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.

yakface wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:I still don't understand how you can look at a plural noun and claim it is singular. The rule of this forum is rules as written not rules interpreted as safely as possible.

As I pointed out before *both* sentences refer to the word 'purposes' in the plural, when without a doubt at least we can all agree that the first sentence is only talking about one purpose (determining how many units can be put into reserve).

So whatever the 'purposes' the first sentence is referring to is IMHO the same thing the 'purposes' in the second sentence is referring to. You've accused me of creatively interpreting things, but to me trying to base an entire argument on incorrect plurality instead of just looking at the most simple explanation is what I perceive to be creative interpretation.

That entire section of the rules only has one purpose: To determine how many units are allowed to start in reserve.

And yes, the first sentence could and should dramatically have been written singularly as such:

'Units that must start the game in reserve are ignored for the purpose of working out how many other units may do so.'

That is dramatically correct and more fitting given that they're actually only talking about a single purpose.

I dont think any of us are in a position to say how anything should be written. We dont know what they were thinking and as such can only go by what is written. Now I am not sure what language you are speaking but where I come from when a noun ends in an s it is plural. Now you could argue that the first usage of purposes is singular because the article is singular as well as the rest of the sentence making it clear. So in that case despite the plural purposes is clearly singular. However, the next sentence has nothing tacked onto the end to provide such clarity, and the article is plural as well as the noun. You can say it is an accident but until faq'd by your forum rules (i say your rules because as an admin I assume you had a hand in making and enforcing them) it is as written, plural. Many purposes. Well, only two. Deployment of the army not in reserves and counting how many units can stay in reserves.

By your logic the phrase "cut down those trees" is telling me to cut down a single tree.

Because your whole argument hinges on transient properties of the transport and the embarked unit only counting as a single unit and therefore the 'ignore' property of the flyer somehow being passed onto the embarked unit. But if the IC says that he is always counted as a separate unit, then obviously even that transient property cannot be applied.

Except the IC rule is specifically stated as such. You don't get to say that because an IC is treated differently everyone is treated differently.

FireBlade wrote:I simply can't agree with your logic behind cherry picking sentence 3, applying it to sentence 1, and then leaving sentence 2 to operate as if sentence 3 wasn't there. It just simply doens't make any sense.

You're saying "count them as one unit" unless 1 of them has some special rule... then count them seperately. Which the rules just don't say.

No, I'm saying that you count them as one unit for the purposes of determining how many units need to start in Reserves. So basically we're only talking about counting the number of units. There is no indication that because you count these units as one for numerical purposes that you pass any other rules one or the other unit may have onto each other.

So all I'm doing for these purposes is counting them as a single unit, but although the transport is ignored for these purposes, the unit inside is not so that means in order to fulfill the rule to start 1/2 your units on the table you will have to choose not to deploy some of your units inside their transport in this case.

You seem to be implying that a transport and its embarked unit count as the SAME unit, which the rules do not say. They only say they count as a SINGLE unit for the purposes of determining how many units must start on the table.

That really seems to be the hitching point between what is being said. You seem to think that because they're counted as only one unit together that means they're essentially the same unit, whereas I'm approaching these rules strictly from a numerical standpoint. I see the rule referring to a 'single unit' as simply a number...that a transport and its unit which is normally considered two units for the purpose of caculating the number of units that must start in reserve is now considered only one. But in no way do I see this as meaning they are the SAME unit, so if one part of that unit is ignored and the other part isn't then you're still stuck counting the embarked unit as one unit.

We understand what you are saying, why you say what you say, the road you took to get there, and how many times you stopped to tinkle. We get it. But you can hold your breath all day long, the rules still don't say what you want them to say.

Captain Antivas wrote:We understand what you are saying, why you say what you say, the road you took to get there, and how many times you stopped to tinkle. We get it. But you can hold your breath all day long, the rules still don't say what you want them to say.

And you can be as dismissive as you'd like to be about my argument but I happen to feel that no matter how many times you reiterate how correct you think you are and how foolish I am for explaining myself that I do not agree with your assessment and I believe that you are the one stretching the rules to say something they do not say (that embarked units are ignored because they count as only a single unit along with their transport which IS ignored).

However, I fully recognize that the argument hinges upon defining a phrase that isn't explicitly explained in the rules, so I can understand your point of view and empathize with how you came to that conclusion. If you don't feel the same, then oh well. I've put forth my position as best I can and there are plenty of people as evidenced throughout this thread that clearly read the rule the same way that I did.

yakface wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:We understand what you are saying, why you say what you say, the road you took to get there, and how many times you stopped to tinkle. We get it. But you can hold your breath all day long, the rules still don't say what you want them to say.

And you can be as dismissive as you'd like to be about my argument but I happen to feel that no matter how many times you reiterate how correct you think you are and how foolish I am for explaining myself that I do not agree with your assessment and I believe that you are the one stretching the rules to say something they do not say (that embarked units are ignored because they count as only a single unit along with their transport which IS ignored).

However, I fully recognize that the argument hinges upon defining a phrase that isn't explicitly explained in the rules, so I can understand your point of view and empathize with how you came to that conclusion. If you don't feel the same, then oh well. I've put forth my position as best I can and there are plenty of people as evidenced throughout this thread that clearly read the rule the same way that I did.

Indeed. There are only so many times you can go back and forth, calling each other wrong and repeating the same arguments before you have to come to the conclusion that you are simply not going to change the other guy's mind. Discuss it with your opponent, roll off if need be, and wait for the FAQ is all I can suggest at this point.

Yakface wrote:

FireBlade wrote:
I simply can't agree with your logic behind cherry picking sentence 3, applying it to sentence 1, and then leaving sentence 2 to operate as if sentence 3 wasn't there. It just simply doens't make any sense.

You're saying "count them as one unit" unless 1 of them has some special rule... then count them seperately. Which the rules just don't say.

No, I'm saying that you count them as one unit for the purposes of determining how many units need to start in Reserves. So basically we're only talking about counting the number of units. There is no indication that because you count these units as one for numerical purposes that you pass any other rules one or the other unit may have onto each other.

If you really are counting them as one unit, which you must do according to the rules, then why are you splitting them up?
Warriors + NS = Ignore whole unit = counting together.
Warriors + NS = Warriors 1 + Ignore NS = not so much counting together. You counted them seperately and then added them together. That's not the same thing. By that logic I count my entire army together since I add it all up.

yakface wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:We understand what you are saying, why you say what you say, the road you took to get there, and how many times you stopped to tinkle. We get it. But you can hold your breath all day long, the rules still don't say what you want them to say.

And you can be as dismissive as you'd like to be about my argument but I happen to feel that no matter how many times you reiterate how correct you think you are and how foolish I am for explaining myself that I do not agree with your assessment and I believe that you are the one stretching the rules to say something they do not say (that embarked units are ignored because they count as only a single unit along with their transport which IS ignored).

However, I fully recognize that the argument hinges upon defining a phrase that isn't explicitly explained in the rules, so I can understand your point of view and empathize with how you came to that conclusion. If you don't feel the same, then oh well. I've put forth my position as best I can and there are plenty of people as evidenced throughout this thread that clearly read the rule the same way that I did.

I understand what you are saying and how you can think that way. I don't agree, but I see. It is unclear for sure. I am trying to figure out why you think that way. As evidenced by other posts where we have clashed I am more than willing to change my position if proven wrong. To be proven wrong I have to understand why you think that way. And what I am getting caught up on is how a plural can be read as singular.

The rule does not have every exception covered so there is that gap. I know on this forum it would be a mistake to say this however the spirit of the rule would seem to overwhelmingly indicate that If drop pods get to whisk away marines then fliers get the same treatment. As has been stated the penalty for being 'phased out' as it were by having your board clear would seem to be the powerful deterrent to this tactic.

I also empathize that GW is trying to remove null deployment tactic , given that it is an asymmetrically powerful tool in the right hands. So who knows, there will be a FAQ soon or a mess in tournaments trying to adjudicate it.

Given the almost certainty of flak missiles/flier defense in the new books plus shifting meta I do not feel this tactic is insurmountable, just really strong for the first few tournaments were going to see here in 6th.

lazarian wrote:The rule does not have every exception covered so there is that gap. I know on this forum it would be a mistake to say this however the spirit of the rule would seem to overwhelmingly indicate that If drop pods get to whisk away marines then fliers get the same treatment. As has been stated the penalty for being 'phased out' as it were by having your board clear would seem to be the powerful deterrent to this tactic.

I also empathize that GW is trying to remove null deployment tactic , given that it is an asymmetrically powerful tool in the right hands. So who knows, there will be a FAQ soon or a mess in tournaments trying to adjudicate it.

Given the almost certainty of flak missiles/flier defense in the new books plus shifting meta I do not feel this tactic is insurmountable, just really strong for the first few tournaments were going to see here in 6th.

I agree that the spirit is clear, but it is also supported by the actual wording. Now Yakface is right that your IC always counts as their own unit so you will always end up starting something on the board, so be smart with it. But it has its risks as well. But we can't say that the rules clearly say you can't take that risk.

Captain Antivas wrote:

lazarian wrote:The rule does not have every exception covered so there is that gap. I know on this forum it would be a mistake to say this however the spirit of the rule would seem to overwhelmingly indicate that If drop pods get to whisk away marines then fliers get the same treatment. As has been stated the penalty for being 'phased out' as it were by having your board clear would seem to be the powerful deterrent to this tactic.

I also empathize that GW is trying to remove null deployment tactic , given that it is an asymmetrically powerful tool in the right hands. So who knows, there will be a FAQ soon or a mess in tournaments trying to adjudicate it.

Given the almost certainty of flak missiles/flier defense in the new books plus shifting meta I do not feel this tactic is insurmountable, just really strong for the first few tournaments were going to see here in 6th.

I agree that the spirit is clear, but it is also supported by the actual wording. Now Yakface is right that your IC always counts as their own unit so you will always end up starting something on the board, so be smart with it. But it has its risks as well. But we can't say that the rules clearly say you can't take that risk.

I plan on playing it how I view the spirit of the rule. Its just always unfortunate that these things crop up.

Captain Antivas wrote:I agree that the spirit is clear, but it is also supported by the actual wording. Now Yakface is right that your IC always counts as their own unit so you will always end up starting something on the board, so be smart with it. But it has its risks as well. But we can't say that the rules clearly say you can't take that risk.

Well, in 99% of cases you always start with something in the board. Always remember the rules for Deep Strike. Transports that must enter play with Deep Strike (Mysetic Spores and Drop Pods are the only ones I know of) let you ignore the models embarked on it. So if you attach your IC to a squad in a Drop Pod, you get to ignore the IC.

There are two ways I know of so far that allow null deployment, and thanks to Drop Pods coming in largely on Turn 1 they are doable.

cowmonaut wrote:Always remember the rules for Deep Strike. Transports that must enter play with Deep Strike (Mysetic Spores and Drop Pods are the only ones I know of) let you ignore the models embarked on it. So if you attach your IC to a squad in a Drop Pod, you get to ignore the IC.

You can only attach an IC to a squad in reserve (ie drop pod) if the IC is already in reserve. See preparing reserves, page 124, second paragraph.

This is true. An all DP army is viable, but if you don't have a vehicle that must DS then you are limited in that respect. Like CSM. No transports that must DS or even must start in reserves. So they are limited.

Since when are specific (advanced rules) not going to override a basic rule? An exception is made in the rules for Deep Strike. Once you are holding the IC in reserve, its embarked on a Drop Pod and no longer counts towards your total percent of reserved units. I still don't see a problem with this.

cowmonaut wrote:Since when are specific (advanced rules) not going to override a basic rule? An exception is made in the rules for Deep Strike. Once you are holding the IC in reserve, its embarked on a Drop Pod and no longer counts towards your total percent of reserved units. I still don't see a problem with this.

There is no problem with it. Just noting the rule. So if you have reserved your IC, you have already counted it for determining which units are eligible for reserves, per preparing reserves, first paragraph, page 124.

Barksdale wrote:There is no problem with it. Just noting the rule. So if you have reserved your IC, you have already counted it for determining which units are eligible for reserves, per preparing reserves, first paragraph, page 124.

Here's the biggest flaw in your reasoning: By the same argument, you would have to count the unit that purchased the Drop Pod regardless if it was embarked on the transport or not. In that same paragraph, you don't state that any units are embarked on transports until after you declare which units Independent Characters have joined.

That means the advanced rules for Deep Strike that specifically call out transports that must Deep Strike do nothing. That's clearly not the case.

Edit: To clarify there is absolutely no rule that states you have to be embarked on a Dedicated Transport when you are held in reserve. Legally, you can walk on the board alongside your transport. This is also what allows "empty" Drop Pods.

cowmonaut wrote:

Barksdale wrote:There is no problem with it. Just noting the rule. So if you have reserved your IC, you have already counted it for determining which units are eligible for reserves, per preparing reserves, first paragraph, page 124.

Here's the biggest flaw in your reasoning: By the same argument, you would have to count the unit that purchased the Drop Pod regardless if it was embarked on the transport or not. In that same paragraph, you don't state that any units are embarked on transports until after you declare which units Independent Characters have joined.

The difference is that it is a dedicated transport for the squad.

It is very possible that I missing this bit. Can I get a reference please on that last bit: you don't state that any units are embarked on transports until after you declare which units Independent Characters have joined."

Reserves is general and deep strike is specific. The DS rule states "when placing the unit in reserve you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes referred to as Deep Strike Reserves)". In order to start a game with a unit the IC has to start in reserves in the unit, just let your opponent know what unit it is joining. So you put your tactical squad in a drop pod, add the Captain, and advise your opponent that the Captain will be deep striking with the tactical squad in the drop pod. Both rules satisfied and the IC is not counted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Barksdale wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:

Barksdale wrote:There is no problem with it. Just noting the rule. So if you have reserved your IC, you have already counted it for determining which units are eligible for reserves, per preparing reserves, first paragraph, page 124.

Here's the biggest flaw in your reasoning: By the same argument, you would have to count the unit that purchased the Drop Pod regardless if it was embarked on the transport or not. In that same paragraph, you don't state that any units are embarked on transports until after you declare which units Independent Characters have joined.

The difference is that it is a dedicated transport for the squad.

It is very possible that I missing this bit. Can I get a reference please on that last bit: you don't state that any units are embarked on transports until after you declare which units Independent Characters have joined."

Dedicated Transports have no bearing on Deep Striking. Dedicated Transports are only relevant to Reserves not Deep Striking.

Barksdale wrote:It is very possible that I missing this bit. Can I get a reference please on that last bit: you don't state that any units are embarked on transports until after you declare which units Independent Characters have joined."

You have the page number, but so be it. Here is what paragraph 2 says (in order):

1. ...specify to the opponent if any of his Independent Characters left in reserve are joining a unit...
2. ...specify if any units in reserve are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in reserve...

Again, that is the actual order of the paragraph. You don't embark on a transport until after you decide where your ICs go. So your logic is broken. As a RAW example, you can null deploy as Space Wolves with 4 HQ choices if they all have a Drop Pod they can squeeze aboard and all other units are on Drop Pods.

Edit: And the rules for Deep Strike are for transports that must Deep Strike. They don't have to be Dedicated.

Captain Antivas wrote:

Reserves is general and deep strike is specific.

Agreed.

Captain Antivas wrote:
The DS rule states "when placing the unit in reserve you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes referred to as Deep Strike Reserves)". In order to start a game with a unit the IC has to start in reserves in the unit, just let your opponent know what unit it is joining.

Here is the bit that I am having trouble with. So if the IC is in reserves, than you have already counted it.

Captain Antivas wrote:So you put your tactical squad in a drop pod, add the Captain, and advise your opponent that the Captain will be deep striking with the tactical squad in the drop pod. Both rules satisfied and the IC is not counted.

As above, you have already counted the IC as eligible for reserves. It must be done to satisfy the reserves rule on page 124.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cowmonaut wrote:

Barksdale wrote:It is very possible that I missing this bit. Can I get a reference please on that last bit: you don't state that any units are embarked on transports until after you declare which units Independent Characters have joined."

You have the page number, but so be it. Here is what paragraph 2 says (in order):

1. ...specify to the opponent if any of his Independent Characters left in reserve are joining a unit...
2. ...specify if any units in reserve are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in reserve...

Again, that is the actual order of the paragraph. You don't embark on a transport until after you decide where your ICs go. So your logic is broken. As a RAW example, you can null deploy as Space Wolves with 4 HQ choices if they all have a Drop Pod they can squeeze aboard and all other units are on Drop Pods.

Edit: And the rules for Deep Strike are for transports that must Deep Strike. They don't have to be Dedicated.

This is very clear. Don't know how I missed that.

Barksdale wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:
The DS rule states "when placing the unit in reserve you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes referred to as Deep Strike Reserves)". In order to start a game with a unit the IC has to start in reserves in the unit, just let your opponent know what unit it is joining.

Here is the bit that I am having trouble with. So if the IC is in reserves, than you have already counted it.

The flaw is that you don't do the final calculation until you deploy. The Reserve rules say that you can not deploly 50% of your army and leave the rest in reserve. When calculating how many units may do so units embarked on a transport that must deep strike are ignored. Even if you counted the IC first he is ignored in the final count of how many units must start on the board because he has been placed in reserves with a unit on a transport that must deep strike.

Captain Antivas wrote: Even if you counted the IC first he is ignored in the final count of how many units must start on the board because he has been placed in reserves with a unit on a transport that must deep strike.

Right, this is the key point. Even if first you count the IC, but once it deploys with the squad in the drop pod, the subsequent count ignores it.

I see it now thanks guys.