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.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:The way I read it is, If you have the DWA they can always be put into reserve, no matter what. If you have 100% DWA models then 100% of your army can be ni reserve. However, they count towards your maximum reserves when they do.

People find my thought process convoluted sometimes so if you have trouble keeping up your not the only one. This is where things get wierd.

75% of your army has DWA, you can have all 75% in reserve, but nothing else.

75% have DWA, you decide to reserve 30%, meaning 20% more (wihtout DWA) can be reserved.

99% have DWA, meaning 99% can be in reserve, but if you have 50% or more of those models in reserve, the remaining 1% cannot be in reserve.

Anyone able to follow that?

I think I follow that. You mean something like:

"You may not have more than 50% of your army placed in reserve, unless they have DWA, in which case they count first towards the 50%"

This makes perfect sense to me. But then again, I have not recently read the DA codex.

Exactly. I dont know why I couldnt just say that lol

generalchaos34 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

generalchaos34 wrote:
i got boned by the guy using drop pods as if they had drop pod assault (otherwise he would have mishapped since the first one landed on top of my hammerhead.

How so, did he place the drop pod on top of the hammerhead to begin with?

I meant the scatter landed him there, then the drop pod dropped next to the hammer head due to the inertial guidance system from itself.

The Drop pod has "inertial guidance system" rule right?

If it does the pod would not " have mishapped since the first one landed on top of my hammerhead" since the IGS would have stopped it short of the enemy model.

 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.

yeah, i had 3 broadsides, 3 TL plasma gun crsis, 10 firewarriors, and 2 hammerheads unloading into 2 squads of TH/SS termies, and a few out of each survived, then they went on to murder all of my back field, since they would make good consolidate and charge rolls, and i had no chance in close combat, plus taus crummy leadership had more than a few groups run off the board

I have seen a terminator rune priest survive a turn of fire all on his own from a hammerhead and a load of tau dross units. The 2+ is king these days.

I think you guys are going a little off topic

To go back on topic - you got cheated. Deathwing assault and Drop pod assault are two very different things. As it stands, Rules as Written You can withhold all of your Deathwing units for Deathwing assault, as the codex trumps the BRB. Here is a good example (albeit bad one as I would never do this - but bear with me): My list consists of Belial, A librarian, 4 Deathwing Termies, 2 Dreadnoughts and 3 Landspeeders (1750 list). I can, if I want, reserve all of my terminators and deep strike them, however, because my dreadnaught and landspeeders do not have deathwing assault, I would not be able to keep everything in reserve. HOWEVER - lets say that for some odd reason everything in that list had deathwing assault - or for some odd reason my 1750 list consisted of 6 terminator squads as troops, and terminators as elites (for examples sake) - I could technically could have them all deathwing assault and have nothing on the board deployed until my turn 1 is up.

Long story short, you were duped hardcore... but for those arguing on other matters - I could technically have my all terminator army deathwing assault.

 DeathReaper wrote:

generalchaos34 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

generalchaos34 wrote:
i got boned by the guy using drop pods as if they had drop pod assault (otherwise he would have mishapped since the first one landed on top of my hammerhead.

How so, did he place the drop pod on top of the hammerhead to begin with?

I meant the scatter landed him there, then the drop pod dropped next to the hammer head due to the inertial guidance system from itself.

The Drop pod has "inertial guidance system" rule right?

If it does the pod would not " have mishapped since the first one landed on top of my hammerhead" since the IGS would have stopped it short of the enemy model.

I meant that if he had followed the rules and teleported instead of drop pods, he would have misshaped in our particular game, probably saving the lives of many many blue space commies

I know what piping_piper means.

DW are not the units "must in reserve" , you are not forced to put them in reserve(like Drop Pod & Flyers).

I think they should obey the rules for 50% reserves.

They *count* towards the 50% that can start in reserves

Their codex specific allowance to ALWAYS start in reserves OVERRIDES the BRB restriction on not entering reserves.

If you try to prevent them from entering reserves from a BRB rule you will be beaten by the codex rule stating they can always go into reserves, and specific beats general, page 7

The BRB ruling is 50% counted in reserves unless it HAS to start in reserves those are not counted towards the 50%.

May start is a players choice. So he can only reserve 50% of his army that have a choice.

The rule IMHO was written so people couldnt go second and have nothing on the board that could die in turn one.

its a choice vs a have to.

Lungpickle wrote:
The BRB ruling is 50% counted in reserves unless it HAS to start in reserves those are not counted towards the 50%.

May start is a players choice. So he can only reserve 50% of his army that have a choice.

The rule IMHO was written so people couldnt go second and have nothing on the board that could die in turn one.

its a choice vs a have to.

I choose to reserve everything, because the codex says I can. That causes a conflict between the codex and BGB. Conflicts are covered on pg 7 bottom right hand side.

Having just read the rules concerned and playing Deathwing myself it is painfully obvious that you can't put the whole force into reserve. Anyone arguing otherwise needs to look up the deep strike rule.
According to your argument:
It [C: DA] says I "May" keep them in reserve..." so I can keep them in reserve without them counting to my 50% total because to use the DWA rule I must keep them in reserve.
So I don't count my assault marines or landspeeders as they will use the Deep strike rule and to do that they must be in reserve too.
My scouts & Bikes want to outflank too so they don't count either?
Looks like the whole of C: DA can be held in reserve apart from tanks by this argument.
I'm sorry you think that the codex saying may trumps the BRB saying can/can't but that is just not the case.
May is not the same as must.

masterofthedark wrote:
Having just read the rules concerned and playing Deathwing myself it is painfully obvious that you can't put the whole force into reserve. Anyone arguing otherwise needs to look up the deep strike rule.
According to your argument:
It [C: DA] says I "May" keep them in reserve..." so I can keep them in reserve without them counting to my 50% total because to use the DWA rule I must keep them in reserve.
So I don't count my assault marines or landspeeders as they will use the Deep strike rule and to do that they must be in reserve too.
My scouts & Bikes want to outflank too so they don't count either?
Looks like the whole of C: DA can be held in reserve apart from tanks by this argument.
I'm sorry you think that the codex saying may trumps the BRB saying can/can't but that is just not the case.
May is not the same as must.

Obviously it's not the same as must, however you may reserve all your termies. I choose to do so. I now have created conflict between the BGB and codex.

Conflicts go to Codex.

There is no conflict, the 'may' gives the option.

Without the option, they may not deepstrike.

If it said 'must' there would be logic to the argument that they always have the option and must use it.

When your entire army has the option to deepstrike, the rules disallow half of you from choosing that option, but does not remove it from the unit.

This lets you decide during deployment.

 kirsanth wrote:
There is no conflict, the 'may' gives the option.

Without the option, they may not deepstrike.

If it said 'must' there would be logic to the argument that they always have the option and must use it.

When your entire army has the option to deepstrike, the rules disallow half of you from choosing that option, but does not remove it from the unit.

This lets you decide during deployment.

Sure it does, in fact it would remove 1/2 of your option by that means.

I view this akin to ethereal interception for deathmarks or phased reinforcements from zahndrekh. To utilize either of those rules I must have units in reserves, but I am not forced to put them in reserves. So, if I claimed I wanted to use those rules would I be able to bypass the army restriction on reserves amount simply by fielding zahndrekh in my army?

 kirsanth wrote:
There is no conflict, the 'may' gives the option.

Without the option, they may not deepstrike.

If it said 'must' there would be logic to the argument that they always have the option and must use it.

When your entire army has the option to deepstrike, the rules disallow half of you from choosing that option, but does not remove it from the unit.

This lets you decide during deployment.

Incorrect

I may ALWAYS start in reserve. I have 6 Deathwing units in total

I put 3 in reserve
I put the 4th in reserve. You try to stop me puttng the unit in reserve. I state the rule stating i may ALWAYS put them in reserve to deepstrike. Codex wins because of page 7

I repeat - codex wins as there is a conflict; the BRB rule t5ies to stop you doing something explicitly allowed in the codex

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:
There is no conflict, the 'may' gives the option.

Without the option, they may not deepstrike.

If it said 'must' there would be logic to the argument that they always have the option and must use it.

When your entire army has the option to deepstrike, the rules disallow half of you from choosing that option, but does not remove it from the unit.

This lets you decide during deployment.

Incorrect

I may ALWAYS start in reserve. I have 6 Deathwing units in total

I put 3 in reserve
I put the 4th in reserve. You try to stop me puttng the unit in reserve. I state the rule stating i may ALWAYS put them in reserve to deepstrike. Codex wins because of page 7

I repeat - codex wins as there is a conflict; the BRB rule t5ies to stop you doing something explicitly allowed in the codex

Where does it say you may always place in reserves? The wording is "may be placed into reserves, ref outdated BRB deep strike mission". The BRB says you can put models into reserves, up to 50%. I could understand if the BRB said no reserves, that it'd let you, but where the BRB is only placing a limit on how many units may be in reserve... iffy.

Like I said, I'd love to do it, DWA was one of my favourite ways to play, but I don't want to start a silly rules argument with my group.

May always start the game in reserves means, if you choose, you may ALWAYS be in reserves.

Not tricky. There is a direct conflict between the rulebook and codex when you try to put that first unit in above 50%, so the codex wins.

Note: the units still count towards your 50% allowance, it is just THEY can breach that limit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
May always start the game in reserves means, if you choose, you may ALWAYS be in reserves.

Not tricky. There is a direct conflict between the rulebook and codex when you try to put that first unit in above 50%, so the codex wins.

Note: the units still count towards your 50% allowance, it is just THEY can breach that limit.

They would have to be the only ones in reserve then, other than "must always start in reserves" models. Otherwise you would have no way to legitimately show who is breaking the 50% and who isn't.

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

Nowhere in the DWA rule does it say you may always. the exact wording is:

"When you deploy a Deathwing unit you may choose to put it on the table or in reserve as described in the deep strike scenario special rule."

If you can show me which one of those words you are getting your opponent to interpret as ALWAYS, then I will start DWA'ing my whole force too.
There is no conflict.

So ther eis no conflict when your codex says you MAY choose, and the rulebook is saying you have no choice? You dont see the conflict there?

The simplest way to look at this is that the codex always gives you the option The conflict arises because the rulebook takes that option away.

masterofthedark wrote:
Nowhere in the DWA rule does it say you may always. the exact wording is:

"When you deploy a Deathwing unit you may choose to put it on the table or in reserve as described in the deep strike scenario special rule."

If you can show me which one of those words you are getting your opponent to interpret as ALWAYS, then I will start DWA'ing my whole force too.
There is no conflict.

Look at the terminator armor rules, not just DWA.

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.

 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.

I have an army consisting of 5 termie squads, Belial, 3 landspeeders, and a dreadnaught.

That's 10 units, so I can start 5 in reserve. I elect to place everything but the termies in Reserve. Now I should not be able to place more than that in reserve, but terminators may always start in reserve, so I have 10 units in reserve.

According to some, this is legal. I don't see how.

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.

Incorrect. It isnt just about missions - the *reminder* at the end of the TDA rules is just that - a reminder (EVEN IN does not mean ONLY WHEN)

Stop stating it is otherwise, when this is a falsehood

I may ALWAYS start them in reserve. You try to stop me putting them in reserve. Conflict. Codex wins, page 7. Please try to actually argue this rather than saying there isnt a conflict, when there absolutely 100% incontrovertibly IS a conflict

When are reserves declared sequentially? Arent they simultaneous?

You have 6 TDA units (belial plus 5 others, say) and 2 LS

Can you put everything in reserve? NO, because you may only put 4 in reserve, and the LS have no allowance to always be in reserve, EVEN IF the mission does not allow it. You MAY put all 6 TDA units in reserve, because they have a rule where they may ALWAYS start in reserve

Not. Difficult.