Something is rotten in the state of deathwing

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.

**jdjamesdean@mail.com**

Kevin949 wrote:
jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Kevin949 wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
It wouldnt be the individual units breaking it, but the player - so the player would have to comply, either with the 50% rule or showing "may always start in reserve" applies

The issue is that if you have units that count towards the 50% limit AND they can break that limit then you have "anything" else in reserve that counts towards that 50% limit you have no justifiable way to prove that the limit breakers are the ones breaking the 50% limit and not the standard reserves models. An argument could be made by both sides but only one method actually breaks any rules, you should just follow the path of least resistance.

Besides, just because they "may" start in reserves doesn't mean they must. Any unit "may" start in reserves. Just because you (the player) wants to take advantage of a special rule (see my example for ethereal interception earlier on this page), one that is not forced on you or your unit I might add, does not automatically mean they can subvert limitations imposed by other rules, not without specific allowance to break those rules, and I don't see one here personally.

Least resistance is on pg 7. Where it talks about conflicts. There are no rules broken.

No no, I'm not talking about conflicts, I'm talking about two players with equal rights to claim something but one persons method breaks rules and the other persons does not. No, it's not a conflict of rules that I'm referencing, it's a misinterpretation of them. To say that one unit or whatever "may always start in reserves" means that they may start in reserves even if the mission type played does not allow for reserves to be used (see the battle missions book for examples). It does not mean they may break the new imposed limitations on reserves rules, as they are not required to always start in reserves.

I'm sorry kevin I have to disagree with you on that. Or rather state there is a conflict**

I have the option to hold them in reserves (always). The rulebook tried to take that option away, especially in the case of an all Deathwing army.

The codex says I may reserve all my Termies. (Nermintators, all of them)
Rulebooks says (Hell naw, only 50%)

That is a conflict, and I may have giggled at (hell naw) a bit too much when I thought of it

**Happyjew**

Ok nos, I think I understand your viewpoint. Two examples. Army 1 has 6 units of Terminators one with an attached IC in Terminator armour. All 6 units may start in reserve.
Army 2 has 3 units of Terminators and 3 units of Tactical Marines, one with an attached IC. Only three of the units can start in reserve.

Is this correct?

**Luide**

@Happyjew
That's exactly how I understood the "may always be placed in reserve" rule portion of Terminator armour to work.

**liturgies of blood**

Happy that is how I would play it. I think that since there is no order of opperations in how you put units in reserve, you cannot put 25% of your army as tactical marines into reserve while you dump the remaining 75% in cos they have TDA.
It all happens at once so once you dump the lot in you ask the question "Are more than 50% of the units in reserve?","Do all the units have the ability to be there?" after that you must remove all the units that don't have the ability to always be in reserve until you have either all units that can always/must be in reserve or have just 50% of the list.

**nosferatu1001**

Happyjew wrote:
Ok nos, I think I understand your viewpoint. Two examples. Army 1 has 6 units of Terminators one with an attached IC in Terminator armour. All 6 units may start in reserve.
Army 2 has 3 units of Terminators and 3 units of Tactical Marines, one with an attached IC. Only three of the units can start in reserve.

Is this correct?

Yep, exactly. Nothing states you determine reserves one at a time - you just have a 50% allowance to meet at any one time; if you fail, and dont have an allowance to always be in reserve, you try another combination.

**Nemesor**

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
So, I assume none of you have ever actually read the codex?

Just as I assume you have never read the tenets of YMDC as you have posted a comment that dosent contribute to the discussion and is meant only to inflame.

We are interpreting what information we are given. If you can present your argument in a reasonable manner, by all means, be my guest.

So how is the Deathwing Assault rule that difficult to interpret? It doesn't give a sliding scale of reserves or deployments, nor does it allow drop pod assaults. Its actually pretty simple to resolve with the new reserves rule. Are you telling me people will run nothing but unprotected terminators in reserve? No heavy weapons? No Land Raiders? If you hold everything back when you lose the initiative roll, and there is nothing on the board, you lose. Especially since it means you are dropping completely unsupported terminators.

My uncle has done it for years with great success. Especially with power/force weapons the way they are now, high volume ap2 is hard to come by. Add few TH-SS terminators and now armor isint a problem. Almost no army is going to be able to handle 30+ terminators in their battlelines turn 1.

Necrons? Not a very helpful post but if anyone can survive 30 termies it's them bloody crons. Good thing I play them!

**nosferatu1001**

Only 17, actally - 2 TDA HQ and 3 units of 5. DA dont get 10 man terminator units..yet

**masterofthedark**

You could end up facing 27 Termies this way.
9 squads reserved
2 TDA IC's
5 Squads + 2 IC's DWA turn 1

**nosferatu1001**

How are you reserving 9 squads?

**rigeld2**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
How are you reserving 9 squads?

According to you they may all start in reserve.
(context of his post was all TDA squads)

**nosferatu1001**

You can only have 6 DW TDA squads, plus 2 ICs

**Mortarion's Herald**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You can only have 6 DW TDA squads, plus 2 ICs

Plus the 3 elite slot DW TDA squads, bringing the total to 9.

**jdjamesdean@mail.com**

Mortarion's Herald wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
You can only have 6 DW TDA squads, plus 2 ICs

Plus the 3 elite slot DW TDA squads, bringing the total to 9.

Thought they became troops.

**whitedragon**

Mortarion's Herald wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
You can only have 6 DW TDA squads, plus 2 ICs

Plus the 3 elite slot DW TDA squads, bringing the total to 9.

Which would put you over 2000 points, which renders the extra elite slots moot since you would then have access to additional slots for everybody.

**nosferatu1001**

Mortarion's Herald wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
You can only have 6 DW TDA squads, plus 2 ICs

Plus the 3 elite slot DW TDA squads, bringing the total to 9.

Thought they "were" troops, never elite.

**Happyjew**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Mortarion's Herald wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
You can only have 6 DW TDA squads, plus 2 ICs

Plus the 3 elite slot DW TDA squads, bringing the total to 9.

Thought they "were" troops, never elite.

Troops and Elites with Belial. It would also be just over 2000 pts with no upgrades.

**nosferatu1001**

Ah right, sounds good. Again double FOC meaning you wouldnt need the elites at all, moooore troops