Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Thing is "may always" is not RAI to give you permission to put all your TDA in reserve but it definitely is RAW.

It really isn't.

Each squad having the option does not allow you to ignore other restrictions. It just allows to to have the choice in missions where reserves would not normally be allowed.

Except you are still suggesting that "even in" means /"just in".

I am allowed to always start in reserve. Codex rule. Conflicts dirrectly with a rule telling ,e I may not start in reserve.

Codex wins. You have no rules argument against this.

Exactly what Nos said.

May Always start in reserve.

Normally restricted to 50%, but terminators May always start in reserve so if you have an army that is all terminators they all may always start in reserve.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except you are still suggesting that "even in" means /"just in".

No I'm not. That would mean that they can't be reserved in missions that do allow reserves.

I am allowed to always start in reserve. Codex rule. Conflicts dirrectly with a rule telling ,e I may not start in reserve.

No it doesn't.

The reserves rules don't say 'you may not start in reserve'... they just limit how many units from your total army can be in reserve. Each and every terminator squad has the option to be in reserve, so you can choose, for each of those units, whether or not to put them in reserve or not, provided that no more than half of your army is in reserve. If you have 6 units, and you want to put the 4th in reserve, you can... it just means that one of the first 3 will start on the board.

There is no conflict. The option is there to put them in reserve, whether or not the mission allows it.

They may always be in reserve even when the mission doesn't allow it. That looks a lot to me like permission to put them in reserves all the time. This is just a dinosaur rule, it will be gone by the time the codices are updated. TO's can always decide not to allow it, it is their prerogative after all.

I'm sorry but it really does read as a RAI argument insaniak.

Didn't bother reading all the replies because this isn't even a real topic (for the 2nd or 3rd time at least it's not); The people arguing that you can go above the 50% with that "MAY always start in reserve" quote, you need to stop this. The unit MAY start in reserve, it doesn't HAVE to so it cannot ignore the 50% cap on reserves no matter what order you try apply it in.

It's actually quite simple. The only exception to the 50% rule is units that 'MUST' begin the game in reserve (e.g. Drop Pods, Flyers e.t.c.). A unit that 'may' deep strike still has a choice.

Insaniak - again, you are stating that rule only means something when the Reserves rule isnt in play. Except that isnt what "even iF" means - "even if" is a reminder.

"They may always START in reserves"

You try to prevent them going in reserves. Now point out where this lack of conflict you see if coming from, given that the rulebook directly conflicts with the codex rule.

Page and paragraph. "may always start in reserves" is pretty damn specific about when (always) and where (reserves) that unit may start the game

Must we tread this ground yet again?

It's not clear either way, 19 pages and a lock wasn't enough to make convincing argument either way. Let's not get this thread locked too.

I disagree that there was no convincing argument.

The rules are very clear - may always means "may always", without restriction

Attempting to construe a restriction from "even in" is just plain wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Attempting to construe a restriction from "even in" is just plain wrong.

Good thing nobody has been doing that. If you have misunderstood the opposing argument that badly, I'm not sure there is anything more productive to be gained here.

Thread is done. Closing...