn't need to meet the 50% Physical Education requirement. These rules don't require him to replace the class (although other rules probably do). And, regardless, he can now take 100% Social Studies classes, as far as Gym rule is concerned.
Except TR rule kicks in during deployment, not list building. Your total army roster, no. of units and points are separate matter.
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,
This stipulates that during the Deployment "phase", the number of units deployed as normal must be greater than or equal to number of units set aside to come in as reinforcement. At this time, only the unit count comes into play as far as TR rule is concerned.
and the combined points value of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your army’s total points value,
Then, this stipulates that once all the units have been set up, whether deployed as normal or set aside to enter as reinforcement, you tally up all of the points for the units that are deployed as normal and those that were set aside to enter as reinforcements, and check to make sure at least half of that are on the battlefield, deployed as normal.
Drop pods are exempt from all this because of it's rule. It does not count towards [unit deployed as normal] or [unit set aside as reinforcement]. It also does not count towards [part of sum deployed as normal] or [part of sum set aside for reinforcements].
If drop pods set aside as reinforcements still count towards the number of drops or army's total point value, and assuming the drop pods account for 50% of the army's total point value, then no further units can be placed in reserve as 50% of the army's total point value must be deployed as normal.
The process as written appears to be takes the totals points value of your army (so this includes reinforcement points) V, take the number of units in your army N. Halve each of these two numbers (round up), This is the deployment requirement.
And the totals points value of your army does not include units that are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule
TACTICAL RESERVES FAQ rules wrote:
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in ambush, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. 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 within 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.
Furthermore, in matched play games, units that are not placed on the battlefield during deployment in order to arrive on the battle mid-game as reinforcements cannot arrive on the battlefield during the first battle round.
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.
(Emphasis mine)
See the underlined section? well Drop Pods are exempt from that, so they are not counted in the total number of units, or the combined points value of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment.
Stop trying to count units in the total that are exempt from the rule.
I see the underlined section. It is describing how much of the army must be deployed (both in terms of the number of particular consitient elements, and the points values of those elements).
It is not describing placing an obligation or a requirement on any individual or specifc unit, nor is the total obligation calculated based on applying an obligation specifically on each consistient unit within the army, which is then aggregated up across all units to form the total obligation.
The 1st paragraph isn't targetting the units through either applying a restriction, or producing the obligation based on the properties of the individual units (e.g. points value, whether the unit is exempt from this...). It's targetting the army, based on the size on the properties of the army.
Simply put as written the minimum deployment requirements as based solely and only on the total points value of the army, and the number of units within it. If two armies have 1999pts and 13 units, but are composed of completely different units, with a completely different points breakdown of the consistient units, then the minimum deployment requirements are still the same, and as far as Tactical Reserves is concerned calculated identically. The 1st paragraph doesn't look an individual specific units, only the army totals. Whilst used by Tactical Reserves these measurements of the size of the army (points and no. units) are intrisic properties of the army which are not determined by Tactical Reserves, but are used by tactical reserves.
Thus even if units are exempt, this can be interpretted as having no affect on determining the minimum deployment values as this isn't calculated based levying the requirement based on the properties of the individual units, is based soley on the properties of the army, and targets the army with respect to adhering to those.
Can you see the subtle difference here? This isn't about me being confused about what 'exempt' means, it about that first paragraph targetting the army, not the individual constitient units.
DeathReaper wrote:Do not ignore what the word "exempt" means.
Again I'm not. As I've explained units being exempt from the restrictions and obligations placed upon them from Tactical Reserves does not make the army exempt, nor does it stop them being part of the army.
Honestly, how is being exempt from not being able to deploy if half 50 % of the army is on the battlefield mean the unit is not included as 50% of the units not on the battlefield ? These are different things.
Because the 50% stipulation is part of the rule that podded units are exempt from. These arent Schrodinger's Drop Pods.
Exactly. Exempt means Exempt. They ignore the Tactical Reserves rule, that means ALL of the rule.
Any exempt units do not ignore the rule, and critically are not ignored by it, they simpy are not bound by the restrictions placed or levieed upon them by the rule. As I've discussed previously the minimum deployment is not determined by levying an obligation on any specific unit, nor does it determine the total minimum deployment requirement by placing an obligation upon each constieunt unit which is then agregated together across the entire army.
Tactical Reserves states 'Army' the drop pods and any units to be or that are embarked on them must be by the very defination part of the army. Creating an 'effective army size' based upon these elements of the army not exempt is not a step that we are instructed to do, nor is it nessary to do so.
I can see where the such an assumption comes from, I've also been around long enough to have seen all drop pods before. However such an assumption isn't the only reasonable interpretation that can be drawn from the rules as written.
Yes the units from part of the army, but it doesn't automatically mean that they are excluded from the army when determining the deployment requirements.
Whilst the taxable goods has been used as an analogy I see no one has got back to me about how the 'Silly Sales Law' would work. Tax exemption is an interesting analogy as isn't there usually a significant amount of guidance and/or case law surrounding them to clarify any possible amigiouty...
So you guys are saying drop pods are exempt from being considered on/off the table during deployment.
You are saying being exempt from the TR rule means this.
Not sure how that is possible, but if that's how you'd play it, go for it, I just can't see how being exempt from a rule that says you can't deploy more then 50% of your army off the table also means they are exempt from being consider to be in fact off the table.
Whilst the taxable goods has been used as an analogy I see no one has got back to me about how the 'Silly Sales Law' would work.
The "Silly Sales Law" is a good example.
You have a law in three parts.
Someone is exempted to that law.
The question is, which, if any, of the three parts still apply?
The most simple and common reading is "none", as you're exempt. However, it's *possible* that someone is only exempted for the first one or two clauses. The word "exempt" doesn't specify if it applies to *all* clauses, or just some clauses.
Also note that, of the three clauses, GW found the need to clarify that the rule did *not* exempt the user from the third clause.
Clearly, it must exempt the user from at least one of the two remaining clauses. It's suggestive that the user is exempt from both, but English isn't that precise - it's possible they're only exempt from the first or second clause.
I think I'm of the opinion that the intent and ideal direction is to exempt the user from both clauses. And that's what is most in line with general usage, along with being the simplest and most likely meaning. But RAW is not 100% clear.
All that said, I'm having trouble coming up with reasonable cases where "exempt" is commonly used or understood as applying to only parts of the rule it modifies.
Type40 wrote: Your right, again they are exempt from the ENTIRE rule. So if I can maybe not be the only one who keeps quoting the actual TR rule, please read what the actual rule says.
The drop pods ignore the rule that says "50% of your army must be on the battlefield" nothing else ignores that rule.
Not true. The rule that was quoted stated that drop pods and units embarked in them are exempt from the TR rule. As part of the rule is 50% of your army must be on the battlefield, the embarked units as well as dthe drop pods are exempt from that rule.
Type40 wrote: The TR rule does not dictate what does and doesn't count as being on the battlefield, we can see this when we read the TR rule and it doesn't mention anything about what does and doesn't count as being on the battlefield. So if something is exempt from this TR rule, how can you argue that it is also exempt from being considered to be off the battlefield.
Simple, the rule stated that units embarked are exempt from the TR rule, which is setting up the requirement for 50 % of the army to be on the board. The drop pods and unit embarked are exempt from this, meaning they don't count as part of the army for determining the 50%.
Type40 wrote: The rule checks whether or not 50% is on the battlefield... That's it. Having only drop pods means you don't have to check,,, but if you have something that does have to check,,, then you HAVE to check,,, and as I explained, DPs are exempt from the TR rule (the checking for 50% itself) there is nothing that says they are exempt from any rule thay dictates what is and isn't on the battlefield...
Nonsense. Thier rule states they are exempt from the TR rule, which means the entire TR rule, which includes stating that 50% of the army must be on the board. The drop pod rule itself makes them exempt from counting toward the total for having 50% on the board. If they are being included the way you insist, then they aren't exempt and you're not following the rules for drop pods. You must have 50% of the army on the battlefield, but this would be only 50% of the army that's not in drop pods or the drop pods themselves, since those are exempt.
Whilst the taxable goods has been used as an analogy I see no one has got back to me about how the 'Silly Sales Law' would work.
The "Silly Sales Law" is a good example.
You have a law in three parts.
Someone is exempted to that law.
The question is, which, if any, of the three parts still apply?
The most simple and common reading is "none", as you're exempt. However, it's *possible* that someone is only exempted for the first one or two clauses. The word "exempt" doesn't specify if it applies to *all* clauses, or just some clauses.
Also note that, of the three clauses, GW found the need to clarify that the rule did *not* exempt the user from the third clause.
Clearly, it must exempt the user from at least one of the two remaining clauses. It's suggestive that the user is exempt from both, but English isn't that precise - it's possible they're only exempt from the first or second clause.
I think I'm of the opinion that the intent and ideal direction is to exempt the user from both clauses. And that's what is most in line with general usage, along with being the simplest and most likely meaning. But RAW is not 100% clear.
All that said, I'm having trouble coming up with reasonable cases where "exempt" is commonly used or understood as applying to only parts of the rule it modifies.
(slightly tweaked) from my preivous post
Silly Sales Law:
1) Goods may not be sold before 8am Monday
2) Goods may not be sold after 10pm Friday
3) 10% of the total sale value of a transaction is payable as tax
Some goods are exempt from this. Thus they can sold prior to 8am Monday and after 10pm Friday.
How much tax will the shop have to pay if a customer purchases £100 of goods exempt from this law? - Discuss
Type40 wrote: So you guys are saying drop pods are exempt from being considered on/off the table during deployment.
You are saying being exempt from the TR rule means this.
Not sure how that is possible, but if that's how you'd play it, go for it, I just can't see how being exempt from a rule that says you can't deploy more then 50% of your army off the table also means they are exempt from being consider to be in fact off the table.
Because you're misreading the argument.
The pods are clearly off the table. For all rules purposes, in the absence of an exception or exemption, they are off the table.
There exists one rule that cares whether 50% of your army is on/off the table. That's the TR rule. Which they are exempted to. As such, the pod is freed of any liability under the rule. So you take no liability to deploy half it's points.
The fact that the liability is ephemeral, and the pod's points are added to a subtotal used elsewhere, does not mean the points that count against the TR rule are not a liability.
Look at almost any tax form. You record your entire income. Then a bunch of math happens. Then taxes are run against the adjusted number. For any tax purpose, your "total income" is the adjusted number, not the original number. So if I make $500 in a year, and $100 was exempted from Income Tax, my total Income when doing my taxes is $400. My total income for assisted housing or whatever is (likely) still $500 - as that income is specifically exempted from Income Tax, not assisted housing. But any rule about Income Tax that references "total income" is looking at liability against the $400 figure, not the $500 figure.
To take that further, to mirror "deploying other units and checking the rule", lets pretend there's a 50% tax bracket on money over $500 (and 10% under that).
So when running my income tax, I made $500 total with $100 being exempt. That's $400. So I pay the 10% - $40.
Now I make another $100. How much tax do I pay on that? I've made $600 total in real dollars, but only $500 is taxable. So I pay 10% not 50% - I only have to pay $10 on that additional $100.
It doesn't matter that *this* $100 isn't exempt, and I'd previously made $500 - as far as income tax is concerned, I've only previously made $400.
In a related point, all this tax doesn't care *what order* I made the money in. I made $600 now, $100 of which is exempt. I don't really pay tax on each additional dollar I make. There's no order-of-operations or steps that matter. The total is identified, and the rules require I meet a condition. So if that $100 being exempt only mattered for that $100, we're now in an impossible state.
Once again, these are very-long-settled rules. Something anyone who's ever filed taxes has successfully and correctly implemented (even if only through a web app).
"Exempt" doesn't mean "Ignore $target while applying $rule". Or "Ignore $rule while acting on $target". It means "$Target is freed from obligations or liabilites from $rule". It doesn't proscribe a course of actions, it specifies state and conditions (or, rather, the removal thereof).
I think you're getting hung up on treating rules as actions that can be allowed or denied sequentially. Not all rules are. Some - like the second clause of TR - are about permissible/impermissible state. Not actions.
1) Goods may not be sold before 8am Monday
2) Goods may not be sold after 10pm Friday
3) 10% of the total sale value of a transaction is payable as tax
Some goods are exempt from this. Thus they can sold prior to 8am Monday and after 10pm Friday.
How much tax will the shop have to pay if a customer purchases £100 of goods exempt from this law? - Discuss
A nearly perfect proxy for the rule at hand. People considering this thread should consider this question first.
As stated - "Exempt from [Silly Sales Law]" - outside other factors, the most common reading *IMHO* $0 in tax for this law. It's noteworthy that you're still probably paying $6 under the "Reasonable Sales Law", though. (And dollars instead of Pounds because #mytoxicnationalism, F YA!)
You are wrong in a literal sense. Being exempt from tactical reserves rule does not make them exempt from being a model in your army (which is how the 50% part of the rule is described) . It is as I stated on page 1. It requires clarification or you can't do it in a tournament. In a casual game...who cares? Have a discussion - find an opponent who wants to play against a null deploy army with shaky at best rules support and go for it.
Xenomancers wrote: You are wrong in a literal sense. Being exempt from tactical reserves rule does not make them exempt from being a model in your army (which is how the 50% part of the rule is described) . It is as I stated on page 1. It requires clarification or you can't do it in a tournament. In a casual game...who cares? Have a discussion - find an opponent who wants to play against a null deploy army with shaky at best rules support and go for it.
In either interpretations, null deployment is impossible unless the entire army is in pods.
Under the interpretation where drop pods count towards total army point, once you've put half of your army in pods in reserves, then the remaining 50% cannot be put into reserves.
Under the interpretation where drop pods do not count towards total army point, and half of your army in pod is put in reserves, you must deploy 25% of army as normal, and 25% can be put in reserves.
Galef wrote: So wait, is the crux of this debate that DPs are exempt from TR, but TR does not exempt the DPs from being counted?
That's....an interesting take.
-
YES !!! because the TR rule doesn't say anything about being counted as on / off the table! Nothing exempts them from being considered to be on/off the table. They are ONLY exempt from a restriction about what is on/off the table and not a the status of being on/off the table. They ignore the restriction! that is it ! the restriction is the TR rule, nothing else.
As people keep pointing out DPs are exempt from the ENTIRE rule. They do not care how many things are on the table. You can have what ever amount of DPs you want and they never care if it is above 50%. I agree ! this undeniably true ! they are exempt from the entire rule. Everyone keeps trying to explain that they are exempt and do not have to follow the rule. No doubt, they do not. People have now said that being exempt from the TR rule doesn't mean that they are not on the table. Because factually they are not on the table. Nothing about the TR rule determines whether or not they count as being on the table or not. Nothing about being on or off the table is involved in the TR rule. The TR rule is just a restriction about deploying when certain things are on or off the table. They are exempt from a rule that is specifically concerned with SEEING HOW MANY THINGS ARE ON THE BATTLEFIELD. Being exempt from that rule doesn't mean that you can ignore whether or not they ARE IN FACT ON OR OFF THE BATTLEFIELD.
So, if you have a model that is not exempt from a rule that tells you are restricted from deploying more then 50% off the table then the drop pod is still counted as something that can be on/off the table. The non-exempt unit doesn't get to ignore that line. DPs are not exempt from having a status of on/off the table. That status doesn't go away. All drop pods = yes null deploy they do not care if 50% is on the battlefield. Having even 1 more non-exempt unit as reinforcements, that unit then brings the restriction with it, because it must follow the rule that says 50% must be on the table. This doesn't mean the DPs arn't exempt, it only means that the other unit is not exempt !
My termies in a teleport chamber ARE NOT exempt from 50% of my models needing to be on the table. My drop pods ARE exempt from it. My drop pods will not care how much is on the table, this is all well and good. My termies DO care how much is on and off the table. Nothing about the TR rule or being exempt from it makes the Termies exempt from counting the drop pods. The termies still must adhere to the rule. The termies still must ensure 50% of my units are on the table. The DPs being exempt doesn't magically make my termies exempt from having to count everything that is not on the table. The termies MUST follow the rule. They MUST count what is and isn't on the table. No exceptions, they are NOT exempt. Only the DPs do not need to count what is and isn't on the table. Non-Exempt units are not exempt from the rule. Why do people keep trying to imply that the exemption carries over to rules other models MUST follow !
Type40 wrote: Your right, again they are exempt from the ENTIRE rule. So if I can maybe not be the only one who keeps quoting the actual TR rule, please read what the actual rule says.
The drop pods ignore the rule that says "50% of your army must be on the battlefield" nothing else ignores that rule.
Not true. The rule that was quoted stated that drop pods and units embarked in them are exempt from the TR rule. As part of the rule is 50% of your army must be on the battlefield, the embarked units as well as dthe drop pods are exempt from that rule.
Type40 wrote: The TR rule does not dictate what does and doesn't count as being on the battlefield, we can see this when we read the TR rule and it doesn't mention anything about what does and doesn't count as being on the battlefield. So if something is exempt from this TR rule, how can you argue that it is also exempt from being considered to be off the battlefield.
Simple, the rule stated that units embarked are exempt from the TR rule, which is setting up the requirement for 50 % of the army to be on the board. The drop pods and unit embarked are exempt from this, meaning they don't count as part of the army for determining the 50%.
Type40 wrote: The rule checks whether or not 50% is on the battlefield... That's it. Having only drop pods means you don't have to check,,, but if you have something that does have to check,,, then you HAVE to check,,, and as I explained, DPs are exempt from the TR rule (the checking for 50% itself) there is nothing that says they are exempt from any rule thay dictates what is and isn't on the battlefield...
Nonsense. Thier rule states they are exempt from the TR rule, which means the entire TR rule, which includes stating that 50% of the army must be on the board. The drop pod rule itself makes them exempt from counting toward the total for having 50% on the board. If they are being included the way you insist, then they aren't exempt and you're not following the rules for drop pods. You must have 50% of the army on the battlefield, but this would be only 50% of the army that's not in drop pods or the drop pods themselves, since those are exempt.
YES like I said, DPs are exempt from the restriction. Other models are NOT exempt from the restriction.
Galef wrote: So wait, is the crux of this debate that DPs are exempt from TR, but TR does not exempt the DPs from being counted?
That's....an interesting take.
-
It's not as complicated as it sounds.
A unit you deploy that is not exempt is affected by the tactical reserves rule. The wording of tactical reserves states total points for the 50% calculation of what is on the battlefield. At no point are we instructed how to make this points calculation for "exempt units". It may be simple but there are a few ways you could do this with different outcomes. The lack of an instruction is quite clear they did not intend for exempt to mean exempt from being counted as part of your army's total points. They literally did not understand this was a consequence of such a rule just like they didn't understand people were deep striking 7 tyrants 3 mawlocks....
Galef wrote: So wait, is the crux of this debate that DPs are exempt from TR, but TR does not exempt the DPs from being counted?
That's....an interesting take.
-
It's not as complicated as it sounds.
A unit you deploy that is not exempt is effected by the tactical reserves rule. The wording of tactical reserves states total points for the 50% calculation of what is on the battlefield. At no point are we instructed how to make this points calculation for "exempt units".
By extension of this argument, if a drop pod and its contents count towards the total army points, then it should also also count towards the total number of units in the army. Then, if a drop pod contains 10 single model units, then you've put in 11 units in reserves, which means you are now required to deploy 11 units on the battlefield unless every thing in your army is in drop pods, in reserve.
If you deployed 10 units as normal, and then as your last drop, you put the said drop pod (with 10 single model units) into reserves. Now your entire deployment is illegal, despite the drop pod being allowed to ignore the TR rule. So then, it's not actually ignoring or being exempt from the TR rule at all.
My termies still are not exempt from the rule and neither is EVERY other model that is not either within the DP or the DP itself.
Ok. And? Seriously, this was never in doubt. Did...you think people were saying that? Because nobody has been saying that.
They are literally saying that. A tactical squad deployed on the table is not exempt and therefore has to follow the rule to be deployed legally. The wording doesn't suddenly change to total army points to total army points - exempt units from tactical reserves.
My termies still are not exempt from the rule and neither is EVERY other model that is not either within the DP or the DP itself.
Ok. And? Seriously, this was never in doubt. Did...you think people were saying that? Because nobody has been saying that.
YES people are saying that.
They are saying you can reserve 50% your units of DPs and units within them as well as another 25% of other stuff in reserve as well. Read the posts, this is what people have been trying to argue.
YES people are saying that.
They are saying you can reserve 50% your units of DPs and units within them as well as another 25% of other stuff in reserve as well. Read the posts, this is what people have been trying to argue.
*sigh*
These are two explicitly different statements, and I've only been responding to one. So get off your high horse.
"Units outside pods are subject to Tactical Reserves" and "Units outside pods but in reserve are subject to Tactical reserves, but therefore weird gak happens when you apply Tactical Reserves to non-podded units" are not remotely the same thing.
Galef wrote: So wait, is the crux of this debate that DPs are exempt from TR, but TR does not exempt the DPs from being counted?
That's....an interesting take.
-
It's not as complicated as it sounds.
A unit you deploy that is not exempt is effected by the tactical reserves rule. The wording of tactical reserves states total points for the 50% calculation of what is on the battlefield. At no point are we instructed how to make this points calculation for "exempt units".
By extension of this argument, if a drop pod and its contents count towards the total army points, then it should also also count towards the total number of units in the army. Then, if a drop pod contains 10 single model units, then you've put in 11 units in reserves, which means you are now required to deploy 11 units on the battlefield unless every thing in your army is in drop pods, in reserve.
If you deployed 10 units as normal, and then as your last drop, you put the said drop pod (with 10 single model units) into reserves. Now your entire deployment is illegal, despite the drop pod being allowed to ignore the TR rule. So then, it's not actually ignoring or being exempt from the TR rule at all.
Seems correct yes
Q: The Tactical Reserves matched play rule states that at least
half the total number of units in my army must be set up on the
battlefield during Deployment. If I have units embarked in a
transport, do they count against the number of units I have to set
up during Deployment? If, for example, I have a Valkyrie with
three units embarked inside it that will arrive on the battlefield
during the game, how many other units do I need to set up
during Deployment to satisfy the Tactical Reserves rule?
A: Yes, embarked units count as units in your army, so must
be counted when referring to this rule. If you have three
units embarked inside a transport that will arrive during
the game, you need to set up at least four other units on
WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK 12
the battlefield during Deployment – equivalently, if you set
up three units in a transport on the battlefield, you could
set up four other units to arrive during the game.
Just because the DP and contents IS ignoring the restriction of TR doesn't mean something else in reserves is allowed to.
Your example looks correct.
YES people are saying that.
They are saying you can reserve 50% your units of DPs and units within them as well as another 25% of other stuff in reserve as well. Read the posts, this is what people have been trying to argue.
*sigh*
These are two explicitly different statements, and I've only been responding to one. So get off your high horse.
"Units outside pods are subject to Tactical Reserves" and "Units outside pods but in reserve are subject to Tactical reserves, but therefore weird gak happens when you apply Tactical Reserves to non-podded units" are not remotely the same thing.
Just read the previous posts please.
I responded to those saying you can deploy a mix of DPs and Non-DPs over 50% ... plenty of posts suggesting that.
You asked me if I "seriously thought people were saying that" So I responding by saying "YES people are saying that"
Don't then turn around and go "ooohhhh *sigh* well I am not saying that, stop acting like I am"
I had a reasonable response to your post.
Type40 wrote: Just because the DP and contents IS ignoring the restriction of TR doesn't mean something else in reserves is allowed to. Your example looks correct.
Then when is a DP ever being exempt from TR rule other than when null deploying will all units in pods?
If you are making sure there are 50% non-pods being deployed as normal for the said 50% of the army to be of a legal deployment, the only exemption the DP is claiming is turn 1 drop.
Type40 wrote: Just because the DP and contents IS ignoring the restriction of TR doesn't mean something else in reserves is allowed to.
Your example looks correct.
Then when is a DP ever being exempt from TR rule other than when null deploying will all units in pods?
DPs are always exempt from TR rule.
What ever model you have that isn't in a DP must follow the restriction.
So unless you null deploy DPs, you must have 50% on the table.
Again, its not about the DPs being exempt, they are always exempt, its about other units not being exempt.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If I am in a car with 5 people and I am exempt from boarder security but the other people in the car are not exempt from boarder security, my car will still be stopped at the boarder because the others are not exempt. It doesn't mean I am not exempt. But I am with people who are not. So the car must be stopped.
Just because one thing is exempt does not give everything else a free pass. It is exempt and if it was alone it would have a benefit. Unfortunately, the things that are brought with it don't get that benefit. Still doesn't stop it from being exempt, the other things just stop it from gaining any benefit to being exempt, because the other things still trigger the restriction.
Type40 wrote: Just because the DP and contents IS ignoring the restriction of TR doesn't mean something else in reserves is allowed to. Your example looks correct.
Then when is a DP ever being exempt from TR rule other than when null deploying will all units in pods?
DPs are always exempt from TR rule.
What ever model you have that isn't in a DP must follow the restriction.
So unless you null deploy DPs, you must have 50% on the table.
Again, its not about the DPs being exempt, they are always exempt, its about other units not being exempt.
Going back to the tax analogy - what you're claiming is like saying: I purchase $100 of non-taxable goods and $100 of taxable goods, at rate of 50% tax. The subtotal is $200. Which makes the total $300 dollars because the $100 from the non-taxable goods are not taxed but the $200 subtotal is subject to 50% tax.
Type40 wrote: Just because the DP and contents IS ignoring the restriction of TR doesn't mean something else in reserves is allowed to.
Your example looks correct.
Then when is a DP ever being exempt from TR rule other than when null deploying will all units in pods?
DPs are always exempt from TR rule.
What ever model you have that isn't in a DP must follow the restriction.
So unless you null deploy DPs, you must have 50% on the table.
Again, its not about the DPs being exempt, they are always exempt, its about other units not being exempt.
Going back to the tax analogy - what you're claiming is like saying:
I purchase $100 of non-taxable goods and $100 of taxable goods, at rate of 50% tax.
The subtotal is $200. Which makes the total $300 dollars because the $100 from the non-taxable goods are not taxed but the $200 subtotal is subject to 50% tax.
This isn't tax law.
This is whether or not being exempt from a specific restriction means others are exempt from a specific restriction.
This is more akin to
If I have a coupon, with my name on it, that can only be used for me, for 200$ off of tattoos. Can my friend use any leftover money to reduce the price of his tattoos ?
The TR rule is simply a restriction. If you are exempt from it, you ignore it completely. You ignore the restriction. The 50% doesn't change for any other unit. Every other unit in the army still needs to follow the rule verbatim. The rule verbatim says 50%. What precedence do you have that says because this unit can ignore a 50% restriction means other units can change the specified 50% they have to follow ? The rule hasn't changed for anything else. It is still 50% . DPs ignore the restriction. Other things do not ignore it, they don't change it, they MUST follow it, verbatim. The DPs ignoring it doesn't make other units have a rule that reads 25% of your army must be on the battlefield... that would be changing the rule for the other units. It still says 50% for them.
Trying to claim that being exempt from a restriction changes how the restriction operates for other units is unprecedented. No other rule in the game does that, if something ignores a restriction, every other model must follow that restriction as is.
Tax law has much more nuance to it then the rules for 40k. Being exempt from a certain tax is not the same as being exempt from an entire rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you had 200$ gift card
The owner of the store is walking around putting a sticker with words onto all sorts of products.
You walk into a store and see product A
the sticker says "if you buy this product you must return 50% of your gift cards value tomorrow"
Product B
Has no sticker as the store owner has exempted it from the stipulation.
you buy 100$ of product A and
you buy 100$ of product B
How can buying product B change product A's rule to only imply 25% ?
Product B specifically says, you must return 50% of the gift cads value tomorrow. Product B, whilst exempt from that rule, has no bearing on product A's rule.
1) Goods may not be sold before 8am Monday
2) Goods may not be sold after 10pm Friday
3) 10% of the total sale value of a transaction is payable as tax
Some goods are exempt from this. Thus they can sold prior to 8am Monday and after 10pm Friday.
How much tax will the shop have to pay if a customer purchases £100 of goods exempt from this law? - Discuss
A nearly perfect proxy for the rule at hand. People considering this thread should consider this question first.
As stated - "Exempt from [Silly Sales Law]" - outside other factors, the most common reading *IMHO* $0 in tax for this law. It's noteworthy that you're still probably paying $6 under the "Reasonable Sales Law", though. (And dollars instead of Pounds because #mytoxicnationalism, F YA!)
I would say 10% (so 10 of your local currency). Whilst the goods are exempt from the Silly Sales Law, it is the (value of) transaction that this obligation of levied on, thus the only difference goods being exempt, or not from the this law is when the goods may be sold.
Yes the exempt goods contribute to the value of the transaction but the case as presented is very is very different from the Silly Sales Law levying a tax of 10% on the goods (which exempt goods would certianly be exempt from).
The direct causality between goods, the value of each and every goods purchased, the emergent property of the total value isn’t being disputed. However there is a critical and subtle nuance of between apply the tax on the value of any goods, or on the transaction itself.
The Silly Sales Law doesn’t entirely directly apply to the Goods, nor to the Transaction require to purchase things, parts of it apply to each. The exemption of the goods from the law does not affect the transaction to pay for them as the transaction is not exempt.
Can people see where this side is coming from?
Likewise Tactical Reserves doesn’t in it’s entirety apply directly target units (where a unit being exempt from the rule does affect how the game operates e.g. the allowance (or not) of Turn 1 arrival), that initial paragraph applies to the Army. Thus, the 1st paragraph does not directly apply to units (the rules doesn’t specify which units must be used to meet the requirement, nor does the rule use the properties of the units to determine the requirements) - all the description is in relation to 'the army', yes units are mentioned but as a way of describing the army, not the source of, nor target of the obligation and restriction.
Whilst the army is formed of units and any reserves points a emergent and separate entity to those units, and units being exempt does not prevent the rules applying to the army even if all the constituent elements of that army are exempt. The ‘inheritance’ of the exemption whilst may be intended isn't stipulated.
1) Goods may not be sold before 8am Monday
2) Goods may not be sold after 10pm Friday
3) 10% of the total sale value of a transaction is payable as tax
Some goods are exempt from this. Thus they can sold prior to 8am Monday and after 10pm Friday.
How much tax will the shop have to pay if a customer purchases £100 of goods exempt from this law? - Discuss
A nearly perfect proxy for the rule at hand. People considering this thread should consider this question first.
As stated - "Exempt from [Silly Sales Law]" - outside other factors, the most common reading *IMHO* $0 in tax for this law. It's noteworthy that you're still probably paying $6 under the "Reasonable Sales Law", though. (And dollars instead of Pounds because #mytoxicnationalism, F YA!)
I would say 10% (so 10 of your local currency). Whilst the goods are exempt from the Silly Sales Law, it is the (value of) transaction that this obligation of levied on, thus the only difference goods being exempt, or not from the this law is when the goods may be sold.
Yes the exempt goods contribute to the value of the transaction but the case as presented is very is very different from the Silly Sales Law levying a tax of 10% on the goods (which exempt goods would certianly be exempt from).
The direct causality between goods, the value of each and every goods purchased, the emergent property of the total value isn’t being disputed. However there is a critical and subtle nuance of between apply the tax on the value of any goods, or on the transaction itself.
The Silly Sales Law doesn’t entirely directly apply to the Goods, nor to the Transaction require to purchase things, parts of it apply to each. The exemption of the goods from the law does not affect the transaction to pay for them as the transaction is not exempt.
Can people see where this side is coming from?
There's a world of difference between "Goods are exempt from Silly Sales Law" and "Whilst the goods are exempt from the Silly Sales Law, it is the (value of) transaction that this obligation of levied on, thus the only difference goods being exempt, or not from the this law is when the goods may be sold." You're using some other source to interpret 'exempt' as applying to clauses 1 or 2, while explicitly asserting that being exempt to the rule does not cause exemption to the rule's third clause.
Spoiler:
Likewise Tactical Reserves doesn’t in it’s entirety apply directly target units (where a unit being exempt from the rule does affect how the game operates e.g. the allowance (or not) of Turn 1 arrival), that initial paragraph applies to the Army. Thus, the 1st paragraph does not directly apply to units (the rules doesn’t specify which units must be used to meet the requirement, nor does the rule use the properties of the units to determine the requirements) - all the description is in relation to 'the army', yes units are mentioned but as a way of describing the army, not the source of, nor target of the obligation and restriction.
Likewise, with TR, we have a rule with 3 clauses (although the FAQ explicitly excludes the third clause). One could argue being exempt from TR should mean being exempt from clause #1 of TR but being bound by clause #2, but that's not inherent in the rule.
Whilst the army is formed of units and any reserves points a emergent and separate entity to those units, and units being exempt does not prevent the rules applying to the army even if all the constituent elements of that army are exempt. The ‘inheritance’ of the exemption whilst may be intended isn't stipulated.
My sales tax liability for a purchase is leveraged on the total of the purchase, not the individual units I purchased. Exempted goods are freed of *liability* - even when that liability is applied to an ephemeral concept of which the exempted goods are a part. The 'inheritence', as you call it, isn't stipulated - but neither is the lack of this 'inherentence'. As it's how the term usually functions, it's absence certainly doesn't imply the less-standard use of the term.
Being exempt from a certain tax is not the same as being exempt from an entire rule.
How is it not? Pods are explicitly exempt from the TR rule. What logic makes Pods not exempt from the TR rule?
Again DPs ARE exempt from the rule. Nothing else is !.
Again we arn't talking about something being exempt from a percentage of a rule. We are talking about something being exempt from an ENTRIRE rule along with things that are not exempt from the ENTIRE rule.
again, things that are not exempt must follow the entirety of the rule i.e. 50% of units MUST be on the battlefield. Just because your DPs are exempt does not magically make the rule for your termies change. Your termies must still follow the rule verbatim in its entirety.
again, this example.
If you had 200$ gift card
The owner of the store is walking around putting a sticker with words onto all sorts of products.
Product A
the sticker says "if you buy this product you must return 50% of your gift cards value tomorrow"
Product B
Has no sticker as the store owner has exempted it from the stipulation.
you buy 100$ of product A and
you buy 100$ of product B
How can buying product B change product A's rule somehow to only imply 25% ? Product A still must follow the rule, even though product B does not have that rule. It does not mean product B is not exempt just because product A must follow the rule.
Product B specifically says, you must return 50% of the gift cads value tomorrow. Product B, whilst exempt from that rule, has no bearing on product A's rule.
How do you not understand that being exempt from the restriction has no bearing on how other things must follow the restriction in its entirety ?
If I want to go into a bar that says "no shirts no service"
If I am with my friend and I am not wearing a shirt. They will not let the two of us into the bar together. He, by wearing his shirt, is exempt from the rule. Alone or with other people who are all wearing shirts, is allowed to go into the bar. But with me, who is not wearing a shirt he is no longer allowed. This does not mean he is not exempt from the rule, it just means he is in a group WITH someone who is not exempt.
It's not that complicated. Why are we trying to use TAX law as an example or trying to figure out what % is allowed afterwords. There is a restriction, there are units that do not have to follow the restriction. If they are in a list (aka grouped) with things that do have to follow the restriction, the list as a whole/ the group as a whole is in violation. It does not mean the unit is not exempt just that the other things are.
If I have 10 units with a rule that says
"if this model is in this army your army can not include more then 50% named character units"
and I have 10 units that do not have that rule.
I don't sit down and go,,, well this one unit is exempt from that rule so I can clearly have 15 named characters because 50% of my units do not restrict me from only having 50% named characters. The inclusion of ANY models that do have the restriction must be followed verbatim and in its entirety. This doesn't mean the 10 units the do not have the rule arn't exempt from the rule. It just means the models who do have the rule make it so you MUST follow it verbatim .
Are exempt units still considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes. So they clearly contribute points to your total points. Done. Period.
Argument can be made etherway without a clarification and they are both good arguments. However, I would err on the side of greater than 1000 points reserve deployment should not be allowed as it is the president that has been set in literally every other circumstance. Though I do agree currently that a full drop pod army is RAW legal - just not greater than 1000 points of reinforcements as long as a single non-exempt unit is deployed.
How do you not understand that being exempt from the restriction has no bearing on how other things must follow the restriction in its entirety ?
Exempt: free from an obligation or liability imposed on others.
If each unit provides a liability of half-a-unit-must-be-deployed under TR, and pods are free of liability from TR, then how are you still applying the liability they otherwise would apply?
Are exempt units still considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes. So they clearly contribute points to your total points. Done. Period.
Argument can be made etherway without a clarification and they are both good arguments. However, I would err on the side of greater than 1000 points reserve deployment should not be allowed as it is the president that has been set in literally every other circumstance.
The ENTIRE reason the Drop Pods have that rule is to break the precedent.
This is like saying "GW have a precedent of not allowing invulnerable saves to go to 2+, therefore the Shadowfield can't be a 2+ invulnerable save."
Also, the rules don't care about "precedent", the rules are what the rules are.
Are exempt units still considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes. So they clearly contribute points to your total points. Done. Period.
Argument can be made etherway without a clarification and they are both good arguments. However, I would err on the side of greater than 1000 points reserve deployment should not be allowed as it is the president that has been set in literally every other circumstance.
The ENTIRE reason the Drop Pods have that rule is to break the precedent.
This is like saying "GW have a precedent of not allowing invulnerable saves to go to 2+, therefore the Shadowfield can't be a 2+ invulnerable save."
Disagree. The principle reason they have the rule is to break part of the rule. Being able to come in turn 1. Not so you can go above 1000 points of reinforcements.
Are exempt units still considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes. So they clearly contribute points to your total points. Done. Period.
Are exempt units exempt from being considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes.
Super simple.
They are exempt from the tactical reserve rule. They aren't exempt from being part of your army. Like I said - both are good arguments. Nether has any additional support but our opinions. This really needs clarification.
Are exempt units still considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes. So they clearly contribute points to your total points. Done. Period.
Argument can be made etherway without a clarification and they are both good arguments. However, I would err on the side of greater than 1000 points reserve deployment should not be allowed as it is the president that has been set in literally every other circumstance.
The ENTIRE reason the Drop Pods have that rule is to break the precedent.
This is like saying "GW have a precedent of not allowing invulnerable saves to go to 2+, therefore the Shadowfield can't be a 2+ invulnerable save."
Disagree. The principle reason they have the rule is to break part of the rule. Being able to come in turn 1. Not so you can go above 1000 points of reinforcements.
There are three clauses to the rule. There's even an FAQ that they're not exempt to the third clause. What reason do we have to believe the purpose was only to exempt the first clause?
Are exempt units still considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes. So they clearly contribute points to your total points. Done. Period.
Argument can be made etherway without a clarification and they are both good arguments. However, I would err on the side of greater than 1000 points reserve deployment should not be allowed as it is the president that has been set in literally every other circumstance.
The ENTIRE reason the Drop Pods have that rule is to break the precedent.
This is like saying "GW have a precedent of not allowing invulnerable saves to go to 2+, therefore the Shadowfield can't be a 2+ invulnerable save."
Disagree. The principle reason they have the rule is to break part of the rule. Being able to come in turn 1. Not so you can go above 1000 points of reinforcements.
Then they should have made the rule say "You can arrive turn 1".
The fact they didn't shows that that is not what they intended. They have even errata'd the rule since release (because of course they have, GW couldn't rules write their way out of a wet paper bag), proving that exempt means exempt, except for the Turn 3 part of the rule.
Are exempt units still considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes. So they clearly contribute points to your total points. Done. Period.
Are exempt units exempt from being considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes.
Super simple.
They are exempt from the tactical reserve rule. They aren't exempt from being part of your army.
They *are* exempt from the Tactical Reserve rule. So as far as it's concerned, they're exempt from being part of your army. For any other rule, they are part of your army.
It really is simple. In trying to split hairs, you're just complicating it.
Are exempt units still considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes. So they clearly contribute points to your total points. Done. Period.
Argument can be made etherway without a clarification and they are both good arguments. However, I would err on the side of greater than 1000 points reserve deployment should not be allowed as it is the president that has been set in literally every other circumstance.
The ENTIRE reason the Drop Pods have that rule is to break the precedent.
This is like saying "GW have a precedent of not allowing invulnerable saves to go to 2+, therefore the Shadowfield can't be a 2+ invulnerable save."
Disagree. The principle reason they have the rule is to break part of the rule. Being able to come in turn 1. Not so you can go above 1000 points of reinforcements.
Then they should have made the rule say "You can arrive turn 1".
The fact they didn't shows that that is not what they intended. They have even errata'd the rule since release (because of course they have, GW couldn't rules write their way out of a wet paper bag), proving that exempt means exempt, except for the Turn 3 part of the rule.
Yeah that makes no sense. Coming in turn 4 after your entire army is obliterate is to good but alpha striking with a whole army is permitted? I call BS. In any case. Nothing about being exempt from TR makes you not part of the army for calculating total army points. Without clarification it is not clear how to handle that situation.
Are exempt units still considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes. So they clearly contribute points to your total points. Done. Period.
Are exempt units exempt from being considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes.
Super simple.
They are exempt from the tactical reserve rule. They aren't exempt from being part of your army.
They *are* exempt from the Tactical Reserve rule. So as far as it's concerned, they're exempt from being part of your army. For any other rule, they are part of your army.
It really is simple. In trying to split hairs, you're just complicating it.
Maybe you are right but there are other way of interpreting that.
Are non-drop pod/non-drop pod transported units exempt from the TR rule or given permission to change the rule in anyway ?
No, they MUST follow the rule verbatim.
Yes, it seems if you bring your entire army in drop pods you can have more then 50% of your army off the battlefield. No you can not have more then 50% of your army off the battle if you even have a single model that MUST follow the TR rule.
Why do people think that a DP and contained units being exempt from a rule changes the wording of the rule as written for other units that are not exempt?
Other things are not exempt, so they MUST follow the rule verbatim. They don't get some special exception because exempt things are in the army. The fact that they MUST follow the rule doesn't mean things that things that that don't have to follow the rule are not exempt. DPs continue to be exempt. It is the things in your army that are not exempt that are stopping them and you from benefiting from any kind of over 50% off the table benefit.
Just like if I tried to walk into a bar that had a sign that said "no shirts no service" whilst not wearing a shirt, my friend who is exempt from the rule can not walk in with me. He is exempt, but I ruin that for him by not wearing a shirt. I must follow and adhere to the restriction. He can go in alone, or with a group of others who are all weaaring shirts or even with a group of others who are all exempt. But with me, who is not exempt, no dice. He continues to be exempt, but as a group, we have no service.
Bharrings argument is that "exempt" implies the subtraction from the total army points being applied in the TR rule. However it does not give instruction on how to do so.
It could mean you subtract the exempt units points total then take the reaming points and divide by 2 and that is how much you can deep strike. That is a good argument. We have no instruction to do that though.
I can also think of some other crap pot ideas that we are also not instructed to do that could meet this definition too.
I just don't understand how such a giant change in deployment allotment could be permissible without instructions.
BaconCatBug wrote: Then they should have made the rule say "You can arrive turn 1".
The fact they didn't shows that that is not what they intended. They have even errata'd the rule since release (because of course they have, GW couldn't rules write their way out of a wet paper bag), proving that exempt means exempt, except for the Turn 3 part of the rule.
To take a page from your book BCB
Because GW doesn't always write rules that are efficient.
That doesn't mean the RAW isn't what it is.
and just because they wrote the rule in a confusing way, that allows null deploy if you only play where everything is in a pod, doesn't mean that it isn't what is intended.
If they had just wrote "you can arrive turn 1" then you couldn't have a null deploy with everything coming in pods.
Why are we assuming they didn't intend for the possibility of null deploy pods but nothing else, no other bells and whistles, just null deploy pods and their contents?
It wouldn't be the first time GW wrote confusing rules in order to get across something that could have been explained in a simple way.
Hence, they tell you, when in doubt, follow the RAW.
So a unit that is not exempt, should follow the RAW, unchanged (i.e. not changing the "50%" to anything other then "50%")
BaconCatBug wrote: Then they should have made the rule say "You can arrive turn 1".
The fact they didn't shows that that is not what they intended. They have even errata'd the rule since release (because of course they have, GW couldn't rules write their way out of a wet paper bag), proving that exempt means exempt, except for the Turn 3 part of the rule.
To take a page from your book BCB
Because GW doesn't always write rules that are efficient. That doesn't mean the RAW isn't what it is. and just because they wrote the rule in a confusing way, that allows null deploy if you only play where everything is in a pod, doesn't mean that it isn't what is intended.
If they had just wrote "you can arrive turn 1" then you couldn't have a null deploy with everything coming in pods. Why are we assuming they didn't intend for the possibility of null deploy pods but nothing else ?
We have no idea what the intent is. In fact if you want to argue intent you can argue the errata shows the intent for allowing null deployment because they didn't change the rule to prevent it.
Remember the whole debacle about whether you could Da Jump turn 1 a while back, and how the rules prevented it, then GW changed the rule to allow it, thus proving the RaW camp correct? Or the issue with using Loot It after bailing out from a destroyed transport, and how you couldn't RaW do so, then GW change the rule to allow it, thus proving the RaW camp correct? Or how using Loot It with Meganobz allowed for 1+ Sv Meganobz that resulted in Meganobz with an effective 2++ because of GW's silly FAQ capping dice to 1, then GW change the rule to allow it, thus proving the RaW camp correct? Remember when the first SMFAQ resulted in a single 6 to hit causing an infinite amount of hits, then GW changed the rule to disallow it, thus proving the RaW camp correct? Remember when you used to be forced to fire Single Use Weapons the first time you fired, then GW changed the rule to disallow it, thus proving the RaW camp correct?
It's almost (almost, mind you), that GW will change rules that are not working as "intended" via errata, or something.
BaconCatBug wrote: Then they should have made the rule say "You can arrive turn 1".
The fact they didn't shows that that is not what they intended. They have even errata'd the rule since release (because of course they have, GW couldn't rules write their way out of a wet paper bag), proving that exempt means exempt, except for the Turn 3 part of the rule.
To take a page from your book BCB
Because GW doesn't always write rules that are efficient.
That doesn't mean the RAW isn't what it is.
and just because they wrote the rule in a confusing way, that allows null deploy if you only play where everything is in a pod, doesn't mean that it isn't what is intended.
If they had just wrote "you can arrive turn 1" then you couldn't have a null deploy with everything coming in pods.
Why are we assuming they didn't intend for the possibility of null deploy pods but nothing else ?
We have no idea what the intent is. In fact if you want to argue intent you can argue the errata shows the intent for allowing null deployment because they didn't change the rule to prevent it.
Remember the whole debacle about whether you could Da Jump turn 1 a while back, and how the rules prevented it, then GW changed the rule to allow it, thus proving the RaW camp correct? Or the issue with using Loot It after bailing out from a destroyed transport, and how you couldn't RaW do so, then GW change the rule to allow it, thus proving the RaW camp correct? Or how using Loot It with Meganobz allowed for 1+ Meganobz that had an effective 2++ because of GW's silly FAQ capping dice to 1, then GW change the rule to allow it, thus proving the RaW camp correct? Remember when the first SMFAQ resulted in a single 6 to hit causing an infinite amount of hits, and GW changed the rule to disallow it, thus proving the RaW camp correct?
It's almost (almost, mind you), that GW will change rules that are not working as "intended" via errata, or something.
It's just that this time, for some reason, you are not arguing for the RAW camp. You are arguing on the side of "Units that are not exempt should treat this rule as if it says 25%-50% because an exempt unit exists in the army, even though the RAW says 50%"
Hence, I do not know the intent, so I turn to the RAW.
Type40 wrote: It's just that this time, for some reason, you are not arguing for the RAW camp. You are arguing on the side of "Units that are not exempt should treat this rule as if it says 25%-50% because an exempt unit exists in the army, even though the RAW says 50%"
Hence, I do not know the intent, so I turn to the RAW.
Just strange to see you arguing for a RAI side.
I am not touching the "1k in pods, 1k out of pods" argument because frankly I feel there simply is not enough information to answer that.
What I am discussing is if you have EVERY unit in drop pods, then you can null deploy.
Analogy: I go to a shop with a 5% sales tax, but food is exempt. I buy $0 of Thunderfire Cannon Citadel Miniatures and $100 of food. How much tax do I pay?
Edit: a lot of this was repetitive, cut it down to key points.
What you're missing is that it *doesn't*. It just exempts the DP from the rule. Which doesn't mean "don't apply rule to DP". It means "Free DP of obligations *OR LIABILITIES*" of the rule. Needing to deploy 1 other unit because you brought 2 Drop Pods would be a liability of the Pods under TR. You are freed of liabilities of the Pods under TR.
Other things are not exempt, so they MUST follow the rule verbatim. They don't get some special exception because exempt things are in the army. The fact that they MUST follow the rule doesn't mean things that things that that don't have to follow the rule are not exempt. DPs continue to be exempt. It is the things in your army that are not exempt that are stopping them and you from benefiting from any kind of over 50% off the table benefit.
I have a rule that says that my Uthwe Guardians get a 6+++ if they're in an Uthwe detatchment with no non-Uthwe units.
I include Asurmen. He is not Uthwe. He has a rule exempting him from the pure-detatchment rule.
My Guardians still get a 6+++. Because my army - with the exception of units that with exceptions - is Uthwe.
You're assuming a rule on a unit only counts when directly acting upon said unit, yet it's non-rule stats (points and count) always count. That might be a useful mental shortcut, but that's not the rules. When my Guardians are shot, Asurmen does not have <Uthwe>, and is part of the same detatchment. I still get a 6+++, even though Asurmen isn't (directly) involved.
Just like if I tried to walk into a bar that had a sign that said "no shirts no service" whilst not wearing a shirt, my friend who is exempt from the rule can not walk in with me. He is exempt, but I ruin that
for him by not wearing a shirt. I must follow and adhere to the restriction. He can go in alone, or with a group of others who are all weaaring shirts or even with a group of others who are all exempt. But with me, who is not exempt, no dice. He continues to be exempt, but as a group, we have no service.
Not even close. It's more like a sign that says "For every shirt-wearer, there must be one non-shirt-wearer inside". Your buddy Paul is exempt from that rule.
If you and Sam walks in with a shirt. Jim walks in without a shirt. Paul is exempt. Paul walks in without a shirt. That's fine.
Alternately, Paul can walk in first. Paul walks in without a shirt. Sam walks in with a shirt. Jim walks in without a shirt. That's fine, too - Paul doesn't count as he's exempt.
Consider this one though: Jim and Paul are both exempt. Jim walks in without a shirt. Paul walks in without a shirt. Can Sam walk in with a shirt? By your argument no - as there's now 2 shirtless people and one shirted person. That seems awfully silly.
The exemption covers the individual, but not as a simple allowance. It excludes the exempt item from consideration. In your example, you're trying to spread an exemption to a group. It'd be like buying $100 of exempt and $100 of non-exempt goods, and claiming you owe no taxes at all. That's not what we're arguing. We're arguing you owe taxes on $100.
It could mean you subtract the exempt units points total then take the reaming points and divide by 2 and that is how much you can deep strike. That is a good argument. We have no instruction to do that though.
That's not an argument. That's an implementation of a condition. The rules tell you to deploy 50% of your "total army points". The rules tell you that certain units are exempt. Thus, the rules tell you not to count the points of certain units. The instructions don't tell you to implement this by subtracting, or implement it by counting up points that aren't exempt - the implementation is up to the user.
They also don't tell you to not exempt the exempt units from the second clause of the TR rule. You're making that instruction up whole cloth.
They are exempt from the tactical reserve rule. They aren't exempt from being part of your army. Like I said - both are good arguments. Nether has any additional support but our opinions. This really needs clarification.
They are exempt from being counted as part of the army for purposes of a calculation for something in the tactical reserves rule. If you aren't treating them as exempt, then you're not following the drop pod rule which states they are exempt. You only get to count 50% of the non-exempt part of the army.
But yes, given the debate here this obviously needs clarification.
They are exempt from the tactical reserve rule. They aren't exempt from being part of your army. Like I said - both are good arguments. Nether has any additional support but our opinions. This really needs clarification.
They are exempt from being counted as part of the army for purposes of a calculation for something in the tactical reserves rule. If you aren't treating them as exempt, then you're not following the drop pod rule which states they are exempt. You only get to count 50% of the non-exempt part of the army.
But yes, given the debate here this obviously needs clarification.
It already got clarification, when GW errata'd the rule to not grant the exemption to the "Destroyed Past Turn 3" part of the rule.
Type40 wrote: It's just that this time, for some reason, you are not arguing for the RAW camp. You are arguing on the side of "Units that are not exempt should treat this rule as if it says 25%-50% because an exempt unit exists in the army, even though the RAW says 50%"
Hence, I do not know the intent, so I turn to the RAW.
Just strange to see you arguing for a RAI side.
I am not touching the "1k in pods, 1k out of pods" argument because frankly I feel there simply is not enough information to answer that.
What I am discussing is if you have EVERY unit in drop pods, then you can null deploy.
Analogy: I go to a shop with a 5% sales tax, but food is exempt. I buy $0 of Thunderfire Cannon Citadel Miniatures and $100 of food. How much tax do I pay?
If it is directly or indirectly affecting rest of the army it's not really being exempt from the rule.
(old rule) You must deploy 50% of your army as normal in order to put 50% of army, embarked in drop pods, in reserves. (new rule) You must deploy 50% of your army is as normal, because 50% of your army, embarked in drop pods, are placed in reserves.
The only thing different is that drop pods can arrive in turn 1, because it is exempt from TR rule.
Which means the whole 'exemption' is moot because all it really does is allow turn 1 DS.
skchsan wrote: If it is directly or indirectly affecting rest of the army it's not really being exempt from the rule.
(old rule) You must deploy 50% of your army as normal in order to put 50% of army, embarked in drop pods, in reserves.
(new rule) You must deploy 50% of your army is as normal, because 50% of your army, embarked in drop pods, are placed in reserves.
The only thing different is that drop pods can arrive in turn 1, because it is exempt from TR rule.
Which means the whole 'exemption' is moot because all it really does is allow turn 1 DS.
Incorrect. The rule states that they're exempt from the tactical reserves rule, it doesn't say that they're exempt only from the portion of the rule prohibiting turn 1 DS.
skchsan wrote: If it is directly or indirectly affecting rest of the army it's not really being exempt from the rule.
(old rule) You must deploy 50% of your army as normal in order to put 50% of army, embarked in drop pods, in reserves.
(new rule) You must deploy 50% of your army is as normal, because 50% of your army, embarked in drop pods, are placed in reserves.
The only thing different is that drop pods can arrive in turn 1, because it is exempt from TR rule.
Which means the whole 'exemption' is moot because all it really does is allow turn 1 DS.
Incorrect. The rule states that they're exempt from the tactical reserves rule, it doesn't say that they're exempt only from the portion of the rule prohibiting turn 1 DS.
Right. The end result of drop pods being exempt from the rule is that it can ignore the 50/50 deployed/reserved threshold as outlined in TR rule, in addition to being allowed to come in turn 1.
If it indeed counted towards no of units/points in reserve, there's no point of the rule being worded the way it is. It may have as well have read 'this unit and units embarked in it can ds turn 1'.
no because this allows for a null deploy if your units are all drop pods or being transported within them.
If it said "this unit and units embarked in it can DS turn 1" then it would not allow for this.
It is worded correctly and you can not ignore the 50/50 deployed/reserve threshold if any non-DP or non-DP contained units are included in your deployment.
As those non-DP and non-DP contained units must follow the restriction that they are not exempt from.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If every unit you deploy is exempt from the rule then the restriction does not rise.
But as soon as one unit with the restriction is deployed then you must follow it.
But as soon as one unit with the restriction is deployed then you must follow it.
Yes, however when following it you ignore the Drop Pods for the purposes of the rules, and therefore they are not included and calculating what 50% of your army is for the purposes of that rule.
But as soon as one unit with the restriction is deployed then you must follow it.
Yes, however when following it you ignore the Drop Pods for the purposes of the rules, and therefore they are not included and calculating what 50% of your army is for the purposes of that rule.
So are you saying that my Terminiators are somehow effected by a Drop Pod being exempt from the TR rule ?
My terminators still require 50% of the army to be deployed on the battlefield ?
My drop pod does not require 50% of the army to be deployed on the battlefield, ignoring the TR rule doesn't magically make my drop pod not a part of my army or not something that has been deployed off the battlefield. Being exempt from the TR rule ONLY means my drop pod and contained units do not have to follow a restriction that says 50% of my army is not on the battlefield. Ignoring that rule doesn't change the status of my drop pod being on or off the battlefield for any other unit that does not ignore the TR rule. On or off the battlefield status is not a rule dictated by the TR rule so it is not something that the DP can be exempt from if it is exempt from TR.
Unless you mean the RAW of TR for my terminators going into a teleport chamber changes somehow because a completely different unit is exempt from the rule ? I am pretty sure the terminators still have to adhere to "50% of my army must be deployed on the battlefield" and nothing about the TR rule or being exempt from it makes a drop pod not a part of my army or lets it ignore the status of being on/off the battlefield.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The drop pod is exempt,
Everything else is not.
The rule doesn't change for everything else.
To echo my earlier example.
If I go to a bar that says "no shirts no service"
I try to walk in with my friend, we are both not wearing shirts. He is exempt from the rule. I am not. We are not allowed to enter. He can go in alone, or with people who are following the restriction he can even go in if his entire group is exempt from the rule. But I am not exempt, so if he tries to go in with me, no dice. It doesn't mean he is not exempt, just as a group we can not enter, because I am not exempt.
Terminators must follow the rule. They are not DPs. Your army must follow the restriction, because the termies have to adhere to a 50/50 restriction and nothing about being exempt from the TR rule causes a DP to not be in your army or have ignore an on/off battlefield status.
Can you quote where, in the Tactical Reserve rule, it tells you to apply it when deploying your Terminators?
It does not. It applies "while" deploying your *army*.
Once again, your shirt analogy is off. It's basically the scenario where you try to use the Pod rule to DS your Termies T1. Which isn't what we are talking about.
The analogous "shirt" rule is a bar with the rule that, while in operation, at least half the people inside must have a shirt on. Jim is shirtless and exempt and is allowed in. 0 of 0 relevant people have no shirt on, so you're fine. Bob is shirtless and exempt, so is allowed in. Still fine. Now you try to walk in with a shirt on. By your argument, you're not allowed In? That's not what happens.
The other massive flaw is the rule states a condition that must be true. You are arguing that the rule adds a logic step on deployment of each model. Reread the rule. It does nothing of the sort.
- Pick your army
- Set Drop Pods and the units in them to one side in your head - They don’t count for the 50/50 on/off table.
- Everything else must adhere to the 50/50 units/points
- So if you have 500pts of Pods/units in Pods, and 1500pts / 10 units not Pod-y, you have to have at least 750pts / 5 units on the board.
Bharring wrote: Can you quote where, in the Tactical Reserve rule, it tells you to apply it when deploying your Terminators?
It does not. It applies "while" deploying your *army*.
Once again, your shirt analogy is off. It's basically the scenario where you try to use the Pod rule to DS your Termies T1. Which isn't what we are talking about.
The analogous "shirt" rule is a bar with the rule that, while in operation, at least half the people inside must have a shirt on. Jim is shirtless and exempt and is allowed in. 0 of 0 relevant people have no shirt on, so you're fine. Bob is shirtless and exempt, so is allowed in. Still fine. Now you try to walk in with a shirt on. By your argument, you're not allowed In? That's not what happens.
The other massive flaw is the rule states a condition that must be true. You are arguing that the rule adds a logic step on deployment of each model. Reread the rule. It does nothing of the sort.
Are you claiming terminators are not a part of your army now ?
When setting up your army during deployment
If you have terminators in your army,,, they are included in the TR rules. Emphasis, the words "YOUR ARMY."
When I deploy my army,, i.e. my terminators ,,, I must follow the following rules .... i.e. 50/50 rule.
This isn't walking into the bar one at a time. This is walking in as a group. You gain entrance as a group or you don't gain entrance.
Each person walking in one at a time implies "when deploying your army" refers to each time you place a model on the table instead of the ENTIRE deployment phase.
. Now you try to walk in with a shirt on.
You are telling me that you should ignore the requirement,,, so no, what you are saying is I should be able to walk in with no-shirt on and no exemption.
Either your entire deployment is legal, or it is not. Either your entire group can enter the bar, or it can not.
The rule doesn't say "each time you deploy a model you must check for 50/50" it says "during your deployment", as in the entire thing.
is everyone who is trying to enter the bar together allowed to enter ? YES/NO . simple. Sure, if the game allowed you to you could choose not to deploy your termies. Just like I could wait outside. But the entire group does not get entrance as a group.
Even if we did walk in one at a time. You have an entire list that needs to be deployed. So imagine you had a guest list you HAD to fulfill. Out of the 10 people on the list 3 are exempt from needing to wear a shirt. They go in no problem. Now a fourth member refuses to put a shirt on, they are not exempt. Can you fulfil your guest list ? No you have failed your guest list is impossible to fulfill. So either you make a guest list comprised of 10 people who are exempt, 10 people who are willing to follow the restriction or are exempt, or simply 10 people who are exempt, otherwise, you can't fulfil the guest list.
To mirror this in 40k, you either bring only drop pods (every one on the guest list is exempt and can come with no shirt), you bring some DPs and some other units and thus the DPs are exempt and exclude you from needing the 50/50 requirement but because you have included units that do not ignore the restriction you must adhere to the 50/50 requirement (get a mix of people who are willing to follow the restriction and ones that are exempt) or you don't bring any DPs.
Not having the rule doesn't change the fact that other things DO have the rule. "during your deployment" you must abide by ALL restrictions imposed by any model you have chosen to bring. Anything other then a DP has a restriction of 50/50.
Either you are claiming DPs are no longer part of your army (which is not something they are exempt from being as that is not a rule covered in TR) or you are saying that a DP being exempt from TR magically changes how the rule reads for other models that are not exempt ?
DP can either be on/off the table
DP is part of your army
DP ignores a restriction of 50% of army must be on the table
Termies can either be on/off the table
Termies are part of your army
Termies DO NOT ignore a restriction of 50% of your army must be on the table.
In order to use a Terminator then, you must have 50% of your army on the table.
That is it, they arn't exempt, you MUST follow the rule. A DP is on or off the table and a DP is part of your army. That status doesn't disappear because they are exempt to a restriction.
You have gained the restriction of 50% NOT FROM THE DROP POD, the drop pod is exempt ! you gain the restriction because of the termies ! do you really not get this ? the rules are written , "50% of the army must be on the table". The termies bring that rule with them.
let me write it in a different way.
DP rules restrictions that are given to you during deployment = none (they are exempt)
Termie rules restrictions that are given to you during deployment = 50% of your army must be on the table.
Being exempt does not change the rule for any other model.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnnyHell wrote: - Pick your army
- Set Drop Pods and the units in them to one side in your head - They don’t count for the 50/50 on/off table.
- Everything else must adhere to the 50/50 units/points
- So if you have 500pts of Pods/units in Pods, and 1500pts / 10 units not Pod-y, you have to have at least 750pts / 5 units on the board.
That’s how it’s done.
How do you come to this conclusion ?
How does DPs being exempt from a "you must have 50% of your units on the battlefield" restriction mean that my Termies RAW is changed to "you must have <50% of your units on the battlefield"
What part of being exempt from the above restriction makes it so a DP is not considered part of your army or on/off the battlefield ? The TR rule does not cover whether or not something is part of your army or on/off the battlefield.
My Termies must follow the rule in its entirety, they are not exempt. If i include a termie in my army I must now adhere to "50% of my unitys must be on the battlefield". even if the drop pods were exempt from the rule. Why would my DPs change the rule being given to me by my termies ? DPs are exempt from the rule
Restriction given to player = "50% of the army must be on the battlefield"
DPs = "ignore that restriction, they are exempt"
Non-DPs = "50% of the army must be on the battlefield"
how can the DPs ability to be exempt from the rule change the percent the non-DPs bring with them ?
inclusion of a non-dp is also an inclusion of the restriction.
So Sam and Bob can enter without you, because they are exempt? But if they try to enter with you, they Can't?
Why would entering with an otherwise-legal entrant suddenly make exempt people not exempt?
Bharring wrote: So Sam and Bob can enter without you, because they are exempt? But if they try to enter with you, they Can't?
Why would entering with an otherwise-legal entrant suddenly make exempt people not exempt?
They are still exempt, but they DO need to enter as a group. And if people in there group are not exempt and refuse to follow the restriction then the group can not enter. This doesn't mean Sam and Bob aren't exempt. It means someone in their group isn't. Imagine a guest list (I. E. Your army list) you need everyone to be allowed in to complete the guest list. If one person is not allowed in, you have failed. Even though all the exempt people were allowed in.
Just like you DO intend on deploying your entire list don't you? You do understand that your army is a group right? Are you just trolling now or do you think each unit gets its own mini deployment phase? (I. E. Entering the bar individually)
Everyone enters together, or no one enters. You only have one deployment phase, the entire army is placed on the table in this phase, if you bring a model that is not exempt from TR rule then YOU get a restriction of 50/50.
You understand that the restriction of 50/50 is on you and not on the DP. If you bring only DPs you do not get the restriction. If you bring something with out an exemption you DO get the restriction. Your army can no longer deploy with out 50/50, this doesn't mean the DPs are not exempt, they aren't the units that gave you the restriction. The other units give you the restriction. Do you get this? DPs are exempt, they don't give you a 50/50 restriction. The unit or units with out the exemption give you the restriction. Then, your group/army can not legally be deployed until You follow the restriction given to you by the non-exempt units.
Just because DPs are exempt from applying a restriction on you doesn't mean your termies don't apply the entire restriction on you.
But as soon as one unit with the restriction is deployed then you must follow it.
Yes, however when following it you ignore the Drop Pods for the purposes of the rules, and therefore they are not included and calculating what 50% of your army is for the purposes of that rule.
So are you saying that my Terminiators are somehow effected by a Drop Pod being exempt from the TR rule ?
Yes, of course they are. The drop pods being exempt has an effect on your whole army.
Type40, I think you’re significantly over complicating this. It’s worth people writing to GW if they believe a null deployment is an unfun outcome, but nothing seems to preclude it without some backbreaking linguistic gymnastics, and the 40K rules simply don’t hold up to that level of linguistic scrutiny (as has come up in many a YMDC thread, they’re just too colloquially written).
There’s be no point exempting stuff and simultaneously not exempting stuff, and I genuinely can’t make that logic stick I’m afraid. If null deploy is unintentional maybe they can issue errata. Otherwise it’s unlikely to come up as it’s a largely uncompetitive option and one you can minimise impact of by placing terrain/objectives cannily, using Scout moves/deployments, holding counter—drop units of your own in reserve, and just relying on a Pod-Heavy army having lack of teeth. You might see a few pods or some wag giving it a whirl in a tournament and praying for luck, but I’d not worry too much. Deal with it if it becomes endemic.
I am not saying a DP null deploy is impossible.
I am saying a DP + other units over 50/50 rule is impossible.
if anything I am reducing the complexity. Instead of trying to figure out how many points are in a DP and how many points are in them, then trying to figure out how many points are left and dividing that in half I am saying, if you include a unit that is not a DP you still get a restriction to 50/50.
I understand that if your entire army is exempt from the restriction you can null deploy. My postulation is, that as soon as you bring something that isnt exempt, you are required to abide by the 50/50 restriction in its entirety.
I can't seem to see any good reason you wouldnt.
But I am gonna back off on this if this IS how the majority of people play it. I just think it's silly to change a rule something else brings to the table just because the first unit doesn't have it.
Type40 wrote: I am not saying a DP null deploy is impossible.
I am saying a DP + other units over 50/50 rule is impossible.
if anything I am reducing the complexity.
And you have failed on both counts. Either to present a valid rules based argument, or to reduce complexity with multiple overly long and complicated analogies.
Type40 wrote: I am not saying a DP null deploy is impossible.
I am saying a DP + other units over 50/50 rule is impossible.
if anything I am reducing the complexity.
And you have failed on both counts. Either to present a valid rules based argument, or to reduce complexity with multiple overly long and complicated analogies.
Can you explain how I have ?
Have you actually read my previous points and would like to point out where my logic and citations fail ? or do you just wana throw a "you failed" my way on no grounds ?
DPs = no restrictions on deployment
Non-DPs have a restriction that comes with them that says
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
If you bring a non-DP you must follow the rule.
Nothing about being exempt from TR means you arn't a part of the army or arn't on or off the battlefield.
Being exempt from the restriction simply means you don't have to abide by it for that unit.
Nothing says other units do not have to abide by it. Nothing about other units giving you the restriction suggests that the DPs are not exempt (as DPs didnt give you the restriction the other units did)
Have you read my arguments are you just telling me I have failed because it is "fun" ?
I am presenting an interpretation of the rules which does not require you to add a bunch of units together, subtract them from your army point total, then devide by two in order to figure out how many points you have left for reinforcements. Are you saying that skipping all that math is more complicated somehow ?
1) Goods may not be sold before 8am Monday
2) Goods may not be sold after 10pm Friday
3) 10% of the total sale value of a transaction is payable as tax
Widgets are exempt from this.
Type40, let's simplify the discussion. Fall back to this simple analogy.
If I buy $100 of Widgets and $100 of Thingamagigs, how much tax do I pay?
Type40 wrote: I am not saying a DP null deploy is impossible.
I am saying a DP + other units over 50/50 rule is impossible.
if anything I am reducing the complexity.
And you have failed on both counts. Either to present a valid rules based argument, or to reduce complexity with multiple overly long and complicated analogies.
Can you explain how I have ?
Have you actually read my previous points and would like to point out where my logic and citations fail ? or do you just wana throw a "you failed" my way on no grounds ?
DPs = no restrictions on deployment
It doesn't say "No restrictions". Or "Ignore TR when deploying pods Pods". Or any variant thereof. It says "Exempt".
"Exempt" doesn't mean "Ignore the #rule when directly acting upon $thing". It means "Do not consider $thing when applying $rule". Either by obligation *or liability*, $thing is freed of it.
Note the passive textbook definition. It's not proscribing specific actions. It's altering conceptual state. What actions need to be taken to satisfy the condition is up to the user.
Non-DPs have a restriction that comes with them that says
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
No they don't. They have no such rule.
There exist a restriction, which applies to non-DPs, that requires 50% of units to be set up. As DPs are exempt, they are not considered under TR - regardless of whether you're activating a Pod or Terminator.
There's no "But the Pod isn't active, therefore it's rules don't matter" rule. You're not exempt from exempting Pods just because you're not currently deploying them. We see this all the time in the current game: I can still take an Uthwe 6+++ on a Guardian even if I include Asurmen - because Asurmen has a rule that permits me to exclude him when considering if I get <Craftworld> CTs. If things worked the way you were arguing, any Phoenix Lord, for instance, would entirely negate any Chapter tactic - and their rule stating otherwise would be meaningless.
Being exempt from the restriction simply means you don't have to abide by it for that unit.
*This* is the core of where you're wrong. Exempt doesn't mean to ignore the rule for that unit. It means to ignore the unit for that rule. Please look up the definition and use of Exempt, because you're way off here. That one mistaken definition is the root of 4 pages of back-and-forth.
So you are saying that being exempt from the rule means you still interact with it ?
How can something that is exempt from a rule still interact with the rule ?
being exempt from
"when setting up your army during deployment for matched play game ... etc"
Means the unit is free from being obliged or being liable to the rule.
AKA the rule doesn't exist for them. They do not interact with it.
If a model does have the rule, the rule DOES exist for them.
You can't pretend the rule changes for them. The rule is the rule.
Again, this isn't tax law.
Being exempt from a some TAX is not the same thing as being exempt from TAX entirely.
For example, Native canadians are sales tax exempt.
If a Native in Canada asks there non-native friend to purchase something still have to pay tax because there non-native friend can not produce a Native ID to show they are tax exempt. This doesn't mean the Native canadian isn't tax exempt. It means that a non-native who isn't tax exempt has to pay tax for an entire purchase. Sure they can just pay separately, but that would be like splitting your list and army in half for two separate games.
Are you really saying they do not have such a rule... I literally just quoted the rule right out of CA18 ?
I do not know what you are getting at with the "but the pod isn't active, therefore it's rules don't mater" statement, that is not what I am saying what so ever.
The pod is exempt from imposing the restriction... they are exempt from the rule. Whether you have deployed them or not, it's that simple. When you deploy them, no restriction comes with them. When you deploy something else a restriction does come with it.
Are you trying to say that by being EXEMPT you are required to interact with the rule in some way ? are you sure it is me who doesn't understand the definition ?
Stux wrote: As the above poster explains, your core error is that you keep applying the TR rule without actually exempting the drop pods.
No number of pages of analogies you could present gets around that issue.
Can you show me which part of the TR rule says models "units count as being on the battlefield" and which part says "units are considered to be in your army". Nothing about being exempt from TR exempts you from those two statuses.
Can you show me how playing a terminator alongside a DP gives you permision to change the RAW to "<50%" ? Nothing about the terminator allows you to change the TR rule for that unit.
Can you show me how being exempt from imposing a restriction means other models do not impose a restriction ?
If I have a -1 to leadership aura on two units, and somehow you remove that aura from unit A but not unit B does this change unit Bs rule what so ever ?
You guys are treating this as though the non-DPs don't have to follow the rule RAW.
You have two units
they both have the TR rule.
One unit is exempt.
Now one must follow it
and the other is free from obligation to follow it (if we wana use the definition correctly)
Ok, let's see what it says for the unit that must follow it
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
Even though the DP doesn't have to follow it, the fact that you have a unit that does have to follow it means you are bound to a 50/50 deployment. This doesn't mean the DP isn't exempt, it means A DIFFERENT UNIT GAVE YOU THE RESTRICTION.
[Total points for the purpose of TR] =! [Total points of army roster]
You must discount the point costs for pods and their contents from the [Total points of army roster] because they are exempt from TR rule.
Then the DP is interacting with a rule that you it is exempt from.
Why would you discount anything ?
It is exempt from this statement
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
Great, that simply means it doesn't care whether or not you have a 50/50 deployment...
But do you know what does care
A terminator cares, it is not exempt from the rule.
This statement MUST be followed
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
Why would being exempt from that EXACT statement mean you add or subtract anything. This rule has nothing to do with what is on/off the table or total point costs of your army. It is a one line restriction that is CONCERNED with what is on/off the the table. Being exempt from it doesn't magically affect what is on/off the table, that status isn't dictated by the TR rule.
The drop pod is not exempt from being set up. They are exempt from a rule which applies a condition when the army is being set up.
The Termie units do not have the rule. They are impacted by the rule. That difference can be important in some readings. You are right that the rule is the rule for them. You're wrong on how you're applying the rule.
"Being exempt from a some TAX is not the same thing as being exempt from TAX entirely."
Of course not. hence why I pay $10 on the $100 non-exempt goods I bought. But not $20 despite the total being $200.
In the same vein, if I take 100 points of Pods and 100 points of Termies, I'm obliged to deploy 50 points of Termies - not 100 points of Termies. Pods being exempt from TR does not change the rule for Termies at all - it's still 50% of the total. Pods are exempt from TR, whether I'm actively deploying Termies or Pods. So the total under TR is 100 points.
"Are you really saying they do not have such a rule... I literally just quoted the rule right out of CA18 ?"
I can quote "Change the Damage characteristic to read ‘2’". Termies don't have that rule either. The rule impacts Termies, but it's a rule on the player, not a rule on Termies. Academic, anyways, unless you're claiming that only rules on units you're activating are valid (which has other problems, see the Phoenix Lord example).
"When you deploy them, no restriction comes with them. When you deploy something else a restriction does come with it."
You do realize that TR says nothing about "When deploying each model"? It doesn't matter whether you meet the condition or not at the specific point where you deploy a specific model, as the rule makes no mention of specific deployments. You must meet the condition "while deploying your army" - which includes the moments outside of individual unit placement. So even if the rule did say "when deploying Pods, ignore TR" it would do nothing - as any use of the rule would cause you to break TR after you're done deploying the Pod.
Further, reread the Pod rule. You keep rewriting it to say "Ignore TR while activating this unit". That's not what it says either.
"Are you trying to say that by being EXEMPT you are required to interact with the rule in some way ? are you sure it is me who doesn't understand the definition ?"
Close enough to the opposite. The unit being exempt means it does not interact with the rule. Counting the unit as being in your army is interacting with the rule. You may be overvaluing the ephemeral concept of total points or number of units, but they're nothing more than the sum of your units. You're arguing you *count* the Pods for TR, thus interacting with the rule they are exempt from.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Discount" is a cognative shortcut, but not a proscribed action. The required course of action is to not count them. Simplest logical form is to simply not count them. It's often faster to just know what your totals are and subtract the pods, but that's only done for convenience.
Bharring has explained my position basically. Drop pods simply don't factor into the calculation for how much of your army you must deploy, because they are exempt. If you factor them in at all, they wouldn't be exempt. There doesn't need to be a direct quote, as it follows from basic logic.
Stux wrote: As the above poster explains, your core error is that you keep applying the TR rule without actually exempting the drop pods.
No number of pages of analogies you could present gets around that issue.
I agree there is no need for analogy.
It really is simple - DP are exempt from the TR rule but your army isn't. The portion of the TR rule which talks about total army points does not state "total armies points when applying to TR" it states "total army points".
So check this out. Is a unit exempt from tactical reserve...still considered to be a unit in tactical reserve? OFC it is. It is just exempt from any restrictions that would be put on it. Every other model of your army that isn't exempt has to follow these restrictions though and the trigger for this restriction is breaking 50% of your "total army" in tactical reserve. It matters not if the units are exempt - they would still be defined as a unit in tactical reserve and it has a point cost. Null deploy gets around this though. Because if your entire army is in tactical reserve there is never a unit to be punished for breaking the 50% rule. You can never say that a unit is deployed illegally because every unit in your army is exempt from the restriction. I consider that to be kind of dicey but it is at least a reasonable RAW interpretation.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You guys are literally mistaking exempt to mean..."does not exist"...or "does not count" and you are broadly applying the exemption of one unit that is exempt to another unit that is not.
Stux wrote: As the above poster explains, your core error is that you keep applying the TR rule without actually exempting the drop pods.
No number of pages of analogies you could present gets around that issue.
I agree there is no need for analogy.
It really is simple - DP are exempt from the TR rule but your army isn't. The portion of the TR rule which talks about total army points does not state "total armies points when applying to TR" it states "total army points".
Could you imagine a rule that states:
Tactical Reserves Rule: Deploy at least 50% of the total army points when applying TR while deploying your army
That's either redundant or circular. So either pointless or nonsensical.
If you have "Bob's Rule", and it references "Total Army Points", when applying that rule, it's explicitly "Total Army Points when applying Bob's Rule". That's what "applying" a rule means.
So check this out. Is a unit exempt from tactical reserve...still considered to be a unit in tactical reserve? OFC it is. It is just exempt from any restrictions that would be put on it. Every other model of your army that isn't exempt has to follow these restrictions though and the trigger for this restriction is breaking 50% of your "total army" in tactical reserve. It matters not if the units are exempt - they would still be defined as a unit in tactical reserve. Null deploy gets around this though. Because if your entire army is in tactical reserve there is never a unit to be punished for breaking the 50% rule. You can never say that a unit is deployed illegally BECAUSE every unit in your army is exempt from the restriction.
That would be a convoluted argument *IF* Tactical Reserves said "When deploying a unit...". It does not. It says "While deploying an *army*". As such, even if you had permission to ignore the rule while deplyoing a unit, you'd still be in violation after having deployed the unit. Which would make the rule pointless.
Deploying an army is an act of deploying multiple units. Regardless - after an army is deployed - you check to see if it is legally deployed.
For example - check to make sure all units are in your deployment zone if they can't infiltrate. If one unit is deployed illegally the whole army is at fault.
You guys are literally mistaking exempt to mean..."does not exist"...or "does not count" and you are broadly applying the exemption of one unit that is exempt to another unit that is not.
Exempt is a superset of "does not count". It's explicitly, literally defined as "free[ing] from obligation or liability". Freedom from liability is literally not counting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Deploying an army is an act of deploying multiple units. Regardless - after an army is deployed - you check to see if it is legally deployed.
For example - check to make sure all units are in your deployment zone if they can't infiltrate. If one unit is deployed illegally the whole army is at fault.
Which means that, if the Drop Pod rule only exempted it from TR while deploying it - and not exempting it at any other time - it would mean nothing. Because you must satisfy Tactical Reserves even when not deploying Drop Pods. So, under that reading, you're exempt from a rule but cannot deploy in violation of that rule. Making it a pointless rule.
Incorrect - nothing forces you to deploy your army in any particular way until you start deploying it. In fact. Nothing forces you to deploy a drop pod in reserve and nothing forces you to put units inside it. It is a game time decision.
How exactly is the rule pointless if it allows you to deploy turn 1 from deep strike? Something that no other deep strike reserve units can do? It can do this legally. It is in fact why they made the rule. These other interactions are clearly a result of a rushed FAQ. I have no doubt about it. These guys can't be bothered to actually think something through with everything it entails.
Bharring wrote: The drop pod is not exempt from being set up. They are exempt from a rule which applies a condition when the army is being set up.
Who is saying the DP is exempt from being set up ? Agreed they are exempt from a rule which applies a condition when the army is being set up.
The Termie units do not have the rule. They are impacted by the rule. That difference can be important in some readings. You are right that the rule is the rule for them. You're wrong on how you're applying the rule.
We are not supposed to follow the RAW for them ? that 50% must be on the battlefield ? Why not ?
"Being exempt from a some TAX is not the same thing as being exempt from TAX entirely."
Of course not. hence why I pay $10 on the $100 non-exempt goods I bought. But not $20 despite the total being $200.
Being exempt from ALL tax entirely is not the same as being exempt from a portion of tax.
There is a single purchase being made by a sales tax exempt person. In that case, all conditions are met, no tax.
If someone else is making a purchase which includes products for the sales tax exempt person. The entire tax is levied. The other person does not meet the conditions.
i.e. a native canadian may be sales tax exempt, but if their non-native friend buys something for them, they must pay the entire tax, the restriction is not lifted because the requirements of having a native ID for the purchase are not met.
Again, this isn't tax law, this is an exemption from the entire rule. Either you are exempt from the entire rule and do not interact with it, or you are NOT exempt because something imposes a condition on you. DPs do not interact with the TR rule, they are exempt. Termies DO interact with the rule and bring the condition on YOU (not the DPs, the restriction is placed on YOU), The DPs may be exempt, but they are not the unit applying the restriction. The termies are applying the condition.
In the same vein, if I take 100 points of Pods and 100 points of Termies, I'm obliged to deploy 50 points of Termies - not 100 points of Termies. Pods being exempt from TR does not change the rule for Termies at all - it's still 50% of the total. Pods are exempt from TR, whether I'm actively deploying Termies or Pods. So the total under TR is 100 points.
This would mean the DPs are interacting with a rule they are exempt from. This would also mean that termies are not following the rule as written. You are also not following a restriction that has been imposed on you by the Termies. You have made an illegal deployment.
"Are you really saying they do not have such a rule... I literally just quoted the rule right out of CA18 ?"
I can quote "Change the Damage characteristic to read ‘2’". Termies don't have that rule either. The rule impacts Termies, but it's a rule on the player, not a rule on Termies. Academic, anyways, unless you're claiming that only rules on units you're activating are valid (which has other problems, see the Phoenix Lord example).
No termies do not have a rule that says "change the dammage characteristic to read 2" but the TR rule does apply to them, entirely, hence my quote. Not sure what activating anything has do with anything, we are talking about deploying your entire army. Does a termie have to follow the rule or not ? Do DPs count as being part of your army ? do DPs count as being on/off the battlefield ? what part of a DP not being obliged to follow this statement means they get to also be exempt from being considered part of your army or on/off the table ? "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 must be at least
half your army's total point value"
What part of DPs being exempt means bringing termies doesn't make them follow the above statement entirely and impose the entire condition? what part about DPs being exempt from the above statement means a DP should not be counted as on/off the table or as part of your army. We know that by bringing the termies you MUST follow the above statement. DPs are exempt from the statement, they are not exempt from being on/off the table.
"When you deploy them, no restriction comes with them. When you deploy something else a restriction does come with it."
You do realize that TR says nothing about "When deploying each model"? It doesn't matter whether you meet the condition or not at the specific point where you deploy a specific model, as the rule makes no mention of specific deployments. You must meet the condition "while deploying your army" - which includes the moments outside of individual unit placement. So even if the rule did say "when deploying Pods, ignore TR" it would do nothing - as any use of the rule would cause you to break TR after you're done deploying the Pod.
Fine, instead of "when you deploy them" read it as "when you include them in your army." the semantics in this case do not change my point.
Further, reread the Pod rule. You keep rewriting it to say "Ignore TR while activating this unit". That's not what it says either.
Fine, re-read everything I wrote to say "not obliged to interact with the TR rule" again the semantics do not change my point.
"Are you trying to say that by being EXEMPT you are required to interact with the rule in some way ? are you sure it is me who doesn't understand the definition ?"
Close enough to the opposite. The unit being exempt means it does not interact with the rule. Counting the unit as being in your army is interacting with the rule. You may be overvaluing the ephemeral concept of total points or number of units, but they're nothing more than the sum of your units. You're arguing you *count* the Pods for TR, thus interacting with the rule they are exempt from.
Counting what units are in your army is NOT a part of the TR rule. This is incorrect. The TR rule is a restriction BASED on the count of your army. No part of the TR rule says "count the points and number of units is in your army", this is done during list creation (and changed when you use reinforcement points to add a unit to your army) and DPs are not exempt from being a part of your army count. If you start saying your army count is changed because of this exemption you are then saying "by being exempt this rule interacts with my army count" witch is not, by definition, exempt. DPs are exempt from applying the restriction on you. Nothing about being exempt from the TR rule allows them to be exempt from your army count or on/off table status. Your DPs would have to be exempt from other rules in order for that to be true (i.e. GSC are exempt from model count in relation to the TR rule, as that is directly specified).
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Discount" is a cognative shortcut, but not a proscribed action. The required course of action is to not count them. Simplest logical form is to simply not count them. It's often faster to just know what your totals are and subtract the pods, but that's only done for convenience.
What does the TR rule have to do with your army count ? the TR rule isn't what dictates your army count.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stux wrote: Bharring has explained my position basically. Drop pods simply don't factor into the calculation for how much of your army you must deploy, because they are exempt. If you factor them in at all, they wouldn't be exempt. There doesn't need to be a direct quote, as it follows from basic logic.
I dont find it logical to assume being exempt from imposing a restriction makes a unit exempt from completely different rules like army count and on/off battlefield status.
Those two things are not included in the TR rule and, logically, do not change just because a particular unit is exempt from imposing a restriction related to those statuses.
Just because a unit has +1 to there moral test roll doesn't mean their leadership atribute becomes +1. Yes they are related, but no the ability does not change the leadership attribute, that would need a different rule.
So you are saying that being exempt from the rule means you still interact with it ?
Actually, you have been the one saying that by counting the drop pods and their contents in the 50/50 rule when the drop pod rule specifically tells you they are exempt from the entire rule. If they are exempt they don't count as units or points for the purposes of figuring out what 50% of your army is for having to be on the board.That applies whether or not you have non-exempt units in the army.
A better analogy would be if a rule said add +1 to leadership characteristic during the morale phase. Then whenever you checked the leadership in the morale phase, regardless for what purpose, it would be +1. Just as drop pods are exempt from the TR rule regardless of what part or for what unit you are checking it.
When you check the army cost total FOR THE RULE then you count units that are exempt FROM THE RULE. It's very simple.
non-DP's obligations to follow the rule does not override DP's exemption from following the rule.
If you are counting DP's in following the rules for non-DP's, then the DP's are not being exempt from the rule because they're being counted for the rule.
DP's don't count towards the 50/50 as far as TR rule goes due to the exemption.
So you are saying that being exempt from the rule means you still interact with it ?
Actually, you have been the one saying that by counting the drop pods and their contents in the 50/50 rule when the drop pod rule specifically tells you they are exempt from the entire rule. If they are exempt they don't count as units or points for the purposes of figuring out what 50% of your army is for having to be on the board.That applies whether or not you have non-exempt units in the army.
Again, this is incorrect.
TR rule doesn't dictate your army count. It asks yous to CHECK your army count. It is a rule BASED on your army count. It is a single line of restriction that is based on your army count. Your DPs are exempt from that line, they not exempt from being counted in your army. That would be an exemption from a different rule. (i.e. GSC being specifically exempt from unit count for the purposes of TR rule, something DPs do not have)
So if you claim being exempt from TR interacts with your army count you are claiming that a DP being exempt from TR adds an additional stipulation of changing your army count. This would not be, by definition, exempt.
Not sure why people keep thinking being exempt from a restriction that checks army count means your are exempt from army count,,, TR doesnt say "count your armies units and points" it tells you to do something in relation to that number. If you are exempt from a rule that requires you to check your army count, that doesn't mean you are required to change your army count.
Again, getting +1 to hit rolls doesn't mean your BS attribute is +1.
Bharring wrote: The drop pod is not exempt from being set up. They are exempt from a rule which applies a condition when the army is being set up.
Who is saying the DP is exempt from being set up ?
Nobody. Being set up is not part of Tactical Reserves
Agreed they are exempt from a rule which applies a condition when the army is being set up.
Which is why we exempt the Pods when determining liability under that rule.
We are not supposed to follow the RAW for them ? that 50% must be on the battlefield ? Why not ?
Because RAW, Pods are exempt from the 50% rule. Thus they do not count.
This would mean the DPs are interacting with a rule they are exempt from. This would also mean that termies are not following the rule as written. You are also not following a restriction that has been imposed on you by the Termies. You have made an illegal deployment.
This is where you have it backwards. If you count DPs when applying TR, then DPs are interacting with TR. So if you count your Pods under TR while deploying your Termies, you're not exempting Pods from TR. Counting them is thus illegal RAW.
You're not applying DPs to the TR rule while deploying Termies. You're applying TR without applying DPs to it. By not counting them.
You have no legal reason to count DPs while counting units/points under TR, as they're exempt.
what part of a DP not being obliged to follow this statement means they get to also be exempt from being considered part of your army or on/off the table ?
The DPs being "exempt" from "TR" means they get to be exempt from TR. For the purposes of TR, they are not part of your army.
DPs don't have a rule that says "Not obliged to follow this statement". The have a rule calling them out as "exempt". Literally free of obligation *or liability*. You keep ignoring the liability part.
Fine, instead of "when you deploy them" read it as "when you include them in your army." the semantics in this case do not change my point.
For the purposes of TR, they are not counted as included in your army.
Further, reread the Pod rule. You keep rewriting it to say "Ignore TR while activating this unit". That's not what it says either.
Fine, re-read everything I wrote to say "not obliged to interact with the TR rule" again the semantics do not change my point.
Then where are you finding permission for the Pods to interact with TR by adding liability to Termies under TR?
"Are you trying to say that by being EXEMPT you are required to interact with the rule in some way ? are you sure it is me who doesn't understand the definition ?"
Close enough to the opposite. The unit being exempt means it does not interact with the rule. Counting the unit as being in your army is interacting with the rule. You may be overvaluing the ephemeral concept of total points or number of units, but they're nothing more than the sum of your units. You're arguing you *count* the Pods for TR, thus interacting with the rule they are exempt from.
Counting what units are in your army is NOT a part of the TR rule. This is incorrect.
The totals *are* part of the TR rule. Evaluating the totals under the TR rule is part of the TR rule. Exemption from the TR rule is exemption from totals under the TR rule.
The TR rule is a restriction BASED on the count of your army. No part of the TR rule says "count the points and number of units is in your army", this is done during list creation and DPs are not exempt from being a part of your army count. If you start saying your army count is changed because of this exemption you are then saying "by being exempt this rule interacts with my army count" witch is not, by definition, exempt. DPs are exempt from applying the restriction on you. Nothing about being exempt from the TR rule allows you to be exempt from your army count or on/off table status. Your DPs would have to be exempt from other rules in order for that to be true (i.e. GSC are exempt from model count in relation to the TR rule, as that is directly specified).
Where are you finding a rule that says "Count up your army points and units once, use this one value for all instances that reference army points and unit counts, and ignore any exceptions to rules when counting army points and unit counts"?
Army Points and Unit count are done for the purposes of TR. You probably already know them for other reasons (wasn't always the case, as you used to have to count PL even in Points game, and it was only used for TR). But there's no exemption to exemptions for the purposes of army points.
"Discount" is a cognative shortcut, but not a proscribed action. The required course of action is to not count them. Simplest logical form is to simply not count them. It's often faster to just know what your totals are and subtract the pods, but that's only done for convenience.
What does the TR rule have to do with your army count ? the TR rule isn't what dictates your army count.
Because he, and you, were reading "exempt from Army Points under TR" as "Discount Pods". The actual rule is "Do not count Pods (under TR)". Counting Pods means not exempting them from TR.
A better analogy would be if a rule said add +1 to leadership characteristic during the morale phase. Then whenever you checked the leadership in the morale phase, regardless for what purpose, it would be +1. Just as drop pods are exempt from the TR rule regardless of what part or for what unit you are checking it.
When you check the army cost total FOR THE RULE then you count units that are exempt FROM THE RULE. It's very simple.
Why is this a better analogy ?
What precedence ?
DPs are exempt from the statement as a whole. They arn't exempt from the total count of your army, that's a different rule. They are exempt from imposing the restriction. That is ALL.
Nothing says "they are exempt from unit/point count in relation to the rule". it says they are exempt from the entire rule. So they are exempt from imposing the restriction. The rule imposes a restriction on the player, DPs are exempt from imposing that rule. They arn't exempt from parts of the rule, they arn't exempt from how things are counted for the rule, they arn't exempt from what happens to YOU in relation to the rule, they arn't exempt from whether or not other units impose the rule. They are only exempt from imposing the restriction because they are "exempt from the TR rule"
They are exempt from needing to apply the statement. You really need to add a lot to figure they are exempt from specific clauses and counts related to the rule, that's not what it says to do. A unit can be exempt from giving out a restriction even though another unit gives the same restriction. This doesn't stop the first unit from being exempt. You are not getting the restriction from the DPs your getting it from something else.
The count of the army is PART of the rule. It is stated in the rule, you calculate it for the rule. Therefore they are exempt from the count, but only for purposes of the rule.
Yet again, if they were not exempt from this then they would not be exempt from the rule. QED.
Is a drop pod in deep strike reserve - a unit in deep strike reserve? Is it a unit in your army. Does it have a point value?
The answer to all these questions is yes.
Therefore when determining army count for the purposes of deploying an army's total points. They are applied. Period. End of discussion.
Imagine you had a family that was exempt from paying taxes. You had a family where the husband was exempt from paying taxes and the wife was not but the rules states that if you dont pay taxes your whole family goes to jail.
In this analogy you are literally saying that the husband is no longer part of the family because he doesn't have to pay taxes...
Is a drop pod in deep strike reserve - a unit in deep strike reserve? Is it a unit in your army. Does it have a point value?
The answer to all these questions is yes.
Therefore when determining army count for the purposes of deploying an army's total points. They are applied. Period. End of discussion.
Imagine you had a family that was exempt from paying taxes. You had a family where the husband was exempt from paying taxes and the wife was not but the rules states that if you dont pay taxes your whole family goes to jail.
In this analogy you are literally saying that the husband is no longer part of the family because he doesn't have to pay taxes...
This analogy doesn't work, because being exempt from paying taxes is not the same as being exempt from the process entirely, which is what happens with the Drop Pods.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: If you're not exempting them, then you're not exempting them.
The rule doesn't say "this unit does not have to follow the TR rule" - it says they are "exempt from the TR rule".
skchsan wrote: If you're not exempting them, then you're not exempting them.
The rule doesn't say "this unit does not have to follow the TR rule" - it says they are "exempt from the TR rule".
In reality. These have the exact same meaning from a rules stand point. "free from liability" and "does not have to follow" have the exact same meaning when applying to a game rule.
skchsan wrote: If you're not exempting them, then you're not exempting them.
The rule doesn't say "this unit does not have to follow the TR rule" - it says they are "exempt from the TR rule".
In reality. These have the exact same meaning from a rules stand point. "free from liability" and "does not have to follow" have the exact same meaning when applying to a game rule.
So you are saying that being exempt from the rule means you still interact with it ?
Actually, you have been the one saying that by counting the drop pods and their contents in the 50/50 rule when the drop pod rule specifically tells you they are exempt from the entire rule. If they are exempt they don't count as units or points for the purposes of figuring out what 50% of your army is for having to be on the board.That applies whether or not you have non-exempt units in the army.
Again, this is incorrect.
TR rule doesn't dictate your army count. It asks yous to CHECK your army count. It is a rule BASED on your army count. It is a single line of restriction that is based on your army count.
TR doesn't dictate how to count your army. It requires a total. That total is used under TR for the purposes of TR. What allows you to count units for the purposes of TR? The TR rule itself. So if a rule is exempt from TR, what rule allows you to count them for TR? You check your army count *for the purposes of TR* when you check it for the purposes of TR. Can you quote a rule that says Army Count for the purposes of TR counts things exempt from TR?
Nothing about TR says "Use the number of points used for arranging the match". Or any reference to using points as derived from another rule. "your army's total point value" is very simple. And your army's total point value, for the purposes of TR, does not include the points spent on Pods.
Not sure why people keep thinking being exempt from a restriction that checks army count means your are exempt from army count,,,
They're saying they're exempt from army count *for the purposes of the rule they're exempt from*. Put another way, they're freed from the liability the rule they're exempted from otherwise leverages on them. "Army Count, for the purposes of TR" is not the same as "Army count, for purposes other than TR" when dealing with units exempt from TR. Absent a rule that overrides the exemption, that's what it means.
TR doesnt say "count your armies units and points" it tells you to do something in relation to that number.
And being exempt from TR means being exempt from that number.
Is a drop pod in deep strike reserve - a unit in deep strike reserve? Is it a unit in your army. Does it have a point value?
The answer to all these questions is yes.
For purposes other than TR, the answers are yes.
Therefore when determining army count for the purposes of deploying an army's total points. They are applied. Period. End of discussion.
Until we apply an exemption. Then they're exempt. They are not applied.
Imagine you had a family that was exempt from paying taxes. You had a family where the husband was exempt from paying taxes and the wife was not but the rules states that if you dont pay taxes your whole family goes to jail.
The familiy is not exempt from paying taxes. The husband was. If the husband was exempt, the wife pays her taxes (and any liabilty for shared assets outside the scope of the exemption), and nobody goes to jail. If anyone goes to jail because the husband didn't pay taxes, he was not exempt from taxes.
In this analogy you are literally saying that the husband is no longer part of the family because he doesn't have to pay taxes...
In your analogy you're saying they're exempt, but the rule is exempt from exceptions. You haven't provided rational for this exemption to the exemptions.
skchsan wrote: If you're not exempting them, then you're not exempting them.
The rule doesn't say "this unit does not have to follow the TR rule" - it says they are "exempt from the TR rule".
In reality. These have the exact same meaning from a rules stand point. "free from liability" and "does not have to follow" have the exact same meaning when applying to a game rule.
Funny. The IRS hasn't hauled me to jail for not paying taxes on exempt items (basically deductables). When I buy food and non-food in the same purchase, I pay taxes on the total for tax purposes - which doesn't include the amount I paid for food. That's just how every store works - and they're not getting hauled off to jail.
"Does not have to follow" does not free from liability. "Exempt" literally does, by definition. What game rule can you cite that redefines "Exempt" to not free from liability.
skchsan wrote: If you're not exempting them, then you're not exempting them.
The rule doesn't say "this unit does not have to follow the TR rule" - it says they are "exempt from the TR rule".
In reality. These have the exact same meaning from a rules stand point. "free from liability" and "does not have to follow" have the exact same meaning when applying to a game rule.
Because RAW, Pods are exempt from the 50% rule. Thus they do not count.
No RAW says they are exempt from TR, meaning they do not impose the restriction. Nothing about TR dictates what your army count is so you are not exempt from being counted as part of your army.
This is where you have it backwards. If you count DPs when applying TR, then DPs are interacting with TR. So if you count your Pods under TR while deploying your Termies, you're not exempting Pods from TR. Counting them is thus illegal RAW.
You're not applying DPs to the TR rule while deploying Termies. You're applying TR without applying DPs to it. By not counting them.
You have no legal reason to count DPs while counting units/points under TR, as they're exempt.
Wrong, if you count the DPs when applying TR (a restriction placed on you, not on the DPs) then you are interacting with your army count and you are NOT interacting with the TR rule. DPs are exempt from the TR rule so they have not applied the restriction on you. The termies did (once again not the DP) . Not counting them would be breaking the rules, nothing about being exempt from the TR rule stops your DPs from being counted as a part of your army. You are not exempt from the rule, your termies arn't exempt from giving it to you and DPs are not exempt from being counted as part of your army. They are ONLY exempt from imposing the restriction.
The DPs being "exempt" from "TR" means they get to be exempt from TR. For the purposes of TR, they are not part of your army.
They are exempt from TR. Can you cite where it says "YOU are exempt from counting DPs as part of your army" or can you only cite where it says "they are exempt from the TR rule" and thus exempt from imposing the restriction on YOU. The TR rule does NOT say "count your army" it does not say "check what is and isnt on the battlefield" They are exempt from the entire thing. You can't then go and say "well that means they are exempt from this other status not dictated by the TR rule because they are exempt from imposing the restriction in the first place"
Again, they remain exempt because they are not the unit imposing the rule on you. Other units are imposing that rule on YOU. They are included in your army count, because TR is not a rule that dictates how you count your army.
DPs don't have a rule that says "Not obliged to follow this statement". The have a rule calling them out as "exempt". Literally free of obligation *or liability*. You keep ignoring the liability part.
dude, obligation is just another tense for obliged. you literally just told me "it doesn't mean your not obliged it means you are not obliged." and liability is defined as "the state of being legally responsible for something."
so it is a legal synonym for obliged. These semantics are not contributing to your point. No mater which way you spin it, exempt means they do not use the rule.
For the purposes of TR, they are not counted as included in your army.
On what grounds ? How is being "free from obligation" to follow a restriction giving you permission to exclude a unit from your army count when that restriction doesn't dictate how you count your army ? It only tells you to count your army. It doesn't some how make you exempt from BEING counted when YOU (not the DP) must count your army. It is not exempt from your army count. It is exempt from applying the restriction.
IT DOES NOT SAY "you are exempt from counting this model as part of your army for the purposes of TR" it DOES SAY "DPs are exempt from TR," TR is the rule that MAKES YOU COUNT, it is not the rule that dictates HOW YOU COUNT.
Then where are you finding permission for the Pods to interact with TR by adding liability to Termies under TR?
No where, only the Termies impose the TR rule on YOU and then YOU must count your army. Nothing in the process has anything to do with the DPs being exempt from imposing the rule on you. DPs are not exempt from your army count. Nothing about being Exempt from the entire rule gives you permision to do that.
GSC say "for the purposes of the TR rule they are exempt from being counted as part of your army" You see, being counted as part of your army is the rule GSC are getting an exemption from, specifically when related to the TR rule. Being simply exempt from the TR rule as a whole HAS NOTHING to do with how you calculate your army total. the TR rule is a restriction and ONLY a restriction. Counting your army is not dictated by it.
The totals *are* part of the TR rule. Evaluating the totals under the TR rule is part of the TR rule. Exemption from the TR rule is exemption from totals under the TR rule.
Then can you sight where the TR rule says "each deployed unit contributes to your army count"
The TR rule is a restriction. Your are exempt from the restriction. The TR rule is not a rule about army count. Being exempt from imposing a restriction does not give you permission to be exempt from a completely different rule that decides a variable in that restriction.
Where are you finding a rule that says "Count up your army points and units once, use this one value for all instances that reference army points and unit counts, and ignore any exceptions to rules when counting army points and unit counts"?
Army Points and Unit count are done for the purposes of TR. You probably already know them for other reasons (wasn't always the case, as you used to have to count PL even in Points game, and it was only used for TR). But there's no exemption to exemptions for the purposes of army points.
Where are you finding a rule that says "army points and model counts are recalculated for the purposes of TR "
Can you show me where in the TR rule it tells you how to calculate army points ? or where in the TR rule it tells you how to determine how many units are in your army ? how about where it dictates what is considered to be on and off the battlefield ? If you are exempt from those statuses by being exempt from the TR rule that can only suggest that those rules are actually contained within the TR rule ? if the TR rule contains 2 or 3 pages I missed, Id love to know.
Because he, and you, were reading "exempt from Army Points under TR" as "Discount Pods". The actual rule is "Do not count Pods (under TR)". Counting Pods means not exempting them from TR.
Wrong, the actual rule is "DPs are exempt from TR" This is not the same as being exempt from counting your pods in any way shape or form. TR imposes a restriction DPs are exempt from that. GSC are exempt from being counted for TR as it specifically says they are. The rule on GSC gives them permision to break counting rules when related to the TR restriction. being exempt from TR means you are exempt from imposing the restriction. not exempt in any way shape or form from counting the units for any purposes. that would be a different rule.
So you are saying that being exempt from the rule means you still interact with it ?
Actually, you have been the one saying that by counting the drop pods and their contents in the 50/50 rule when the drop pod rule specifically tells you they are exempt from the entire rule. If they are exempt they don't count as units or points for the purposes of figuring out what 50% of your army is for having to be on the board.That applies whether or not you have non-exempt units in the army.
Again, this is incorrect.
TR rule doesn't dictate your army count. It asks yous to CHECK your army count. It is a rule BASED on your army count. It is a single line of restriction that is based on your army count. Your DPs are exempt from that line, they not exempt from being counted in your army.
No, you are the one who is incorrect. Yes, it asks you to check the army count, but this is the TR rule telling you to do that, the same TR rule that the drop pod rule tells you the drop pods and their contents are exempt from. So, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TACTICAL RESTRAINT RULE, the drop pods and contents are most certainly not counted as part of the army, as the drop pod rule tells you they are exempt. So, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TACTICAL RESTRAINT RULE, you do not count the drop pods or their contents when calculating point costs or unit numbers in the army. This doesn't mean they don't count as part of the army for rules that aren't related to the tactical restraint rule, but the rule about 50% of your army having to be deployed is part of the tactical restraint rule. We have previously provided the rules quotations stating that the drop pods and their contents are exempt from the tactical restraint rule - the entire rule, not just portions of it. If you are including the cost of these units in your army total, then you are not following the drop pod rule because you are not making them exempt from that portion of the tactical restraint rule.
Your termies still count, they are not exempt from the rule and nobody is saying that they are. If you have an army consisting of all units that are drop pods or are in drop pods, except for 2 units of termies, you can only put one unit in reserves as you only get to count those two units as part of the army for purposes of anything in the tactical reserves unit, the cheaper unit of the two (unless they have the same cost, where it won't matter which one you pick). If you have 2 terminator units and 2 other units that cost more than the termies that aren't in drop pods, then you can put both termie units in reserves..
Not sure how tax works in Sweden so this may miss a mark but:
I have a taxable income of $10,000.
I can claim exemptions on the interests paid on my loans, so I claim deduction of $1,000.
My net taxable income is now $9,000.
I pay my tax based on the $9,000, after exemptions, not on my $10,000.
When applying a rule, you should avoid interpretations that yield absurd results. In this case, you should not choose an interpretation that yields the following for a army of 20 units including drop pods:
Put all 20 units including drop pods into reserves: legal deployment
Put 19 units including drop pods into reserves: illegal deployment
Therefore, the interpretation that you must count the pods and units in them as part of your army for the purposes of Tactical Reserves is suspect.
So you are saying that being exempt from the rule means you still interact with it ?
Actually, you have been the one saying that by counting the drop pods and their contents in the 50/50 rule when the drop pod rule specifically tells you they are exempt from the entire rule. If they are exempt they don't count as units or points for the purposes of figuring out what 50% of your army is for having to be on the board.That applies whether or not you have non-exempt units in the army.
Again, this is incorrect.
TR rule doesn't dictate your army count. It asks yous to CHECK your army count. It is a rule BASED on your army count. It is a single line of restriction that is based on your army count. Your DPs are exempt from that line, they not exempt from being counted in your army.
No, you are the one who is incorrect. Yes, it asks you to check the army count, but this is the TR rule telling you to do that, the same TR rule that the drop pod rule tells you the drop pods and their contents are exempt from. So, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TACTICAL RESTRAINT RULE, the drop pods and contents are most certainly not counted as part of the army, as the drop pod rule tells you they are exempt. So, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TACTICAL RESTRAINT RULE, you do not count the drop pods or their contents when calculating point costs or unit numbers in the army. This doesn't mean they don't count as part of the army for rules that aren't related to the tactical restraint rule, but the rule about 50% of your army having to be deployed is part of the tactical restraint rule. We have previously provided the rules quotations stating that the drop pods and their contents are exempt from the tactical restraint rule - the entire rule, not just portions of it. If you are including the cost of these units in your army total, then you are not following the drop pod rule because you are not making them exempt from that portion of the tactical restraint rule.
please explain to me how being exempt from the following restriction
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
Magically also add extra rules like "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TACTICAL RESTRAINT RULE, you do not count the drop pods or their contents"
and "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TACTICAL RESTRAINT RULE, you do not count the drop pods or their contents"
I am pretty sure the rule is
"DPs are exempt to TR "
The TR restriction is
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
How come you think that being exempt from EXACTLY what is written there gives you permission to change how completely different rules, like determining what is on and off the battlefield and your army count is ?
Again GSC tell you to augment the way you count your army in relation to the TR rule.
Being exempt from the TR rule doesn't give you permision to do that. It only tells you that DPs do not apply the restriction on you.
How are we seriously adding so many extra rules ? it is simple. DPs don't impose this restriction on you... being exempt from the rule does not change how you count your army or what is on and off the battlefield. Your DPs are exempt from the rule, they do not interact with it, nothing about a DP can effect the rule. The rule does not change. They do not trigger the restriction. They are exempt. If you make a list with only DPs the TR rules DO NOT EXIST as the DPs are exempt. Adding something else to your lists means the TR rule DOES EXIST. DPs exemption doesn't change the rule, or change things related to the rule. They are exempt. Things either impose the rule or they do not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: Not sure how tax works in Sweden so this may miss a mark but:
I have a taxable income of $10,000.
I can claim exemptions on the interests paid on my loans, so I claim deduction of $1,000.
My net taxable income is now $9,000.
I pay my tax based on the $9,000, after exemptions, not on my $10,000.
Again pretending this rule works like taxes.This is different.
Native canadians do not have to pay sales tax. They are exempt from the rule ENTIRELY (just like a DP)
If the native canadian asks their non-native friend to buy something for them. Even though the product is for their native friend, this person still must pay sales tax. He is unable to show a native ID and thus do not meet imposed restrictions.
Sales tax is then paid on the entire purchase.
They could split the bill and pay separately. But again, that would be akin splitting your list in half and playing two separate games.
We are talking a bout a complete exemption, not a proportional one. The tax example is not accurate.
alextroy wrote: When applying a rule, you should avoid interpretations that yield absurd results. In this case, you should not choose an interpretation that yields the following for a army of 20 units including drop pods:
Put all 20 units including drop pods into reserves: legal deployment
Put 19 units including drop pods into reserves: illegal deployment
Therefore, the interpretation that you must count the pods and units in them as part of your army for the purposes of Tactical Reserves is suspect.
Why is that interpretation absurd. It seems fluffy (an entire legion of SM coming from DPs) it doesn't seem unbalanced. It seems like a fair restriction to give someone who wants to field a fluffy null deploy list.
alextroy wrote: When applying a rule, you should avoid interpretations that yield absurd results. In this case, you should not choose an interpretation that yields the following for a army of 20 units including drop pods:
Put all 20 units including drop pods into reserves: legal deployment
Put 19 units including drop pods into reserves: illegal deployment
Therefore, the interpretation that you must count the pods and units in them as part of your army for the purposes of Tactical Reserves is suspect.
Why is that interpretation absurd. It seems fluffy (an entire legion of SM coming from DPs) it doesn't seem unbalanced. It seems like a fair restriction to give someone who wants to field a fluffy null deploy list.
And if 1 unit missed the bus, the entire legion goes haywire. That's not very fluffy.
Stux wrote: Sigh... Because they aren't included in the total points value of your army. Because they are exempt.
Round and round...
You keep saying that,
but you arn't showing why they are exempt from being counted and not just being exempt from imposing the restriction.
Like we do keep going round and round but thats because you keep going " Because they aren't included in the total points value of your army" and I keep going "how is that possible ?" and you keep going "Because they aren't included in the total points value of your army." Explain to me why.
so once again, how is being exempt from imposing a restriction on you as a player akin to being exempt from how you count your army ? Once again, where in the TR rule does it tell you exactly how you count your army and what counts as being on and off the battlefield? how does being exempt from the following statement and thus not applying it on the player.
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
how does being exempt from that mean you are also exempt from being counted as part of your army in relation to the rule. Nothing says that, no part of the rule is trying to tell you that. your unit is exempt from this rule, stop trying to make it interact with the rule in some way. it is exempt.
DPs don't have a rule that says "Not obliged to follow this statement". The have a rule calling them out as "exempt". Literally free of obligation *or liability*. You keep ignoring the liability part.
dude, obligation is just another tense for obliged. you literally just told me "it doesn't mean your not obliged it means you are not obliged."
No, I said "Not being required to follow $statement" is not the same as "Not being required to follow, or be responsible for effects of, $statement".
You focused in on the tense change because you're completely oblivous to what I"m saying.
and liability is defined as "the state of being legally responsible for something."
so it is a legal synonym for obliged.
Not at all. An obligation is something *you* must do. A liability is a cost *you* are responsible for. You can be responsible for obligations of others. As such, they are not synonyms.
These semantics are not contributing to your point. No mater which way you spin it, exempt means they do not use the rule.
It's not just semantic. You're arguing that "exempt" just means Pods are freed from the requirement of checking that they're in compliance with TR upon deployment. I'm arguing that "exempt" from TR also means the pods are free from the liability imposed by Tactical Reserves.
Put anther way: what rule, other than TR, applies liability from the Drop Pods in terms of how many units you must deploy?
For the purposes of TR, they are not counted as included in your army.
On what grounds ? How is being "free from obligation" to follow a restriction giving you permission to exclude a unit from your army count when that restriction doesn't dictate how you count your army ? It only tells you to count your army. It doesn't some how make you exempt from BEING counted when YOU (not the DP) must count your army. It is not exempt from your army count. It is exempt from applying the restriction.
Then where are you finding permission for the Pods to interact with TR by adding liability to Termies under TR?
No where, only the Termies impose the TR rule on YOU and then YOU must count your army.
Two units of Termies, two units of Pods. The two units of Termies impose the liability of needing to deploy at least 1 unit. The two units of Pods would impose that liability, but are exempt, so do not.
The fact that the rule dictates conditions *you* must meet doesn't change the imposition of liability.
The TR rule is a restriction. Your are exempt from the restriction. The TR rule is not a rule about army count. Being exempt from imposing a restriction does not give you permission to be exempt from a completely different rule that decides a variable in that restriction.
Does it matter how or where the value comes from? Regardless, using that value for the purposes of TR means using that value, as understood by TR.
alextroy wrote: When applying a rule, you should avoid interpretations that yield absurd results. In this case, you should not choose an interpretation that yields the following for a army of 20 units including drop pods:
Put all 20 units including drop pods into reserves: legal deployment
Put 19 units including drop pods into reserves: illegal deployment
Therefore, the interpretation that you must count the pods and units in them as part of your army for the purposes of Tactical Reserves is suspect.
Why is that interpretation absurd. It seems fluffy (an entire legion of SM coming from DPs) it doesn't seem unbalanced. It seems like a fair restriction to give someone who wants to field a fluffy null deploy list.
And if 1 unit missed the bus, the entire legion goes haywire. That's not very fluffy.
Ya wouldn't that unit be left,,, you know, in a space ship,,, not on the ground XD ?
alextroy wrote: When applying a rule, you should avoid interpretations that yield absurd results. In this case, you should not choose an interpretation that yields the following for a army of 20 units including drop pods:
Put all 20 units including drop pods into reserves: legal deployment
Put 19 units including drop pods into reserves: illegal deployment
Therefore, the interpretation that you must count the pods and units in them as part of your army for the purposes of Tactical Reserves is suspect.
Why is that interpretation absurd. It seems fluffy (an entire legion of SM coming from DPs) it doesn't seem unbalanced. It seems like a fair restriction to give someone who wants to field a fluffy null deploy list.
And if 1 unit missed the bus, the entire legion goes haywire. That's not very fluffy.
Ya wouldn't that unit be left,,, you know, in a space ship,,, not on the ground XD ?
Yeah but according to your interpretation, the drop pods can't even be loaded into the ship because 1 unit decided they're going to go there by themselves.
skchsan wrote: Because you are insistent on reading the phrasing of exemption to say "The TR rule does not affect Drop Pod and its contents."
They are non-existent for the purpose of TR rule because they are exempt.
When applying the TR rule during your deployment, you can only consider that which are not exempt. TR triggers at deployment, not list building.
So are you saying that Exempt doesn't mean "the TR rule does not affect the drop pod and its contents"
Strange, the next time I am exempt from taking an exam, i guess I ll still have to take it ? maybe some modified version of it tyhat takes into account how many other people have already taken it in relation to who is in the classroom at the time /
TR triggers at deployment, but how does that effect your army count ?
again, being exempt from a rule that imposes a restriction doesn't make you exempt from how that restriction would have been and can be calculated.
alextroy wrote: When applying a rule, you should avoid interpretations that yield absurd results. In this case, you should not choose an interpretation that yields the following for a army of 20 units including drop pods:
Put all 20 units including drop pods into reserves: legal deployment
Put 19 units including drop pods into reserves: illegal deployment
Therefore, the interpretation that you must count the pods and units in them as part of your army for the purposes of Tactical Reserves is suspect.
Why is that interpretation absurd. It seems fluffy (an entire legion of SM coming from DPs) it doesn't seem unbalanced. It seems like a fair restriction to give someone who wants to field a fluffy null deploy list.
And if 1 unit missed the bus, the entire legion goes haywire. That's not very fluffy.
Ya wouldn't that unit be left,,, you know, in a space ship,,, not on the ground XD ?
Yeah but according to your interpretation, the drop pods can't even be loaded into the ship because 1 unit decided they're going to go there by themselves.
Ya,,, and how did that one unit get there ? did he jump ?
did he fly down on a para glider ?
"oh hey guys, lets do this drop pod assault,,, don't worry, jeff will meet us down there, he's gonna jump on his own, I bet he ll even be faster then us"
Stux wrote: Sigh... Because they aren't included in the total points value of your army. Because they are exempt.
Round and round...
You keep saying that,
but you arn't showing why they are exempt from being counted and not just being exempt from imposing the restriction.
Like we do keep going round and round but thats because you keep going " Because they aren't included in the total points value of your army" and I keep going "how is that possible ?" and you keep going "Because they aren't included in the total points value of your army." Explain to me why.
so once again, how is being exempt from imposing a restriction on you as a player akin to being exempt from how you count your army ? Once again, where in the TR rule does it tell you exactly how you count your army and what counts as being on and off the battlefield? how does being exempt from the following statement and thus not applying it on the player.
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
how does being exempt from that mean you are also exempt from being counted as part of your army in relation to the rule. Nothing says that, no part of the rule is trying to tell you that. your unit is exempt from this rule, stop trying to make it interact with the rule in some way. it is exempt.
Let's try this another way.
You have an army that is just 2 terminators.
This applies a liability via Tactical Reserves to deploy at least 1 unit.
You have an army that is just 2 Drop Pods
This would apply a liability via Tactical Reserves to deploy at least 1 unit.
Drop Pods are freed from liability from Tactical Reserves, as they're exempt.
Tactical Reserves now applies 0 liability to deploy units, as any liabiilty it would apply was freed.
The more complicated army: 2 Termies, 2 Pods
Your Termies apply liability to deploy 1 unit.
Your Pods would apply liability to deploy 1 unit.
Total liability would be you must deploy 2 units.
But you're freed of the Pods liability. So you must only deploy 1 unit.
You're arguing that you are not freed of the Pod's liability. What is the rationale behind not freeing Pods of their liability under Tactical Reserves?
Type40 wrote: So are you saying that Exempt doesn't mean "the TR rule does not affect the drop pod and its contents"
No. It means cannot affect/be affected. Like how 0 times anything is 0.
Type40 wrote: Strange, the next time I am exempt from taking an exam, i guess I ll still have to take it ? maybe some modified version of it tyhat takes into account how many other people have already taken it in relation to who is in the classroom at the time
Say your teacher tells you that you have 4 tests in a semester and if you get 100's on the first 3, you are exempt from taking the 4th one. Your teacher counted your 4th test as 0 because you didn't take the exam. Now your final grade is 75, rather than 100 it should've been.
Type40 wrote: TR triggers at deployment, but how does that effect your army count ?
You don't count at deployment it because they're exempt.
Type40 wrote: again, being exempt from a rule that imposes a restriction doesn't make you exempt from how that restriction would have been and can be calculated.
Stux wrote: Yes, the army count is part of the TR rule, so they are exempt for it. Citation is the TR rule where it references your army count. Done and done.
IT does not matter that the army count is part of the TR rule. It literally doesn't matter. The TR rule affects your army - not particular units. A non exempt unit has to follow this rule because it is not exempt. Seriously you guys are being daft to the point it is absurd. Your army point total DOES NOT change because you have a unit exempt to TR. Army point total is affected by NOTHING but the units you include in your list.
I suppose I could just starting bringing 4000 point armies because I can put 2000 points in drop pods and they don't exist because they are exempt to TR lol.
Type40 wrote: So are you saying that Exempt doesn't mean "the TR rule does not affect the drop pod and its contents"
No. It means cannot affect/be affected. Like how 0 times anything is 0.
Type40 wrote: Strange, the next time I am exempt from taking an exam, i guess I ll still have to take it ? maybe some modified version of it tyhat takes into account how many other people have already taken it in relation to who is in the classroom at the time
Say your teacher tells you that you have 4 tests in a semester and if you get 100's on the first 3, you are exempt from taking the 4th one. Your teacher counted your 4th test as 0 because you didn't take the exam. Now your final grade is 75, rather than 100 it should've been.
Type40 wrote: TR triggers at deployment, but how does that effect your army count ?
You don't count at deployment it because they're exempt.
Type40 wrote: again, being exempt from a rule that imposes a restriction doesn't make you exempt from how that restriction would have been and can be calculated.
For the items that are exempt, yes they are.
ummm no, my teacher counts my final mark as 100% because that test did not apply to me. Meaning my final grade is made up from 3 tests and not 4.
Drop Pods are freed from liability from Tactical Reserves, as they're exempt.
You guys keep repeating this.
And I will ask again
How does being freed from liability or obligation to this EXACT STATEMENT
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
Means you make exceptions to how you count your army and how you determine what is and is not on the battlefield.
You are not obliged to impose this restriction. That is all well and good.
But how is not needing to impose this restriction possibly telling you to change how your army total is calculated ?
You are exempt from THAT statement, NOTHING ELSE. That statement doesn't tell you how to count your army, that statement doesn't tell you what's on or off the battlefield. That statement tells you that you must check these things. How is being exempt the fact that you MUST check those things changing what those things actually are ?
Stux wrote: Yes, the army count is part of the TR rule, so they are exempt for it. Citation is the TR rule where it references your army count. Done and done.
IT does not matter that the army count is part of the TR rule. It literally doesn't matter. The TR rule affects your army - not particular units. A non exempt unit has to follow this rule because it is not exempt. Seriously you guys are being daft to the point it is absurd. Your army point total DOES NOT change because you have a unit exempt to TR. Army point total is affected by NOTHING but the units you include in your list.
So explain how Drop Pods are not freed of their liability under Tactical Restraint by being exempted by Tactical Restraint.
Army point total *for the purposes of Tactical Restraint* is affected by NOTHING but the units you include in your list *and are not freed from liability for the purposes of Tactical Restraint*.
I suppose I could just starting bringing 4000 point armies because I can put 2000 points in drop pods and they don't exist because they are exempt to TR lol.
Sure you could, but that's a 4000 point game. Because army points for purposes other than TR are not army points for the purposes of TR.
Type40 wrote: ummm no, my teacher counts my final mark as 100% because that test did not apply to me. Meaning my final grade is made up from 3 tests and not 4.
Exactly. That's what being exempt means.
Your teacher told you you are exempt from taking the test. S/he did not tell you you will get an automatic 100 on the 4th test.
The average then is calculated as (100+100+100)/3, and not (100+100+100+100)/4
Stux wrote: Yes, the army count is part of the TR rule, so they are exempt for it. Citation is the TR rule where it references your army count. Done and done.
IT does not matter that the army count is part of the TR rule. It literally doesn't matter. The TR rule affects your army - not particular units. A non exempt unit has to follow this rule because it is not exempt. Seriously you guys are being daft to the point it is absurd. Your army point total DOES NOT change because you have a unit exempt to TR. Army point total is affected by NOTHING but the units you include in your list.
I suppose I could just starting bringing 4000 point armies because I can put 2000 points in drop pods and they don't exist because they are exempt to TR lol.
lol exactly ! i love this example.
I will bring 2000 pts in DPs and the rest as other things. If we can magically make "exempt from the TR rule" to mean "exempt from army count in relation to the TR rule" then I propose it also means "when using the TR rule your DPs are exempt from model count all together"
I will bring 4000 pts to a 2000 pt game and see what people think XD. I am exempt after all lol.
Type40 wrote: ummm no, my teacher counts my final mark as 100% because that test did not apply to me. Meaning my final grade is made up from 3 tests and not 4.
Exactly. That's what being exempt means.
Yes, my point exactly.
If each test also had a question that said "if you fail this question you fail the course"
Even though I am exempt from the 4th test. If I fail that question, the 4th test is inconsequential. I the penalty is still applied.
Being exempt from the 4th test that includes the auto fail question doesn't mean I am exempt from the auto fail question on every other test.
What you guys don't seem to understand is that being exempt from one thing doesn't mean you get to be exempt from the restrictions that are applied from OTHER THINGS.
This isn't a mater of percents or calculations.
It is a mater of EXACTLY what you are exempt from
and that is ONLY the application of this restriction
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
It is not an exemption on HOW that restriction is calculated, or HOW that restriction interacts with things. Your DPs are exempt from applying the restriction as a whole.
When something does apply the restriction, that doesn't change.
Just because I am exempt from test number 4 doesn't mean that I now get 25% because when I failed the auto fail question.
That is a separate restriction, unrelated to my exemption. Sure it is related. but being exempt from the test itself does not exempt me from how EACH other test is marked, or any other possible penalties those tests can give me, even if the 4th test that I am exempt from have the same questions, the same marking scheme and the same penalties.
Type40 wrote: If each test also had a question that said "if you fail this question you fail the course" Even though I am exempt from the 4th test. If I fail that question, the 4th test is inconsequential. I the penalty is still applied.
Being exempt from the 4th test that includes the auto fail question doesn't mean I am exempt from the auto fail question on every other test.
Yes but you're exempt from the auto-fail question on the 4th test nonetheless, despite not having answered it correctly because you've been exempt.
Type40 wrote: So are you saying that Exempt doesn't mean "the TR rule does not affect the drop pod and its contents"
No. It means cannot affect/be affected. Like how 0 times anything is 0.
Type40 wrote: Strange, the next time I am exempt from taking an exam, i guess I ll still have to take it ? maybe some modified version of it tyhat takes into account how many other people have already taken it in relation to who is in the classroom at the time
Say your teacher tells you that you have 4 tests in a semester and if you get 100's on the first 3, you are exempt from taking the 4th one. Your teacher counted your 4th test as 0 because you didn't take the exam. Now your final grade is 75, rather than 100 it should've been.
Type40 wrote: TR triggers at deployment, but how does that effect your army count ?
You don't count at deployment it because they're exempt.
Type40 wrote: again, being exempt from a rule that imposes a restriction doesn't make you exempt from how that restriction would have been and can be calculated.
For the items that are exempt, yes they are.
ummm no, my teacher counts my final mark as 100% because that test did not apply to me. Meaning my final grade is made up from 3 tests and not 4.
Exactly. The exempt test's liabilty did not count against you - only the liability from the first three tests. You got 100/100 on 3 of 3 tests. Likewise, if you have deployed 1 of 2 Terminator units and 0 of 2 Pods, you've deployed 1 of 2 units in your army *for the purposes of Tactical Reserves*.
There was still a fourth test. And it doesn't matter whether the exempt test was the first test or the last test. There are four tests in that class. But one of your tests is exempt from your grade, so does not count. It's the same as there being 3 tests as far as your grade is concerned. That doesn't mean the fourth test never happened.
Drop Pods are freed from liability from Tactical Reserves, as they're exempt.
You guys keep repeating this.
And I will ask again
How does being freed from liability or obligation to this EXACT STATEMENT
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
Means you make exceptions to how you count your army and how you determine what is and is not on the battlefield.
It means you make an exception in "how you count your army" for the purposes of that rule. It means that, for the purposes of the rule quoted, the Drop Pods impose no liability. Thus, the clause establishing liabliity - "at least half the total number of units in your army" - does not count Drop Pods.
You are not obliged to impose this restriction. That is all well and good.
But how is not needing to impose this restriction possibly telling you to change how your army total is calculated ?
Once agian, you're ignoring the freedom from liabilities. How does not being obliged to take one test change the total number of points you need to pass the course?
You are exempt from THAT statement, NOTHING ELSE. That statement doesn't tell you how to count your army, that statement doesn't tell you what's on or off the battlefield. That statement tells you that you must check these things. How is being exempt the fact that you MUST check those things changing what those things actually are ?
You actually never need check these things. You must satisfy them. Hypothetically, if a player didn't even know about the rule (and thus never checked it), but didn't violate it, they did nothing wrong. Checking is just a way to ensure you satisfy them. It's not a requirement in itself.
Type40 wrote: If each test also had a question that said "if you fail this question you fail the course"
Even though I am exempt from the 4th test. If I fail that question, the 4th test is inconsequential. I the penalty is still applied.
Being exempt from the 4th test that includes the auto fail question doesn't mean I am exempt from the auto fail question on every other test.
Yes but you're exempt from the auto-fail question on the 4th test nonetheless, despite not having answered it correctly because you've been exempt.
But what your saying is that I am exempt from the auto fail question on the other 3 tests because it is included in the 4th.
Type40 wrote: If each test also had a question that said "if you fail this question you fail the course"
Even though I am exempt from the 4th test. If I fail that question, the 4th test is inconsequential. I the penalty is still applied.
Being exempt from the 4th test that includes the auto fail question doesn't mean I am exempt from the auto fail question on every other test.
Yes but you're exempt from the auto-fail question on the 4th test nonetheless, despite not having answered it correctly because you've been exempt.
But what your saying is that I am exempt from the auto fail question on the other 3 tests because it is included in the 4th.
No.
We're saying that if the rule was "You must get at least 50% of the MegaQuestions right, and there's one on each test", and you take two tests and are exempted from two tests, you're required to get 1 MegaQuestion right.
If the rule were "You must get at least 2 of the MegaQuestions right", that'd be a different story. Becuase 2 isn't defined by "how many tests you take". 50% is defined by "how many tests you take".
50% of units is defined by how many units you take. So units exempted from the 50% rule do not affect how many units the 50% rule requires.
So it's 6 pages in and we seem to be going around in the same circles we did last time....
There still seem to be three schools of thought...
School A Drop pods and Embarked units are Exempt from TR, thus any such units are excluded from the army size when determing the deployment requirements. Hence you may deploy and much (or as little) of your army as you like in drop pods and set them up all up in reserve, (this includes Null Deployment). As the drop pods and embarked units are excluded from the army size for the purposes of TR you may also set up up to 50% of the remaining forces in reserves to..
School B Drop pods and Embarked units are Exempt from TR, however they still form part of the army and thus are included when determing the deployment requirements. Hence you may only deploy in such a manner to violoate the critera of TR is all your army consists of drop pods and embarked units. If there are any non-exempt units then the criteria of TR must be adhered to as normal.
School C Drop pods and Embarked units are Exempt from TR, however they still form part of the army and thus are included when determing the deployment requirements. Moreover as the requirement is levied upon, and determined on the basis of the armies properties (namely the size in terms of points value and number of units which isn't determined by TR) that the exemption to TR doesn't affect army deployment as this the obligation is levied up and meet by the Army.
And no clear evidence to prove which is correct.
All have a logical basis.
However all are based on slightly different assumptions that need to be made to try to figure out how the rules work. It speaks volumes that whilst two schools of though allow Null Deployment they can not agree on allowing 50%< x <100%
Which brings me back to my original post here of
Actually the earlier discussion was inconclusive in reaching a concensuss on the matter
Exactly. The exempt test's liabilty did not count against you - only the liability from the first three tests. You got 100/100 on 3 of 3 tests. Likewise, if you have deployed 1 of 2 Terminator units and 0 of 2 Pods, you've deployed 1 of 2 units in your army *for the purposes of Tactical Reserves*.
There was still a fourth test. And it doesn't matter whether the exempt test was the first test or the last test. There are four tests in that class. But one of your tests is exempt from your grade, so does not count. It's the same as there being 3 tests as far as your grade is concerned. That doesn't mean the fourth test never happened.
Exactly, so why are my other 3 tests being marked differently ? see my auto-fail question example. This is akin to having an ENTRIE restriction applied to you for including it.
It means you make an exception in "how you count your army" for the purposes of that rule. It means that, for the purposes of the rule quoted, the Drop Pods impose no liability. Thus, the clause establishing liabliity - "at least half the total number of units in your army" - does not count Drop Pods.
again, please explain how being free from the liability of an imposed restriction changes how that restriction is imposed when it is given to me by other units ?
Again, you are repeating the same thing.
Once agian, you're ignoring the freedom from liabilities. How does not being obliged to take one test change the total number of points you need to pass the course?
Your arguments on semantics about liabilties v.s. obligations v.s. exempt and repeating multiple synonyms claiming they mean different things is not helping.
It doesn't change the points you need to pass... this is my point exactly. you still need a 50% to pass. Being exempt does not change any other rules except for what you are exempt from. In this case you are exempt from an imposed restriction. You are not exempt from how that restriction is calculated. If that restriction is applied in some other way, you still must meet it.
lets say you had a course with 4 tests.
Each test has 200 questions.
The top of each tests says:
"In order to go on the field trip you must have answered 40 questions altogether from all 4 tests."
Then the teacher gives you an exemption from the 40 questions rule on your 4th test.
does that some how mean you now only need to answer 30 questions ?
Why would being exempt from the 4th tests rule change whether or not you need to answer 40 questions ? The other 3 tests gave you that restriction, not the 4th one. The 4th one may still be exempt from it, but it doesn't change the fact that you go the restriction from the other tests.
You actually never need check these things. You must satisfy them. Hypothetically, if a player didn't even know about the rule (and thus never checked it), but didn't violate it, they did nothing wrong. Checking is just a way to ensure you satisfy them. It's not a requirement in itself.
Again symantics. whether or not you actually physically CHECK to see whether you have 50/50 doesn't make a difference in satisfying the rules and requirements.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cornishman wrote: So it's 6 pages in and we seem to be going around in the same circles we did last time....
There still seem to be three schools of thought...
School A Drop pods and Embarked units are Exempt from TR, thus any such units are excluded from the army size when determing the deployment requirements. Hence you may deploy and much (or as little) of your army as you like in drop pods and set them up all up in reserve, (this includes Null Deployment). As the drop pods and embarked units are excluded from the army size for the purposes of TR you may also set up up to 50% of the remaining forces in reserves to..
School B Drop pods and Embarked units are Exempt from TR, however they still form part of the army and thus are included when determing the deployment requirements. Hence you may only deploy in such a manner to violoate the critera of TR is all your army consists of drop pods and embarked units. If there are any non-exempt units then the criteria of TR must be adhered to as normal.
School C Drop pods and Embarked units are Exempt from TR, however they still form part of the army and thus are included when determing the deployment requirements. Moreover as the requirement is levied upon, and determined on the basis of the armies properties (namely the size in terms of points value and number of units which isn't determined by TR) that the exemption to TR doesn't affect army deployment as this the obligation is levied up and meet by the Army.
And no clear evidence to prove which is correct.
All have a logical basis.
However all are based on slightly different assumptions that need to be made to try to figure out how the rules work. It speaks volumes that whilst two schools of though allow Null Deployment they can not agree on allowing 50%< x <100%
Which brings me back to my original post here of
Actually the earlier discussion was inconclusive in reaching a concensuss on the matter
Sorry I disagreed with you back there. I didn't realize it was as divisive as this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
No.
We're saying that if the rule was "You must get at least 50% of the MegaQuestions right, and there's one on each test", and you take two tests and are exempted from two tests, you're required to get 1 MegaQuestion right.
If the rule were "You must get at least 2 of the MegaQuestions right", that'd be a different story. Becuase 2 isn't defined by "how many tests you take". 50% is defined by "how many tests you take".
50% of units is defined by how many units you take. So units exempted from the 50% rule do not affect how many units the 50% rule requires.
BUT THATS NOT WHAT IT IS .
you have 4 tests. All together the tests have 80 questions
Each test has a rule at the top that says "in order to pass the course you need to answer 40 questions all together"
Just because the 4th test is given an exemption from the rule that says "in order to pass the course you need to answer 40 questions"
does not mean the penalty isn't applied to you or that the 4th test wasn't exempt. You still get the restriction because of the other tests. It doesn't magically change to 30 questions. You still have a 40 question restriction because of the other tests.
The exemption isn't violated. The 4th test didn't have the rule, the other tests did. Does that mean anything for you... nope, you still got the restriction. Does the Rule as Written change for the other tests magically. Nope it still says 40 questions.
please explain to me how being exempt from the following restriction
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
Magically also add extra rules like "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TACTICAL RESTRAINT RULE, you do not count the drop pods or their contents"
and "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TACTICAL RESTRAINT RULE, you do not count the drop pods or their contents"
Very simple. The restriction you have quoted is from the tactical restraint rule. The drop pod rule states that drop pods and units which are contained within drop pods are exempt from the rule. If you are trying to count the army as a whole including the drop pods and the units embarked in them, you are not following the drop pod rule as it clearly states they are exempt from the Tactical Restraint rule. This means that you can not count them as part of the army for purposes of the tactical restraint rule since they are specifically exempt from the rule. Since they are exempt, you have only what's left over after ignoring the points for the crop pods and the units contained in them.
Your problem is that you're trying to apply a rule to the drop pods and their passengers that you are told does not affect them, Counting them as part of the army for purposes of determining the 50% that must be placed on the board is a tactical restraint rule is not following the drop pod rule, as you're suddenly making them not exempt from a portion of a rule which they are stated to be specifically exempt from. All your arguments still boil down to you doing something you are specifically told not to do.
please explain to me how being exempt from the following restriction
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
Magically also add extra rules like "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TACTICAL RESTRAINT RULE, you do not count the drop pods or their contents"
and "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TACTICAL RESTRAINT RULE, you do not count the drop pods or their contents"
Very simple. The restriction you have quoted is from the tactical restraint rule. The drop pod rule states that drop pods and units which are contained within drop pods are exempt from the rule. If you are trying to count the army as a whole including the drop pods and the units embarked in them, you are not following the drop pod rule as it clearly states they are exempt from the Tactical Restraint rule. This means that you can not count them as part of the army for purposes of the tactical restraint rule since they are specifically exempt from the rule. Since they are exempt, you have only what's left over after ignoring the points for the crop pods and the units contained in them.
Your problem is that you're trying to apply a rule to the drop pods and their passengers that you are told does not affect them, Counting them as part of the army for purposes of determining the 50% that must be placed on the board is a tactical restraint rule is not following the drop pod rule, as you're suddenly making them not exempt from a portion of a rule which they are stated to be specifically exempt from. All your arguments still boil down to you doing something you are specifically told not to do.
please re-read my posts, so I do not have to circle back to this again.
No, I am not trying to apply any rule to the drop pod. The TR rule is applied to the player and not to the drop pod.
The drop pod, for the last time, has nothing to do with the TR rule being imposed on the player.
The drop pod is exempt, it does not impose the rule on the player. Another unit imposes the restriction the player.
Nothing about the DP gives it permission to not be counted in terms of the TR rule. IT SIMPLY DOES NOT IMPOSE IT.
here is list number 1
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
my list has 5 drop pods all exempt from the TR rule.
ok, here is list number 2
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
termies - TR RULE
dp - no restriction
Each DP does not apply the statement
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
however, the termies DO impose the restriction.
Now YOU as the player WHO IS NOT A DROP POD has a restriction that you gained from termies WHO ARE NOT A DROP POD that you must follow.
Nothing about the DPs being exempt from imposing the restriction allows them to not be counted. they simply DO NOT IMPOSE THE RESTRICTION and thus are exempt.
Exactly. The exempt test's liabilty did not count against you - only the liability from the first three tests. You got 100/100 on 3 of 3 tests. Likewise, if you have deployed 1 of 2 Terminator units and 0 of 2 Pods, you've deployed 1 of 2 units in your army *for the purposes of Tactical Reserves*.
There was still a fourth test. And it doesn't matter whether the exempt test was the first test or the last test. There are four tests in that class. But one of your tests is exempt from your grade, so does not count. It's the same as there being 3 tests as far as your grade is concerned. That doesn't mean the fourth test never happened.
Exactly, so why are my other 3 tests being marked differently ? see my auto-fail question example. This is akin to having an ENTRIE restriction applied to you for including it.
The auto-fail question doesn't scale with test count similiar to the rule in question. See the "MegaQuestion" scenario outlined above for a variant of your auto-fail question that is in line with the requirement.
It means you make an exception in "how you count your army" for the purposes of that rule. It means that, for the purposes of the rule quoted, the Drop Pods impose no liability. Thus, the clause establishing liabliity - "at least half the total number of units in your army" - does not count Drop Pods.
again, please explain how being free from the liability of an imposed restriction changes how that restriction is imposed when it is given to me by other units ?
Again, you are repeating the same thing.
If Bob is paying for one of your liabilites for you, and you're freed of the liability, Bob is not required to pay that liability for you. Bob's liabilities are unchanged. So again, if 50% or more of total number of your group must... have a valid driver's license, then between you and Bob, one of you must. If you're in a group of 4, two of you must. If people who bicycled here are exempt from that rule, and two of your four bicycled here, then two are exempt. Only one of the two non-exempt members need to have a driver's license. The total number of people in your group remains 4. But the total number of people in the group *for the purposes of the Drivers License rule* is 2. It remains two, whether the bouncer is talking to you or one of your hipster friends who rode a bicycle.
The exemption to the license rule didn't change change the number of people in the group. When you grabbed a table, you wanted a table with four chairs. When you got a round of sodas, you ordered four, not two. But you only need one licensed driver for the two non-hipsters in the group.
The restriction doesn't change whether you're evaluating an exempt or non-exempt unit. The restriction remains the same value. That value does not factor in the exempt units, though.
Once agian, you're ignoring the freedom from liabilities. How does not being obliged to take one test change the total number of points you need to pass the course?
Your arguments on semantics about liabilties v.s. obligations v.s. exempt and repeating multiple synonyms claiming they mean different things is not helping.
Only because you still think "liabilities" and "obligations" are synonyms. They are related, and often come up in similar places. I've been trying to differentiate them, because you aren't recognizing the liabilities incurred by the Drop Pods as obligations (which would be arguable). Regardless, you continue to discount liabilites, whereas "exempt" clearly does not.
It doesn't change the points you need to pass... this is my point exactly. you still need a 50% to pass.
Being exempt does not change any other rules except for what you are exempt from. In this case you are exempt from an imposed restriction. You are not exempt from how that restriction is calculated. If that restriction is applied in some other way, you still must meet it.
In your orignal 4-tests, lets say each was 100 points. Lets say you need 50% of all points to pass. You therefore, typically, need 200 points. You are exempted from one test. You manage a 51% on each of the first three tests. That's 153 points. You pass - because you got 153 of 300 points, which is 51%, which is greater than 50%. I still need 200 points to pass. I score a 49% on all 4 tests. I got 196 points. Even though I got more points than you, I fail. Because you are exempt from liability on the third test.
lets say you had a course with 4 tests.
Each test has 200 questions.
The top of each tests says:
"In order to go on the field trip you must have answered 40 questions altogether from all 4 tests."
Then the teacher gives you an exemption from the 40 questions rule on your 4th test.
does that some how mean you now only need to answer 30 questions ?
Why would being exempt from the 4th tests rule change whether or not you need to answer 40 questions ? The other 3 tests gave you that restriction, not the 4th one. The 4th one may still be exempt from it, but it doesn't change the fact that you go the restriction from the other tests.
Nonsensical. He could exempt the 4th test from that rule, but he can't exempt that rule from your test. Exempting that 40-question rule from that test would be messy, though, as "40" is not pro-rated. If the 40-question rule were written as "Must answer at least 5% of all questions", however, the outcome is clear: you must now only answer 30 questions on the first 3 tests.
There is an alternate reading where each test imposes that "5% of all tests combined" limitation. In that case, there are four seperate rules that require you to get 5% of all questions. In that case, exempting from the 4th still leaves the other 3 instances. Regardless, the rule is either the flat 40 (in which case it'd usually get prorated for fairness) or 5%. So the above applies.
Note that the case we're discussing is prorated. 50% of $value. So this is more like "5% of all questions" - where an exemption of the fourth test would cut down the total number of questions for your grade's purpose.
skchsan wrote: It's not that DP are not liable for the restrictions. They are simply exempt.
OMG these semantic back and forths.
I only said liable because @bharring keeps saying it and making symantic differences between obligated, liable and exempt.
Exempt definition :
free from an obligation or liability imposed on others.
Ok so can we just agree that these are all synonyms. When I say they are exempt, someone says "oh you are forgeting they arn't obliged" when I say obliged someone says "oh your forgeting that they arn;t liable" now that I said liable "oohhhh they are just exempt"
So lets stop with this symantic merry go round.
The fact of the mater is you are simply exempt from the rule in its entirety. This doesn't mean you are exempt from a percentage of the rule for other things, just that you are exempt from the restriction being imposed at all.
skchsan wrote: It's not that DP are not liable for the restrictions. They are simply exempt.
OMG these semantic back and forths.
I only said liable because @bharring keeps saying it and making symantic differences between obligated, liable and exempt.
The problem isn't semantics. The problem is that you're using 'liability' as a synonym for 'obligate', but using a definition of 'obligate' that does not capture the meaning of 'liability'.
DPs are not "obligated" via the rule. They also are free from any *liability* due to the rule. While obligations are things the DP needn't meet - what you're referring to when you say "restrictions" - liabilities include obligations placed on others.
If you take 2 Termies and 2 Pods, the obligation to deploy one Termie is a liability of the 2 Termies. The obligation to deploy the second Termie is a liablity of the two Pods. Thus, if Pods are free of all *liabilities* from Tactial Reserves, they're free of obligating the second Termie to deploy.
Note how 'Liability' and 'Obligation' can be used very differently here.
Exempt definition :
free from an obligation or liability imposed on others.
Ok so can we just agree that these are all synonyms. When I say they are exempt, someone says "oh you are forgeting they arn't obliged" when I say obliged someone says "oh your forgeting that they arn;t liable" now that I said liable "oohhhh they are just exempt"
When you're saying they aren't "liable" to abide by the restriction, you're talking about obligations. They aren't synonyms. When you're saying that DPs being exempt from the rule does not free the obligation DPs impose on Termies under the rule, you're saying DPs *are liable* under the TR rule. This isn't semantic circles. This is misunderstanding of terms.
back to the 3 schools of thoughts, and thier logic:
School A TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR.
TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units).
DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size.
Thus, DPs and Embarked units must be excluded from the size of the Army when considering TR, as otherwise they are indirectly or through the emergent property causing the obligation.
The obvious counter point that is requently used is 'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated. I would agree it may take parallels from some counties Tax Laws, but tax laws have a great deal of clarifying information which we don't have. This is countered by pointing out this is how tax works....
School B TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR.
TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units).
DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size, however as the Army Size is not determined by TR, hence the Army Size for TR (or any other affect) remains unchanged.
DPs and Embarked units are however exempt for TR. Thus if all the army consists of such units it may null deploy, however any units are not exempt that the usual stipulations of TR applies.
The frequent counter-arguement is that this isn't exempting the PDs and thier Embarked Units from TR and/or how does one thing attract a liability to a whole? Well in the UK council tax is leevied on properties, if all the occupants are exempt then the property is exempt, a single non-exempt occupant is sufficient for council tax to be levied against the property.
School C TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR.
TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units).
DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size, however as the Army Size is not determined by TR, the Army Size for TR (or any other affect) remains unchanged.
Furthermore, the obligation is imposed upon the army not the any or all specific units on them. Consequently, even in the entire army is made up of units that are exempt from the TR, as the obligation is imposed upon the army, not on any specific units in that it army TR still must apply to the Army.
For example if an army is composed of 5 drop pods and 10 units which could be embarked on them then TR doesn’t place an obligation specifically on any of those 15 units to be deployed. As in based on this description you can’t say TR is requiring any specific Drop Pod (and Embarked unit to be deployed). It is creating the liability that the army must deploy at least ½ it’s size (in terms of both number of units, and points value of the units deployed).
In the case where an army is composed in it’s entirety of units that have a rule, or are conferred a rule ‘this unit is exempt from TR’, this doesn’t give the Army the rule ‘this Army is immune to TR’.
The frequent counter-arguement is that this isn't exempting the PDs and thier Embarked Units from TR. Which as counted it'sself by pointing out the key point here that based on these assumptions the 1st Paragraph of TR doesn't create a liabilty nor levy a restriction against specific units, hence units being exempt doesn't matter...
In short: All three schools are internally consistent, but have each had to make assumptions on how to get to a result where there is a big grey area.
Without any clarification or clear RAI there isn't any way to figure out which is actually correct.
As for adding back the 3rd clause (destroyed if not arrived on T3 or before)... Well GW errata-ed Obliterator's Fleshmetal Guns to something that would appear to mean something different to the original wording, but then FAQ-ed it to mean the original text (without changing the errata-ed wording), and then there is the matter of the wording for the aura effects (e.g. Wulfen Stone/ Fire Blade Cadre) where GW has produced clearer wording for ALL aura affects in the latest C:SM, but hasn't amended any remaining previous instances of the old wording (so Rites of Battle is worded differenting for C:BA/ CA etc... depending on if it's a unit in the codex or an new primaris unit with the new C:SM wording).
The obvious counter point that is requently used is 'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated. I would agree it may take parallels from some counties Tax Laws, but tax laws have a great deal of clarifying information which we don't have. This is countered by pointing out this is how tax works....
To nitpick: It's a cognitive shortcut to exclude them from army size. The exemption means the Pods are freed of liability under TR. Excluding the pods results in the liability of the pods being freed. However, the implementation is academic. The rules (for "School A" interpretation) are merely that the liability under TR for Pods is freed. So whatever liability they incurred is not in force. You can do that by excluding the pods. You can do that by discounting the pods. You can do that by identifying the liability the Pods assign, beyond the rest of the army, and not applying it.
How you apply the freedom from the liability can be done in a number of ways. No particular way is proscribed. Only that they are freed from liability.
So "'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated" should not be a surprise. Freeing from liability is mandated. Doing the aforementioned results in freeing from liability in a clean, side-effect-free manner. You're free to use any implementation that meets the condition. Regardless of method used, you get the same result as not counting the Pods in Army Size in the TR rule.
The obvious counter point that is requently used is 'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated. I would agree it may take parallels from some counties Tax Laws, but tax laws have a great deal of clarifying information which we don't have. This is countered by pointing out this is how tax works....
To nitpick: It's a cognitive shortcut to exclude them from army size. The exemption means the Pods are freed of liability under TR. Excluding the pods results in the liability of the pods being freed. However, the implementation is academic. The rules (for "School A" interpretation) are merely that the liability under TR for Pods is freed. So whatever liability they incurred is not in force. You can do that by excluding the pods. You can do that by discounting the pods. You can do that by identifying the liability the Pods assign, beyond the rest of the army, and not applying it.
How you apply the freedom from the liability can be done in a number of ways. No particular way is proscribed. Only that they are freed from liability.
So "'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated" should not be a surprise. Freeing from liability is mandated. Doing the aforementioned results in freeing from liability in a clean, side-effect-free manner. You're free to use any implementation that meets the condition. Regardless of method used, you get the same result as not counting the Pods in Army Size in the TR rule.
It is the existance of School's B and C '[that make it] neither required nor mandated'.
As clearly stated at the bottom all 3 schools are internally consistent.
Type40 wrote: I am saying a DP + other units over 50/50 rule is impossible.
You can never have "DP + other units over 50/50" because the drop pods are exempt.
Do not ignore what exempt means.
For example, you have 7 drop pods with a unit embarked on each, and two characters not in drop pods. Lets say one character was a librarian on a bike that cost 144 points, and the other is a librarian in terminator armor that cost 110 points. You now have 2 units for the TR rule, and 254 points for the TR rule.
So we determined that you can put one unit, and up to 127 points into reserve, so we put the librarian in terminator armor that cost 110 points into reserve and we have followed all the rules because the 7 drop pods with a unit embarked on each are exempt.
back to the 3 schools of thoughts, and thier logic:
School A TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR. TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units). DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size. Thus, DPs and Embarked units must be excluded from the size of the Army when considering TR, as otherwise they are indirectly or through the emergent property causing the obligation.
The obvious counter point that is requently used is 'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated. I would agree it may take parallels from some counties Tax Laws, but tax laws have a great deal of clarifying information which we don't have. This is countered by pointing out this is how tax works....
School B TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR. TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units). DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size, however as the Army Size is not determined by TR, hence the Army Size for TR (or any other affect) remains unchanged. DPs and Embarked units are however exempt for TR. Thus if all the army consists of such units it may null deploy, however any units are not exempt that the usual stipulations of TR applies.
The frequent counter-arguement is that this isn't exempting the PDs and thier Embarked Units from TR and/or how does one thing attract a liability to a whole? Well in the UK council tax is leevied on properties, if all the occupants are exempt then the property is exempt, a single non-exempt occupant is sufficient for council tax to be levied against the property.
School C TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR. TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units). DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size, however as the Army Size is not determined by TR, the Army Size for TR (or any other affect) remains unchanged. Furthermore, the obligation is imposed upon the army not the any or all specific units on them. Consequently, even in the entire army is made up of units that are exempt from the TR, as the obligation is imposed upon the army, not on any specific units in that it army TR still must apply to the Army. For example if an army is composed of 5 drop pods and 10 units which could be embarked on them then TR doesn’t place an obligation specifically on any of those 15 units to be deployed. As in based on this description you can’t say TR is requiring any specific Drop Pod (and Embarked unit to be deployed). It is creating the liability that the army must deploy at least ½ it’s size (in terms of both number of units, and points value of the units deployed). In the case where an army is composed in it’s entirety of units that have a rule, or are conferred a rule ‘this unit is exempt from TR’, this doesn’t give the Army the rule ‘this Army is immune to TR’.
The frequent counter-arguement is that this isn't exempting the PDs and thier Embarked Units from TR. Which as counted it'sself by pointing out the key point here that based on these assumptions the 1st Paragraph of TR doesn't create a liabilty nor levy a restriction against specific units, hence units being exempt doesn't matter...
In short: All three schools are internally consistent, but have each had to make assumptions on how to get to a result where there is a big grey area.
Without any clarification or clear RAI there isn't any way to figure out which is actually correct.
As for adding back the 3rd clause (destroyed if not arrived on T3 or before)... Well GW errata-ed Obliterator's Fleshmetal Guns to something that would appear to mean something different to the original wording, but then FAQ-ed it to mean the original text (without changing the errata-ed wording), and then there is the matter of the wording for the aura effects (e.g. Wulfen Stone/ Fire Blade Cadre) where GW has produced clearer wording for ALL aura affects in the latest C:SM, but hasn't amended any remaining previous instances of the old wording (so Rites of Battle is worded differenting for C:BA/ CA etc... depending on if it's a unit in the codex or an new primaris unit with the new C:SM wording).
Except the issue in this summary is that Tactical Reserves is being treated as if it was a binding rule during roster creation when it only serves as a balancing check condition for matched play during deployment.
The thoughts of schools B & C hinge upon the idea that "Army Size" is a determined, definitive term. But there is no such thing as an official definition of "Army Size." We play up to agreed point values in matched play. Period. Until now, it was easy to assume as the conditions were more or less binary (deployed on battlefield, set aside as reinforcement). With the inclusion of third "category", so to say, (set aside as reinforcement, with special exemption), we now arrive at the question of "what is an army, and how is it (and it's points and number of units) defined when this third category is introduced?".
With lack of information, we must take the rules at its face value - 'so and so are exempt from this rule'. The moment we say, "Well so and so are exempt so that's that, but technically no one said this, so from this perspective, they are still included here', we are no longer objectively exempting them but selectively exempting them when there are no appreant conflicts.
The obvious counter point that is requently used is 'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated. I would agree it may take parallels from some counties Tax Laws, but tax laws have a great deal of clarifying information which we don't have. This is countered by pointing out this is how tax works....
To nitpick: It's a cognitive shortcut to exclude them from army size. The exemption means the Pods are freed of liability under TR. Excluding the pods results in the liability of the pods being freed. However, the implementation is academic. The rules (for "School A" interpretation) are merely that the liability under TR for Pods is freed. So whatever liability they incurred is not in force. You can do that by excluding the pods. You can do that by discounting the pods. You can do that by identifying the liability the Pods assign, beyond the rest of the army, and not applying it.
How you apply the freedom from the liability can be done in a number of ways. No particular way is proscribed. Only that they are freed from liability.
So "'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated" should not be a surprise. Freeing from liability is mandated. Doing the aforementioned results in freeing from liability in a clean, side-effect-free manner. You're free to use any implementation that meets the condition. Regardless of method used, you get the same result as not counting the Pods in Army Size in the TR rule.
It is the existance of School's B and C '[that make it] neither required nor mandated'.
As clearly stated at the bottom all 3 schools are internally consistent.
It might be the cornerstone of "School B" or "School C", but that "complaint" is not consistent with "School A". It's a misunderstanding of "School A".
please explain to me how being exempt from the following restriction
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
Magically also add extra rules like "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TACTICAL RESTRAINT RULE, you do not count the drop pods or their contents"
and "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TACTICAL RESTRAINT RULE, you do not count the drop pods or their contents"
Very simple. The restriction you have quoted is from the tactical restraint rule. The drop pod rule states that drop pods and units which are contained within drop pods are exempt from the rule. If you are trying to count the army as a whole including the drop pods and the units embarked in them, you are not following the drop pod rule as it clearly states they are exempt from the Tactical Restraint rule. This means that you can not count them as part of the army for purposes of the tactical restraint rule since they are specifically exempt from the rule. Since they are exempt, you have only what's left over after ignoring the points for the crop pods and the units contained in them.
Your problem is that you're trying to apply a rule to the drop pods and their passengers that you are told does not affect them, Counting them as part of the army for purposes of determining the 50% that must be placed on the board is a tactical restraint rule is not following the drop pod rule, as you're suddenly making them not exempt from a portion of a rule which they are stated to be specifically exempt from. All your arguments still boil down to you doing something you are specifically told not to do.
please re-read my posts, so I do not have to circle back to this again.
No, I am not trying to apply any rule to the drop pod. The TR rule is applied to the player and not to the drop pod.
The drop pod, for the last time, has nothing to do with the TR rule being imposed on the player.
The drop pod is exempt, it does not impose the rule on the player. Another unit imposes the restriction the player.
Nothing about the DP gives it permission to not be counted in terms of the TR rule. IT SIMPLY DOES NOT IMPOSE IT.
here is list number 1
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
my list has 5 drop pods all exempt from the TR rule.
ok, here is list number 2
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
termies - TR RULE
dp - no restriction
Each DP does not apply the statement
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 must be at least
half your army's total point value
however, the termies DO impose the restriction.
Now YOU as the player WHO IS NOT A DROP POD has a restriction that you gained from termies WHO ARE NOT A DROP POD that you must follow.
Nothing about the DPs being exempt from imposing the restriction allows them to not be counted. they simply DO NOT IMPOSE THE RESTRICTION and thus are exempt.
As others pointed out, the drop pod rule says "exempt", not "no restriction"
So, with your lists, all the drop pods and their contents are exempt. That's more than a semantics thing as you claim. For your list #2 you have a bunch of drop pods and contents that are exempt, and you have termies that aren't exempt. As the drop pods and their contents are exempt count. The only restriction I have on me the player is the termies themselves, everything in the drop pods and the drop pods themselves are exempt. That's where you are wrong, you are still counting the drop pods as part of the army when making the caculation for what's 50% of the army, a calculation for the tactical reserves rule. If you are counting the exempt things for your 50% rule, you are counting them toward a rule that they are specifically stated they are exempt from. Everything about the DPs being exempt keeps them from being counted as part of the army when making the calculation for purposes of the Tactical Restraint rule. That's what being exempt from the rule is. You counting them is treating them as not being exempt, and you have not shown any rules statement that makes them not exempt (in this case, something overriding the statment that they are exempt). Everything you have shown so far is ignoring that they are exempt from the entire rule.
back to the 3 schools of thoughts, and thier logic:
School A TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR.
TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units).
DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size.
Thus, DPs and Embarked units must be excluded from the size of the Army when considering TR, as otherwise they are indirectly or through the emergent property causing the obligation.
The obvious counter point that is requently used is 'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated. I would agree it may take parallels from some counties Tax Laws, but tax laws have a great deal of clarifying information which we don't have. This is countered by pointing out this is how tax works....
School B TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR.
TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units).
DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size, however as the Army Size is not determined by TR, hence the Army Size for TR (or any other affect) remains unchanged.
DPs and Embarked units are however exempt for TR. Thus if all the army consists of such units it may null deploy, however any units are not exempt that the usual stipulations of TR applies.
The frequent counter-arguement is that this isn't exempting the PDs and thier Embarked Units from TR and/or how does one thing attract a liability to a whole? Well in the UK council tax is leevied on properties, if all the occupants are exempt then the property is exempt, a single non-exempt occupant is sufficient for council tax to be levied against the property.
School C TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR.
TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units).
DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size, however as the Army Size is not determined by TR, the Army Size for TR (or any other affect) remains unchanged.
Furthermore, the obligation is imposed upon the army not the any or all specific units on them. Consequently, even in the entire army is made up of units that are exempt from the TR, as the obligation is imposed upon the army, not on any specific units in that it army TR still must apply to the Army.
For example if an army is composed of 5 drop pods and 10 units which could be embarked on them then TR doesn’t place an obligation specifically on any of those 15 units to be deployed. As in based on this description you can’t say TR is requiring any specific Drop Pod (and Embarked unit to be deployed). It is creating the liability that the army must deploy at least ½ it’s size (in terms of both number of units, and points value of the units deployed).
In the case where an army is composed in it’s entirety of units that have a rule, or are conferred a rule ‘this unit is exempt from TR’, this doesn’t give the Army the rule ‘this Army is immune to TR’.
The frequent counter-arguement is that this isn't exempting the PDs and thier Embarked Units from TR. Which as counted it'sself by pointing out the key point here that based on these assumptions the 1st Paragraph of TR doesn't create a liabilty nor levy a restriction against specific units, hence units being exempt doesn't matter...
In short: All three schools are internally consistent, but have each had to make assumptions on how to get to a result where there is a big grey area.
Without any clarification or clear RAI there isn't any way to figure out which is actually correct.
As for adding back the 3rd clause (destroyed if not arrived on T3 or before)... Well GW errata-ed Obliterator's Fleshmetal Guns to something that would appear to mean something different to the original wording, but then FAQ-ed it to mean the original text (without changing the errata-ed wording), and then there is the matter of the wording for the aura effects (e.g. Wulfen Stone/ Fire Blade Cadre) where GW has produced clearer wording for ALL aura affects in the latest C:SM, but hasn't amended any remaining previous instances of the old wording (so Rites of Battle is worded differenting for C:BA/ CA etc... depending on if it's a unit in the codex or an new primaris unit with the new C:SM wording).
Except the issue in this summary is that Tactical Reserves is being treated as if it was a binding rule during roster creation when it only serves as a balancing check condition for matched play during deployment.
How so? School 3 works fine applying it at the end of deployment. The size of the army in terms of both points and number of units is independent of TR. All TR does is check whether at least 1/2 the Army by both of these measurements is deployed on the table.
Can you see how this doesn't apply any restrictions or obligations on any given unit in the army at that point hence (why by School C principles) the units being exempt or not doesn't affect the outcome?
The obvious counter point that is requently used is 'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated. I would agree it may take parallels from some counties Tax Laws, but tax laws have a great deal of clarifying information which we don't have. This is countered by pointing out this is how tax works....
To nitpick: It's a cognitive shortcut to exclude them from army size. The exemption means the Pods are freed of liability under TR. Excluding the pods results in the liability of the pods being freed. However, the implementation is academic. The rules (for "School A" interpretation) are merely that the liability under TR for Pods is freed. So whatever liability they incurred is not in force. You can do that by excluding the pods. You can do that by discounting the pods. You can do that by identifying the liability the Pods assign, beyond the rest of the army, and not applying it.
How you apply the freedom from the liability can be done in a number of ways. No particular way is proscribed. Only that they are freed from liability.
So "'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated" should not be a surprise. Freeing from liability is mandated. Doing the aforementioned results in freeing from liability in a clean, side-effect-free manner. You're free to use any implementation that meets the condition. Regardless of method used, you get the same result as not counting the Pods in Army Size in the TR rule.
It is the existance of School's B and C '[that make it] neither required nor mandated'.
As clearly stated at the bottom all 3 schools are internally consistent.
It might be the cornerstone of "School B" or "School C", but that "complaint" is not consistent with "School A". It's a misunderstanding of "School A".
If you hadn't noticed each of the 'counter-arguement' lines starts off with something that whilst consistent with that school of thought, isn't consistent with the others... And end ups with coming full circle pointing out how the point in question is consistent with the principles of that school of thought. See the bit on bold underline below.
The obvious counter point that is requently used is 'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated. I would agree it may take parallels from some counties Tax Laws, but tax laws have a great deal of clarifying information which we don't have. This is countered by pointing out this is how tax works....
Tax is a counterexample, but not the counterpoint. The counterpoint is that "School A" doesn't *actually* demand exclusion. It demands that the liability be freed. The exclusion is one way to accomplish this.
The results of freeing the liability are stable regardless of implementation; in the 2-Termie/2-pod list, only one Termie is required to be deployed. How you come to that conclusion - exclude Pods from the total points/units, subtract Pods, identify and ignore their liability, explicitly identify the non-exempted liability, whatever - is academic.
"School A" claims that you are free of the liability imposed by the pods. So the counterargument to the claim that the rule doesn't demand you to not count or deduct is to point out that "School A" doesn't either. "School A" requires the freedom from liability, so complaining about a possible implementation is pointless.
back to the 3 schools of thoughts, and thier logic:
School A TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR.
TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units).
DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size.
Thus, DPs and Embarked units must be excluded from the size of the Army when considering TR, as otherwise they are indirectly or through the emergent property causing the obligation.
The obvious counter point that is requently used is 'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated. I would agree it may take parallels from some counties Tax Laws, but tax laws have a great deal of clarifying information which we don't have. This is countered by pointing out this is how tax works....
School B TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR.
TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units).
DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size, however as the Army Size is not determined by TR, hence the Army Size for TR (or any other affect) remains unchanged.
DPs and Embarked units are however exempt for TR. Thus if all the army consists of such units it may null deploy, however any units are not exempt that the usual stipulations of TR applies.
The frequent counter-arguement is that this isn't exempting the PDs and thier Embarked Units from TR and/or how does one thing attract a liability to a whole? Well in the UK council tax is leevied on properties, if all the occupants are exempt then the property is exempt, a single non-exempt occupant is sufficient for council tax to be levied against the property.
School C TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR.
TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units).
DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size, however as the Army Size is not determined by TR, the Army Size for TR (or any other affect) remains unchanged.
Furthermore, the obligation is imposed upon the army not the any or all specific units on them. Consequently, even in the entire army is made up of units that are exempt from the TR, as the obligation is imposed upon the army, not on any specific units in that it army TR still must apply to the Army.
For example if an army is composed of 5 drop pods and 10 units which could be embarked on them then TR doesn’t place an obligation specifically on any of those 15 units to be deployed. As in based on this description you can’t say TR is requiring any specific Drop Pod (and Embarked unit to be deployed). It is creating the liability that the army must deploy at least ½ it’s size (in terms of both number of units, and points value of the units deployed).
In the case where an army is composed in it’s entirety of units that have a rule, or are conferred a rule ‘this unit is exempt from TR’, this doesn’t give the Army the rule ‘this Army is immune to TR’.
The frequent counter-arguement is that this isn't exempting the PDs and thier Embarked Units from TR. Which as counted it'sself by pointing out the key point here that based on these assumptions the 1st Paragraph of TR doesn't create a liabilty nor levy a restriction against specific units, hence units being exempt doesn't matter...
In short: All three schools are internally consistent, but have each had to make assumptions on how to get to a result where there is a big grey area.
Without any clarification or clear RAI there isn't any way to figure out which is actually correct.
As for adding back the 3rd clause (destroyed if not arrived on T3 or before)... Well GW errata-ed Obliterator's Fleshmetal Guns to something that would appear to mean something different to the original wording, but then FAQ-ed it to mean the original text (without changing the errata-ed wording), and then there is the matter of the wording for the aura effects (e.g. Wulfen Stone/ Fire Blade Cadre) where GW has produced clearer wording for ALL aura affects in the latest C:SM, but hasn't amended any remaining previous instances of the old wording (so Rites of Battle is worded differenting for C:BA/ CA etc... depending on if it's a unit in the codex or an new primaris unit with the new C:SM wording).
Except the issue in this summary is that Tactical Reserves is being treated as if it was a binding rule during roster creation when it only serves as a balancing check condition for matched play during deployment.
The thoughts of schools B & C hinge upon the idea that "Army Size" is a determined, definitive term. But there is no such thing as an official definition of "Army Size." We play up to agreed point values in matched play. Period. Until now, it was easy to assume as the conditions were more or less binary (deployed on battlefield, set aside as reinforcement). With the inclusion of third "category", so to say, (set aside as reinforcement, with special exemption), we now arrive at the question of "what is an army, and how is it (and it's points and number of units) defined when this third category is introduced?".
With lack of information, we must take the rules at its face value - 'so and so are exempt from this rule'. The moment we say, "Well so and so are exempt so that's that, but technically no one said this, so from this perspective, they are still included here', we are no longer objectively exempting them but selectively exempting them when there are no appreant conflicts.
The games uses many things that could be considered within the context of the game as self evident truths. That an inch could be defined as 2.54cm, that a D6 has the number 1-6 on them.
With respect to army size... TR isn't the only mention of this
Rulebook pg.214
Choose Armies When choosing an army for a matched play game, your army must be battle forged (pg 240) and it's total points value cannot exceed the limit set for the game.
Points Limit {Goes on to explain how you to calculate the total points value of the army, and to check this doesn't exceed the agreed points limit}
skchsan wrote:The tax example isn't a counter point. It's a simple analogy to help you understand what "exemption" means.
&
Bharring wrote:Tax is a counterexample, but not the counterpoint. The counterpoint is that "School A" doesn't *actually* demand exclusion. It demands that the liability be freed. The exclusion is one way to accomplish this.
The results of freeing the liability are stable regardless of implementation; in the 2-Termie/2-pod list, only one Termie is required to be deployed. How you come to that conclusion - exclude Pods from the total points/units, subtract Pods, identify and ignore their liability, explicitly identify the non-exempted liability, whatever - is academic.
"School A" claims that you are free of the liability imposed by the pods. So the counterargument to the claim that the rule doesn't demand you to not count or deduct is to point out that "School A" doesn't either. "School A" requires the freedom from liability, so complaining about a possible implementation is pointless.
If correctly labelling things with 3 different, but internally consistent points of view whilst trying to summerise the cyclic arguements that are occuring is the biggest problem then I'm happy with that. However, the Tax was being used to support School A, the counter was that excluding them from army size isn't the only way to free the units from the obligations.
The "counter-argument" against "School A" comes from a factually incorrect claim - factually incorrect independent of the school of thought.
The "counter-argument" for "School B/C", on the other hand, is a factually correct statement. Whether it's a problem could be debated. A fair statement of the contention is "Does a unit being exempt from TR exempt said unit form causing any liability under TR?" A reasonable, debateable question. If it does, "School B/C" ceases to be internally consistent. If it does not, "School B/C" remains internally consistent.
As such, discussing "Does a unit being exempt from TR exempt said unit form causing any liability under TR?" is the natural extension. If that can be answered authoritatively in either direction, then one or the other sets are inconsistent.
When it comes to the UK tax, the UK is leveeing taxes on a per-property basis. As such, leveraging the tax in full on any property that contains any non-exempt people is consistent. Each exempt person on the property is causing no liability; the tax liability is the same whether that exempt person was there or not.
The 50% rule is different. First, it exists even if 0 non-Exempt units are present (it just doesn't matter, because you need to deploy 0 units). Secondly, much more importantly, the presence of units adds liability. Again, if you take 2 Termies, you've added liability to deploy one unit. If you counted the pods against what you must deploy under Tactical Reserves, adding two pods would add liability to deploy one more Termie.
To put another way, even in the UK property example, liability for Exempt people is not assigned, even in the case where they share a property with non-Exempt people. The liability assessed is independent of the Exempt peoples' existence. Likewise, liability under TR is not assigned for Exempt units. It's one more consistent example of how Exempt works.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Where the circle gets completed from here is the claim that not leveraging liability for each Pod under TR against the Terminators (not requiring both Termies to be set up) would be ignoring the Termie's obligation to set up under the liability the Drop Pods impose under TR.
The claim is that, because TR says "Total Army Points" instead of "Total Army Points, as understood by TR", it is therefore the Army Creation rules that applies the liability from the Pods, not the TR rule.
That's not internally consistent.
First, the first piece is circular.
Then, the claim that "Total Army Points" as referenced by the Tactical Reserve rule, as leveraged by the Tactical Reserve rule, is somehow not "Total Army Points as understood by TR". That's just not understanding what you're saying.
Finally, the liability stemming from Army Creation rules instead of the TR rules has no basis in the rules themselves.
Since we're in a A -> B -> A cycle, but the B -> A argument is consistent while the A -> B argument is terribly flawed in several ways, we're not in a stable state with multilpe internally consistent views with no avenue for clarification.
We're in a cyclical argument between two states, where one has been shown invalid and the other is just throwing up FUD. Saying otherwise is false equivelence.
The "counter-argument" against "School A" comes from a factually incorrect claim - factually incorrect independent of the school of thought.
The "counter-argument" for "School B/C", on the other hand, is a factually correct statement. Whether it's a problem could be debated. A fair statement of the contention is "Does a unit being exempt from TR exempt said unit form causing any liability under TR?" A reasonable, debateable question. If it does, "School B/C" ceases to be internally consistent. If it does not, "School B/C" remains internally consistent.
As such, discussing "Does a unit being exempt from TR exempt said unit form causing any liability under TR?" is the natural extension. If that can be answered authoritatively in either direction, then one or the other sets are inconsistent.
When it comes to the UK tax, the UK is leveeing taxes on a per-property basis. As such, leveraging the tax in full on any property that contains any non-exempt people is consistent. Each exempt person on the property is causing no liability; the tax liability is the same whether that exempt person was there or not.
The 50% rule is different. First, it exists even if 0 non-Exempt units are present (it just doesn't matter, because you need to deploy 0 units). Secondly, much more importantly, the presence of units adds liability. Again, if you take 2 Termies, you've added liability to deploy one unit. If you counted the pods against what you must deploy under Tactical Reserves, adding two pods would add liability to deploy one more Termie.
To put another way, even in the UK property example, liability for Exempt people is not assigned, even in the case where they share a property with non-Exempt people. The liability assessed is independent of the Exempt peoples' existence. Likewise, liability under TR is not assigned for Exempt units. It's one more consistent example of how Exempt works.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Where the circle gets completed from here is the claim that not leveraging liability for each Pod under TR against the Terminators (not requiring both Termies to be set up) would be ignoring the Termie's obligation to set up under the liability the Drop Pods impose under TR.
The claim is that, because TR says "Total Army Points" instead of "Total Army Points, as understood by TR", it is therefore the Army Creation rules that applies the liability from the Pods, not the TR rule.
That's not internally consistent.
First, the first piece is circular.
Then, the claim that "Total Army Points" as referenced by the Tactical Reserve rule, as leveraged by the Tactical Reserve rule, is somehow not "Total Army Points as understood by TR". That's just not understanding what you're saying.
Finally, the liability stemming from Army Creation rules instead of the TR rules has no basis in the rules themselves.
Since we're in a A -> B -> A cycle, but the B -> A argument is consistent while the A -> B argument is terribly flawed in several ways, we're not in a stable state with multilpe internally consistent views with no avenue for clarification.
We're in a cyclical argument between two states, where one has been shown invalid and the other is just throwing up FUD. Saying otherwise is false equivelence.
I think that you'll find what is considered terribly flawed rather subjective and appears to depends entirely on which school of thought you subscribe to.
Which is the point I'm trying to make: no ones going to win this.
Those that think School A is correct think that thier assumptions are correct (and obvious), and thus everyone ones elses are wrong.
Those that think School B is correct think that thier assumptions are correct (and obvious), and thus everyone ones elses are wrong.
Those that think School C s correct think that thier assumptions are correct (and obvious), and thus everyone ones elses are wrong.
As far as I can see there is, based on the RAW absolutely no basis within the rules for creating an effective army size for the purposes of determing the requirements of TR.
For those that subscribe to School A this isn't a problem, for them it's an inherient part of the processs. For anyone who doesn't subscribe to that school of thought it's a crital flaw.
I can understand why this has been done as it's similar to how some countries tax laws work, but this doesn't mean that this is the only way to free the units of the obligations.
As an adherent to School C, I've read the rule and determined that based on the wording of TR that the 1st paragraph targets the army and creates an obligation based on the properties of the army, and then levies the obligation against the army. Units being exempt or not doesn't affect this part of the rules. To me this would appear to be the simplest interpretation possible.
If there was room to reach a single accepted version of the truth I would have thought 11 pages (and counting) on the matter would have reached them.
wrt
where one has been shown invalid
All have been shown to be both valid (using thier assumptions) and invalid (when any other set of assumptions are used).
The "one has been shown invalid" was the complaint about "School A" around "No direction given to subtract". As that's predicated on "School A" requiring you to subtract, yet "School A" does no such thing, that's not shown to be valid by any solid viewpoint.
I wasn't saying School B/C were shown to be invalid, I was saying the argument why B/C must be true over A.
The other way around, though, has not been reasonably refuted. The argument for "School A" over "School B/C" has *not* been shown to be invalid.
That said, the argument for "School A" over "School B/C" is also not conclusive. There is a reasonable argument that "School B/C" might be valid or invalid, based on whether exempting DPs from TR frees the liabilities DPs would otherwise incur under TR.
A etc... depending on if it's a unit in the codex or an new primaris unit with the new C: