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.

Having a despute on:

If I have say 5 units deployed on the map, can I have like say 6 or 7 deep striking terminators and or fliers in reserve?

Argument essentially resides over " Units that must always start in reserve do not count towards this limit"

vs

TDA rule "may always choose to start in reserve"

Fliers I know have a free pass on this reserves thing hence necrons madness but do termintors do too?

I personally have no opinion one way or the other but it's a discussion that needed to be moved as it was crowding out the tactics thread.

You have 5 non-flier units (as they can be ignored); 4 are terminator units

You can normally put 3 (2.5 rounding up) in reserve. You put 3 terminator units in reserve

You try to put the 4th one in - the reserve rule blocks you. Your codex rule, which says you may ALWAYS put them in reserve, overrides the BRB rule so you MAY put them in reserve ALWAYS

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have 5 non-flier units (as they can be ignored); 4 are terminator units

You can normally put 3 (2.5 rounding up) in reserve. You put 3 terminator units in reserve

You try to put the 4th one in - the reserve rule blocks you. Your codex rule, which says you may ALWAYS put them in reserve, overrides the BRB rule so you MAY put them in reserve ALWAYS

All though what you have applied there is good old fashioned logic, and I would have to be inclined to agree with your reasoning. I think this issue could do with an FAQ, to set it in stone, since the TDA rule were written long before the new reserves rule, and they were more for missions that didn't allow for reserves, as that is what the rule says after what has been quoted above. Although maybe the fact that they haven't FAQ'd it, is answer enough.

No, the rule says "even in", as in "this rule always applies, even in missions where the reserves rule isnt in force"

It is not a qualifier; it does not limit the application of the rule ONLY to missions where there is no reserves rule, just reminds you that this rule is ALWAYS in effect in ANY mission

5th edition ALL missions had reserves, yet they still wrote those rules, so that argument is flawed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, the rule says "even in", as in "this rule always applies, even in missions where the reserves rule isnt in force"

It is not a qualifier; it does not limit the application of the rule ONLY to missions where there is no reserves rule, just reminds you that this rule is ALWAYS in effect in ANY mission

5th edition ALL missions had reserves, yet they still wrote those rules, so that argument is flawed.

I still agreed with your point, and I was just saying that an FAQ would clarify. And the only place it ever applied during 5th was in Kill Team games where Reserves were never allowed, but obviously that's a specialist mission.

I think the OP is saying he has 11 + units in his Army which would be a rather large army to have 6-7 termie units.

The answer to your question is no, you can't have 2 or more units in Reserve than you have deployed if those units can be counted when determining Reserves.

So in your scenario: 5 units on the Table and 6 Termies in reserve would be legal because you can choose not to deploy up to half of your eligible units. 11/2 = 5.5 rounding up to 6 in Reserve.
The 7th Termie unit in Reserve would break the rule.

But if some of those units in Reserve are Flyers then that changes your Reserve allocation since Flyers are not counted, for example 5 on the Table 4 Termies in Reserve along with 3 Flyers is legal because the Flyers do not count and so you only have 4 eligible units in Reserve (Termies)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
5th edition ALL missions had reserves, yet they still wrote those rules, so that argument is flawed.

Even those custom missions that didn't have Reserves had Reserves?
That's interesting.

Or maybe what you meant to say is all the 5th Edition *book* missions had Reserves.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have 5 non-flier units (as they can be ignored); 4 are terminator units

You can normally put 3 (2.5 rounding up) in reserve. You put 3 terminator units in reserve

You try to put the 4th one in - the reserve rule blocks you. Your codex rule, which says you may ALWAYS put them in reserve, overrides the BRB rule so you MAY put them in reserve ALWAYS

I disagree.

The Terminator's rule gives you the choice to always place them in reserve, whether or not the mission would allow it. It doesn't over-ride the restriction on how many units you can keep in reserve, though, it just over-rides not being able to keep units in reserve at all.

You can always, not must always.
The option to choose does not break the denial to choose more.

editing to add:
To clarify, the "always" is to cover missions without the Deepstrike rule - those Terminators will still have the option, whereas my Gargoyles will not.

I am of the mind that when given permission to "always" do something, you can do said thing regardless of any game state or condition.

Thus, you can place Terminators in reserves in excess of the 50% limit.

Having said that, the Terminators still count towards the number of units that are currently in reserve, and thus, if anything in reserve doesn't have permission to "always" be there, it must be removed from reserves if you are exceeding the 50% rule. Meaning neither of the poll choices reflect the correct rules IMO.

Can =/= must, may always =/= overide newer reserve restrictions.

I know you're dead set on this one, Nos, but I don't see RAI or RAW backing up DS Termies affecting reserves any more than marines in a rhino. Might I add in 2 clubs, 2 FLGSs, and 1 tournament that I've never met anyone in RL that agrees with your position.

 Drunkspleen wrote:
I am of the mind that when given permission to "always" do something, you can do said thing regardless of any game state or condition.

Context of the rule shows that its referring to mission special rules.

I'm wondering - and I must just be missing something - where in the TDA rules does it refer to bypassing the 50% rule?

Lobukia wrote:may always =/= overide newer reserve restrictions.

Can you actually back this statement up? Because that's what the debate is about, not how many people you have met that agree with you.

I just don't see how, RAW, it is possible to observe the statement "may always" with restrictions (especially those coming from the rulebook rather than a codex) that mean, in some situations you cannot.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Drunkspleen wrote:
I am of the mind that when given permission to "always" do something, you can do said thing regardless of any game state or condition.

Context of the rule shows that its referring to mission special rules.

I'm wondering - and I must just be missing something - where in the TDA rules does it refer to bypassing the 50% rule?

What context is that?

If you mean the following clarification relating to missions Nosferatu has adequately dealt with why it doesn't change the original statement.

If you mean the context of being a rule from an older edition and we shouldn't let new editions change how things work, I think that's just ridiculous because the new edition goes out of its way to change how things work in the appendices.

edit: Oh, by the way, I imagine you are just being silly, but the TDA rules don't directly refer to bypassing the 50% rule, they instead generally refer to bypassing any rule that would prevent them from going into reserves.

In the pole answer 2 is legal because, you can put half your unit amount in reserve rounding up so 5 on ground 6 in reserve is allowed

Yeah, the actual example used doesn't quite fit the question.

I concur with Nosferatu on this. The terminator rules give missions which don't include Deep Strike as an example, but don't state that's the only restriction they override.

Terminators may always Deep Strike, but unlike flyers they have no rule exempting them from the count of how many units may be in Reserve, so Reserving a bunch of Terminator units may use up your count and prevent you from putting other units in Reserve.

 Drunkspleen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Drunkspleen wrote:
I am of the mind that when given permission to "always" do something, you can do said thing regardless of any game state or condition.

Context of the rule shows that its referring to mission special rules.

I'm wondering - and I must just be missing something - where in the TDA rules does it refer to bypassing the 50% rule?

What context is that?

If you mean the following clarification relating to missions Nosferatu has adequately dealt with why it doesn't change the original statement.

He hasn't at all actually. He keeps asserting hes right about this and ive all but given up explaining why hes not. All units can always start in Reserve - so the first part of the sentence changes absolutely nothing from the BRB.
The second part of the sentence is the only thing that "breaks" a rule and therefore overrides the BRB.

edit: Oh, by the way, I imagine you are just being silly, but the TDA rules don't directly refer to bypassing the 50% rule, they instead generally refer to bypassing any rule that would prevent them from going into reserves.

No, the sentence refers to being able to start in reserves despite the mission not allowing it. Since Reserves is a mission special rule and all.

Rigeld - I did, when I pointed out that "even if" is NOT A RESTRICTION. It is not changing the context, it is acting as a reminder. That is what "even if" means in this context.

All units may not *always* start in reserve - if they break the 50% limit they may not. Which is why they do NOT have a rule stating they may *always* start in reserve. Some TDA units do.

Even if /= Despite; the meanings are different.

Lobukia - can I add 3 FLGS and 3 tournaments where this was the position, before I said anything? Anecdotal experience isnt evidence


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: to make it clear you are allowed to start in reserves, not ALWAYS allowed to start in reserves. One is more definite than the other

Despite is more akin to even though a very different phrase to even if.

So I agree with nos. I think it's a case of TDA always getting to start in reserves, RAW. It creates a lot of awkwardness to do so but that is the nature of the game.

That being said it seem that from the Chaos codex the rules will be swinging against this interpretation since chaos codex just grants the deep strike rule to their TDA suits.

 Lobukia wrote:
Can =/= must, may always =/= overide newer reserve restrictions.

So you're now saying that they may not always start the game in reserve? Considering that this is pretty much direct example of Codex rule being more specific than the general BRB rule about reserves, what interpretation you're using to actually support your viewpoint?

Also: Poll options are worded completely wrong. Terminators are still counted, you're just allowed to break the 50% limit, assuming you're only putting terminators into reserve. This might skew the answers quite a lot.

Yep - they count towards the 50% limit, but cannot be prevented from entering reserves. They can stop others from entering reserves

uh oh man i think we have people who think codexes are illegal and droppod armies for that matter to...

such a sad bunch, YES you can have all your units in reserve on turn one

that is how droppods work, and that is the same for a full terminator army, only problem is you loose at end of the turn where you have no units on the table that is WHY you have a rule for that...

grrr, ruleslawyers should be shot, those arguing to much again..

Slight correction, Valek, you lose if you have no models on the table at the end of a game turn.

This poll makes no sense, as both options are wrong.

5 deployed and 6 reserves is completely legal. That would be half rounded up.

Maybe the OP should change the poll to actually have some options that make sense?

 nolzur wrote:
This poll makes no sense, as both options are wrong.

5 deployed and 6 reserves is completely legal. That would be half rounded up.

Maybe the OP should change the poll to actually have some options that make sense?

Exactly.

Terminators do still count towards the limit, however they are allowed to break it. But if one unit of terminators is breaking the limit and you have another unit in reserves it will be forced out.


So say you had 2 Strike Squads, 5 units of Terminators, 2 Grandmasters, 2 Stormravens, and 1 Dreadknight.

You have 8 units(Stormravens don't count towards the limit and GMs are joined to terminators) so you can place 4 of them in reserves.

However, Terminators may always be placed in Reserves to Deep Strike. So you could put all 5 units of Terminators in reserves if you wished, but you could not put any other unit in reserves(unless it also had the same clause Terminators do) until you came below the limit.

I would agree that by RAW, it allows them to ignore the 50%. However, I'd also add that it almost certainly was not an intended interaction with the new reserve rules and is simply an oversight. I'll bet that the DA codex termies have the same changes that the Chaos termies had (simply giving DS without the extra language), and every 6th edition marine dex will follow the same pattern.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
I would agree that by RAW, it allows them to ignore the 50%. However, I'd also add that it almost certainly was not an intended interaction with the new reserve rules and is simply an oversight. I'll bet that the DA codex termies have the same changes that the Chaos termies had (simply giving DS without the extra language), and every 6th edition marine dex will follow the same pattern.

Until that happens, we have what we have. The GK codex was written with 6th in mind, and has the older TDA "may always" reserve rule. The opportunity to change it to just Deep Strike existed with that codex, but did not occur. Also, if GW wanted all TDA to just Deep Strike, they could have and would have changed the rule in the errata section of the appropriate codex FAQ. As such, we can only surmise that GW indeed did intend for the older rule to remain in effect for loyalist TDA units as they did in fact change to rule for Chaos Marines.

The TDA "may always" reserve rule does not on its own indicate that TDA units will dislodge other units in reserve. A simple reading of the reserves rule tells us to count units to determine how many can be placed in reserves, followed by units that ignore the reserves rule. A simple reading of the TDA rule tells us TDA unit can be placed in reserve regardless of mission limits (to which the reserves rule qualifies as it is a mission limit), but unlike flyers, TDA are not required to be placed in reserves. This means that while TDA units count towards the number of units that may be placed in reserves; they themselves can still be reserved in addition to that count just like flyers and other ”must start in reserve only” units. It is perfectly legal to pull all of your non-TDA units inside flyers while reserving the rest of your TDA units, followed by an auto-lose if you have no units on the table at the end of the game turn. Just because it’s a dumb option does not make it an illegal option.

SJ

Better poll would by something like:

Terminators have a rule that states "They [models in terminator armour] may always start the game in reserves." When playing rulebook missions, this special rule:

1) Means that terminator units may always start the game in reserves and are not subject to the max 50% units in reserve rule.
2) This rule does absolutely nothing. Terminators may not always start the game in reserves.