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.

Of course it does, that is exactly what it does.


the codex rule *clearly* states that a Termie squad can *always* be kept in reserves if DSing... How much more explicit can a rule get??

So if you have 6 terminator squads, you can always DS them... *always*..... It does not matter how many other units you have in the army.

If at any point you try and keep me from DSing a Termie unit, I can point to the codex, where it says I can *always* do it. If you are stopping me, it is breaking the specific, advanced, codex rule.

 Captain Antivas wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Advanced overrides Basic. Basic is trying to prevent you from being put into reserves, when your unqualified "may always" say you can be put into reserves.

Try again

Your advanced rule doesn't give you permission to ignore reserves restrictions.

When a rule in a codex contradicts a rule in the rulebook, the codex wins out

You are trying to prevent, using a BRB rule, a model being put into reserves when it may ALWAYS be put into reserves

This explicitly overrides restrictions on Reserves. The clue is in the actual rule.

No, you are extending the permissions beyond what the rule allows. You are exploiting the wording of a 5th edition codex, where there was no reserves restriction, to say it gives you permission when it does not.

 Captain Antivas wrote:
No, you are extending the permissions beyond what the rule allows. You are exploiting the wording of a 5th edition codex, where there was no reserves restriction, to say it gives you permission when it does not.

p.7 "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this
rulebook, and one printed in a codex.'Where this occurs, the
rule printed in the codex always takes precedence."

Funnily the people arguing for RAW in this case are mostly against using pg7. for EL vs SA.

I think on further reading that an all terminator army in most codices can be completely reserved. Terrible idea but valid rules wise.

Kevlar wrote:

 Captain Antivas wrote:
No, you are extending the permissions beyond what the rule allows. You are exploiting the wording of a 5th edition codex, where there was no reserves restriction, to say it gives you permission when it does not.

p.7 "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this
rulebook, and one printed in a codex.'Where this occurs, the
rule printed in the codex always takes precedence."

How does page 7 give you permission to do something the specific codex rule gives you no permission to do?

Because the two rules are in conflict?
You are using the BRB rule to deny the specific allowance to ALWAYS put them in reserve. Not only does specific beat general here, page 7 also says you are wrong on this.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Funnily the people arguing for RAW in this case are mostly against using pg7. for EL vs SA.

I think on further reading that an all terminator army in most codices can be completely reserved. Terrible idea but valid rules wise.

Sorry for the OT but I thought the new edition rules, or the faq update clarified that everliving always works even against SA?

Lol. A thread that went on for over 12 pages on that very subject would argue that there is a bit of discussion to be had.

Kevlar wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Funnily the people arguing for RAW in this case are mostly against using pg7. for EL vs SA.

I think on further reading that an all terminator army in most codices can be completely reserved. Terrible idea but valid rules wise.

Sorry for the OT but I thought the new edition rules, or the faq update clarified that everliving always works even against SA?

Nope, not at all. the core to the rule, which prevents EL from working, has not changed in 3 editions now. SA still prevents EL

The part of the rule that was used to justify the no EL for SA until july is now gone. The current justification for this stance is based on a subjective reading of a phrase that holds little water.

What, the part that says "no special rule"? That rule hasnt changed in 3 editions. Try again, but in another thread.

I did, you didn't listen.
It's the bit just after no special rule, the one that sets a limit on that limitation.

Again, the one that hasnt changed in 3 editions. Youre going to try the duration argument again, arent you. The one defeated by WBB.

lol. Keep trying.

No need to, ts been proven often enough to those who understand rules.

Ah, personal comments. Ad hominum is always a good argument.

Thats not an Ad Hominum attack. It just says if you understood the rules you could actually see this.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats not an Ad Hominum attack. It just says if you understood the rules you could actually see this.

My mistake it was an attack on my intelligence and my ability to read, not an attack on my arguments based on demeaning me.

Nowhere did he call you stupid or an idiot. You just don't understand the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Because the two rules are in conflict?
You are using the BRB rule to deny the specific allowance to ALWAYS put them in reserve. Not only does specific beat general here, page 7 also says you are wrong on this.

I think you're misreading context here. The context of the rule is to override mission restrictions. Not all restrictions ever.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Nowhere did he call you stupid or an idiot. You just don't understand the rules.

Exactly. The actual rules that disallow EL have not changed in 3 editions. Those are the relevant rules that prevent EL, and always will do. Changing to RaaC has had absolutely no effect on this.

When you apply the correct rules, with the correct context, this is abundantly clear.

I gave you the reading of that rule in that thread, I don't care that you have decided that you are the holder of objective truth.

At rigeld: So you are on the line that the always allowed to be put in reserves is just a general allowance that doesn't override the 50% reserves?
I know RAI you are correct but due to the loose wording I am not convinced. The context is not clear if it is specific or general in it's allowance. The second clause could be seen to be an additional clarification.

Yes, a reading of the rules that managed to ignore the written rules and context in favour of a leap to something entirely different. Your reading is plain wrong by all objective standards of analysis.

The second clause if confirming this applies even if Reserves is not a mission rule; it is not worded as a restriction, despite peoples suggestions otherwise

This question will most surely be answered when the chaos codex hits later this month. I'm sure the 50% rule will be addressed in the chaos terminator section.

You are probably right that chaos will clear this up, ironic eh?

@nos:
You can continue to argue that but objective analysis is not something you have. I ignored nothing I read the rules and there was no leap of logic. The two rules occur at different stages and do not interact.

Wrong, as pointed out to you over and over in that thread, yet you refused to comprehend the salient facts. WBB occurred even later than EL and was the canonical EXAMPLE of a special rule that did not function. Your timing argument is belied by a rule that, in the crucial specific, has not altered in 3 editions. This is indisputable by those who can read and objectively parse rules, and do not choose to ignore the pieces of context and actual rules directives given in the SA rule.

Make a thread and discuss it there. I am sure you can claim objective truth there too.

The difference Nos with Drop Pods and Terminators is the word "Must". All Drop Pod models must start the game in reserves. Due to the terminology of Deepstrike, units put into those pods do not count towards the 50% for Preparing Reserves. Terminators "May" start the game in reserves. This RAW with English applied states that they can go into reserves, and if they do, they may use the rules for Deepstrike to enter the battlefield. However, to get to that point, the Terminators have to go through the Preparing Reserves rule to get there first before they can qualify to use Deepstrike.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Wrong, as pointed out to you over and over in that thread, yet you refused to comprehend the salient facts. WBB occurred even later than EL and was the canonical EXAMPLE of a special rule that did not function. Your timing argument is belied by a rule that, in the crucial specific, has not altered in 3 editions. This is indisputable by those who can read and objectively parse rules, and do not choose to ignore the pieces of context and actual rules directives given in the SA rule.

Your arguments have devolved from "here is a rule, this is what it says" to thinly veiled attacks on people's ability to process logic and reading comprehension. You don't have to call someone stupid to call them stupid. You have decided your way of reading it is correct. Rather than stating why you simply state it is and everyone who disagrees with you doesn't understand the rules. Your argument is weak at best and your reliance on thinly veiled attacks hurts your credibility further.