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.

May always is different to may. Units that must go into reserves are one thing but a unit that may always go into reserve is another. While units that "must" have an explicit exception to counting towards the 50% rule, those with "may always" are an anomaly that are probably not RAI but under RAW they seem to be allowed.

Xzerios wrote:
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.

Yes, there is a difference.

They may ALWAYS be put in reserve
They still count towards the 50% limit

The latter means they can prevent other units from entering reserve, but you CANNOT prevent them from entering reserves through that rule.

Captain - your post literally added zero to the topic, and your opinion that the argument is weak is belied by fact. Start an EL thread if you wish to actually argue it, the weight of rules evidence against EL working is overwhelming.

Nos, I'm not talking about EL...

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.

The fact that you use WBB as a reference says much. You keep saying nothing changed over the last 3 editions. I would ask you to show me WBB in any 5th Edition Necron book.

Your talking of the Black Templars Codex. You REALLY need to read your FaQ sir.

Point still stands, your Terminators still have to go through the 50% for Preparing Reserves. If they dont meet the prerequisites, they may not be placed in Reserves.

Guys let's keep on this topic. That thread was locked and all that needed to be said was said there.

Terminators may always be placed in Reserve to deep strike. But unlike units which always must start in reserve, termies still count against your limit, for purposes of determining how many other units can reserve.

The FaQ replaces the second sentence of the "Teleport" section with "They have the Deep Strike special rule".

Your "may always" is now gone. Moving along~

Xzerios wrote:
The FaQ replaces the second sentence of the "Teleport" section with "They have the Deep Strike special rule".

Your "may always" is now gone. Moving along~

Where is this found? I'm not seeing it.

Which FAQ? Which page? Not seeing that in Codex: SM FAQ.

Which FAQ? Defo not BA and I don't see it in the C:SM

Dark Templars in respects to the "teleport" section on all terminator models.

Xzerios wrote:
The FaQ replaces the second sentence of the "Teleport" section with "They have the Deep Strike special rule".

I'm curious as to where you are finding this. I'm not seeing it in any of the Legio Astartes FAQs.

I found it, its for the list entry in the BT codex, but it doesn't change the armory entry, which reads the same as SM or DA.

So not relevant to the discussion, as it edits one of two places in the BT codex only without changing the other

Might I add, I still think its crystal clear that this is only referring to mission restrictions not reserve restrictions. One has to read the whole sentence, not just to the comma

English, the more you know

 Lobukia wrote:
I found it, its for the list entry in the BT codex, but it doesn't change the armory entry, which reads the same as SM or DA.

So not relevant to the discussion, as it edits one of two places in the BT codex only without changing the other

Might I add, I still think its crystal clear that this is only referring to mission restrictions not reserve restrictions. One has to read the whole sentence, not just to the comma

English, the more you know

"you may always take a drink from my refrigerator, even if there is only 1 drink left" does not mean you can take my last drink and only my last drink and no drinks prior to it.

I hate to have to rephrase it like this, I feel it's a bad way to argue, but your high and mighty "I read english better than you" position is simply fictitious, it's not that we aren't reading past the comma, it's that the comma combined with the use of the word "even" fundamentally encapsulates the first half of the sentence as it's own structure of rules before applying additional restrictions (or lack thereof) to it.

 Drunkspleen wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
I found it, its for the list entry in the BT codex, but it doesn't change the armory entry, which reads the same as SM or DA.

So not relevant to the discussion, as it edits one of two places in the BT codex only without changing the other

Might I add, I still think its crystal clear that this is only referring to mission restrictions not reserve restrictions. One has to read the whole sentence, not just to the comma

English, the more you know

"you may always take a drink from my refrigerator, even if there is only 1 drink left" does not mean you can take my last drink and only my last drink and no drinks prior to it.

I hate to have to rephrase it like this, I feel it's a bad way to argue, but your high and mighty "I read english better than you" position is simply fictitious, it's not that we aren't reading past the comma, it's that the comma combined with the use of the word "even" fundamentally encapsulates the first half of the sentence as it's own structure of rules before applying additional restrictions (or lack thereof) to it.

Apples and Oranges. Your real life example is not the same example as the rule. Again, you are exploiting an old rule and ignoring the actual context of the codex entry.

C:SM Terminator armor. "Any model wearing Terminator armour can be teleported onto the battlefield. They may always start the game in reserve and arrive using the deep strike rules, even if it is not part of the mission being played."


Reserves. 'When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy up to half of their units (rounding up) keeping them as Reserves to arrive later.


Terminator armor gives two abilities and you can break the sentence at the "and" and see what they are.

1. They may always start the game in reserve, even if is not part of the mission being played.
2. They may always arrive using Deep Strike rules, even if is not part of the mission being played.

Neither of those permissions states that they can break the 50% reserve rule. Both of those permissions are giving the Terminators the Deep Strike and Reserve rule if the mission being played does not allow it. (Which the standard ones do)

 Drunkspleen wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
I found it, its for the list entry in the BT codex, but it doesn't change the armory entry, which reads the same as SM or DA.

So not relevant to the discussion, as it edits one of two places in the BT codex only without changing the other

Might I add, I still think its crystal clear that this is only referring to mission restrictions not reserve restrictions. One has to read the whole sentence, not just to the comma

English, the more you know

"you may always take a drink from my refrigerator, even if there is only 1 drink left" does not mean you can take my last drink and only my last drink and no drinks prior to it.

I hate to have to rephrase it like this, I feel it's a bad way to argue, but your high and mighty "I read english better than you" position is simply fictitious, it's not that we aren't reading past the comma, it's that the comma combined with the use of the word "even" fundamentally encapsulates the first half of the sentence as it's own structure of rules before applying additional restrictions (or lack thereof) to it.

"Johnny may always walk home, even if the other students are told not to walk home that day"

If Johnny then stands up and leaves the classroom in the middle of day, he's good at understanding rules like you do. The part after the comma, frames the context that we are talking about modes of getting home, not about Johnny ignoring all other restrictions on students heading home.

By the same token, you are trying to use the permission to override one restriction, as shown by the rest of sentence, to override ALL restrictions... even ones made so much later, that they clearly have no connection to the sentence in question what so ever (in grammar, context, or intention). Look, I'm a die-hard SM player, who uses Terminator and DP tandem drops like no one I know. I'd love for you guys to be right, but RAI (clearly) and RAW (apparently not so), you aren't.

If "may always" overrides reserve restrictions, why not turn restrictions to? It either only applies to the restriction referred to, or it applies to all restrictions, not some weird half way point that is more reasonable than the latter.

You may always cast a vote in Ireland, even if you are in prison.

There is an example that follows the same sentence structure. You can always vote even in situations where you would think you cannot.

The context is not as explicit as all that, in fact the context of the BA codex makes it more explicitly a general allowance than you are seeing. They can be teleported... they may always be placed in reserve.... I think that makes it clear that they are allowed to always be put in reserve.

Old rules are exploited but they also hamper your ability more often than not.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
You may always cast a vote in Ireland, even if you are in prison.

There is an example that follows the same sentence structure. You can always vote even in situations where you would think you cannot.

The context is not as explicit as all that, in fact the context of the BA codex makes it more explicitly a general allowance than you are seeing. They can be teleported... they may always be placed in reserve.... I think that makes it clear that they are allowed to always be put in reserve.

Old rules are exploited but they also hamper your ability more often than not.

If you then showed up 2 days early to vote, and wondered why no one was there to give you a ballot, you'd be over applying the lifting of one restriction to all restrictions.

The lifting of one restriction is that they may always be put into reserves. The second restriction is lifted in the second clause where it allows the putting of the unit into reserves and using DS even when the scenario doesn't allow it.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
The lifting of one restriction is that they may always be put into reserves. The second restriction is lifted in the second clause where it allows the putting of the unit into reserves and using DS even when the scenario doesn't allow it.

If in Ireland you can vote 10 months before an election, and if Johnny should be able to walk home after the first bell, then yes. Otherwise no, the sentence is the context for the restriction being lifted

What? Absurd allowances due to the removal of two restrictions are all well and good but they have little to do with the debate.


The paragraph covers the general abilities of a model wearing terminator armour. It covers the saves, then talks about it's teleport ability, then ends with transports. The context of the two sentences in the middle is that the models can teleport into play. This is a form of DS that has some other rules that interact with it such as teleport homer.
The next sentence is how teleport works, the model can always go into reserves and ds into play. The second clause of that sentence allows the first part to happen in games where you would not normally be allowed to put units in reserve or ds.

You do realize that the last post proves our point and refuted yours, right?

The first part is not dependent on the second. The second is an expansion.

 Captain Antivas wrote:
You do realize that the last post proves our point and refuted yours, right?

How so? Your argument is that it is a general rule that just allows the model to ds in games that don't allow ds.
RAW the sentence doesn't support that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
The first part is not dependent on the second. The second is an expansion.

Exactly.

I'm no grammar wiz (but can spell grammar).
If I have 2 scout squads, a lone terminator HQ and 3 squads of terminators, how many can I put in reserve?

50% rule would say 3 of my 6 units.
So 3 units of terminators go into reserve. Now the 4th unit wants to. It's got a rule that says it may always go into reserve, that's a specific codex rule. Since specific > general, and codex > BRB, where's the more specific codex rule that prevents it?

Now, I couldn't put half the scouts in reserve and then try and squeeze in all the terminators.


Think of reserves a bus. It has enough seats for half your units, or all your terminators. Units that MUST start in reserve don't ride the bus.

-Matt

Not sure where you are getting the it's either half the units or all of the terminators. If you had more terminator units 4-5 you could still put something else into reserve first and then put the rest of the terminators into reserve.

Thing is while this is RAW, I don't think it would work very well. You could get situations of people putting their scout squad into reserve and then telling their opponent that they are always allowed to put their terminators in reserve.

They are following the RAW but they are completely TFG.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Not sure where you are getting the it's either half the units or all of the terminators. If you had more terminator units 4-5 you could still put something else into reserve first and then put the rest of the terminators into reserve.

Thing is while this is RAW, I don't think it would work very well. You could get situations of people putting their scout squad into reserve and then telling their opponent that they are always allowed to put their terminators in reserve.

They are following the RAW but they are completely TFG.

Right, its almost like the terminator rule works like demons. It gives the player the choice though. We already have an exception in the BRB for units that must start in reserve. Terminators don't have the "must" rule, but have a similar "may always" rule that is up to the controlling player.

Right now I read the RAW as treating the terminators like demons, if the player so chooses, they don't count against your 50% allowance. We'll soon see how terminators are worded in the upcoming CSM codex to know for sure.

Thing is while this is RAW, I don't think it would work very well. You could get situations of people putting their scout squad into reserve and then telling their opponent that they are always allowed to put their terminators in reserve.

There is no order of operations in putting units in Reserve, though.

You just organize them all at once, and before the game can start, you need to make sure you've made all the appropriate declarations (which units characters are joining, any units in non-dedicated transports, combat squads in a transport, Outflanking or Deep Striking), and followed the maximum on reserves.

So if you have three units of scouts, three of terms, and a term HQ, You can reserve any mix of four of those units (half of 7, rounding up).

If you had only two units of scouts is the question. Because then normal reserve allowance would only be three units. Per my understanding, you could choose to reserve all four units in term armor (including the character), but you would then be forced to deploy the scouts, because the terminators still count against the limit.