Switch Theme:

Beta Tactical Reserves: does "wholly within" still mean 9" from enemy model?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Spawn of Chaos




Southern California

My understanding of the Beta Tactical Reserves rule is that a unit which arrives from reserves on a player's first turn MUST be placed wholly within their own deployment zone and need not be more than 9" away from any opponent units which may be in or near that deployment zone.

My analysis:

The Beta Tactical Reserves rules states: "... any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player's first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player's deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere)."

All of the Reserve rules modify "anywhere" as follows: (Tyranid Swooping Assault, just as an example) ". . . anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" from any enemy models."

Therefore, when arriving on turn one the only restriction is "wholly within the controlling player's deployment zone" because the ability to be set up "anywhere" is cancelled. It is the ability to set up "anywhere" which is restricted to "more than 9" from any enemy models." This restriction does not exist as the unit cannot arrive "anywhere" on turn one. So long as the unit is "deployed wholly within the controlling player's deployment zone" it is in compliance with the Beta Tactical Reserves RAW, correct?

Am I missing specific language which retains the 9" modifier to anywhere?

LONGWAR DOUBLES '18 in Temecula: Overall Champions
ADEPTICON '16 Team Tourney: Best Xenos
ADEPTICON '14 Team Tourney 4th/120
ADEPTICON '13: Best Team Tacticians
ADEPTICON '12: Team Tourney 6th/116
 
   
Made in ca
Monstrously Massive Big Mutant






RAW says you ignore it. Common sense outside of the chaotic sphere of entropy that is the rules department says that it still retains the 9" restriction.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




We were playing it that you still had to be 9” away.
   
Made in gb
Horrific Hive Tyrant





I think if you're getting that pedantic you could equally make the argument that no deployment method ever lets you deploy anywhere, as there is always some restrictions. If there's a restriction it isn't truly 'anywhere'.

Therefore the beta rule wouldn't replace the normal deployment of any unit, it would be in addition.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Does the BTR specifically negate the 9" restriction? If not, then it's still in effect.

BTR only negates the option to deploy *outside* the player's DZ.

Basic RAW there.

   
Made in ca
Spawn of Chaos




Southern California

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Does the BTR specifically negate the 9" restriction? If not, then it's still in effect.

BTR only negates the option to deploy *outside* the player's DZ.

Basic RAW there.


that
[T͟Hat, T͟Hət]
PRONOUN

1) used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the speaker.
"that's his wife over there"
2) referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood.
"that's a good idea" ·
3) used in singling out someone or something and ascribing a distinctive feature to them.
"it is part of human nature to be attracted to that which is aesthetically pleasing" ·
4) used instead of “which,” “who,” “whom,” or “when” to introduce a defining or restrictive clause, especially one essential to identification.
"the woman that owns the place" · "the book that I've just written" · "the year that Anna was born"


#4, above, is the proper use of "that" in the Tyranid Swooping Assault rule previously quoted.

The phrase "that is more than 9" away from any enemy models" is a restrictive clause modifying "anywhere on the battlefield". That entire noun is not "anywhere" or "anywhere on the battlefield" but rather "anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" away from any models." If Teleport Strike had the word "and" instead of "that is" then we would have an additional, separate restriction unmodified by the Beta Tactical Reserves rule. Then I think your analysis would be correct. To diagram this portion of the sentence is something like: "anywhere" = noun; "on the battlefield" = prepositional phrase modifying "anywhere"; "that is more than 9" away from enemy models" = restrictive clause further modifying "anywhere". The prepositional phrase and restrictive clause can further be broken down into sub-diagrams, but that is not useful to us.

Additionally, paranthesis is for information that either clarifies or is merely an aside. So since the BTR is "Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This sentence is complete without the paranthetical phrase. The only requirement is "wholly within the controlling player's deployment zone."

Nevertheless, I will readily acknowledge that the rules writers probably have no idea how to properly utilize paranthesis and have no idea what a restrictive clause is.

LONGWAR DOUBLES '18 in Temecula: Overall Champions
ADEPTICON '16 Team Tourney: Best Xenos
ADEPTICON '14 Team Tourney 4th/120
ADEPTICON '13: Best Team Tacticians
ADEPTICON '12: Team Tourney 6th/116
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

The TSA rule doesn't apply to BTR - it's a different rule. It's as if you were using ATSKNF to claim something about Fearless. Yes, both modify morale, but they do so in different ways, so it is not appropriate to cross TSA over to BTR.

Again, unless you have something in BTR that specifically overrides the basic 9" rule, you have nothing to stand on.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/30 06:21:04


   
Made in de
Scuttling Genestealer




The beta rule overrides the 'anywhere on the battlefield' part, because it specifically says so.

Just because it does not mention the 9", does not mean you can ignore them when they are still part of the units rules.
9" distance is not a univesal rule, it comes from the unit itself. Some units have other values there, like 1" (Mawloc), or 12", or some other special rule (genestealer cults).

There is now an overarching rule that puts another restriction on top of it, but you still need to follow the specific unit's (or stratagem whatever) rule. That is what enables you to do the deepstrike to begin with and it may come with additional rules (like 9" distance, but also more, like reroll chargerolls, +1 to distance, no overwatch and so on).


This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/05/30 09:11:25


 
   
Made in vn
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel






HMint wrote:
The beta rule overrides the 'anywhere on the battlefield' part, because it specifically says so.

Just because it does not mention the 9", does not mean you can ignore them when they are still part of the units rules.
9" distance is not a univesal rule, it comes from the unit itself. Some units have other values there, like 1" (Mawloc), or 12", or some other special rule (genestealer cults).

There is now an overarching rule that puts another restriction on top of it, but you still need to follow the specific unit's (or stratagem whatever) rule. That is what enables you to do the deepstrike to begin with and it may come with additional rules (like 9" distance, but also more, like reroll chargerolls, +1 to distance, no overwatch and so on).




Yeah... people need to stop comparing ùnits rules and pretending they're a universal 7th edition Deep strike rule. Gw has had to correct people about this lots of times. Just real the rules on your data sheet and ignore everyone else.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: