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.

It's been spoiled that drop pods and the units inside them are exempt from the tactical restraint rule.

I've encountered two interpretations of this.

In the one I favour the tactical restraint rule applies to your army ( reguardless of whether every unit is exempt). So in a 2000pt game you need a 1000pts on the table. If all your units are in drop pods they can't legally meet the 1000pt requirement so you would not be legally deploying by placeing all your units in drop pods. However by removing your units from the pods you would be able to legally deploy. So this is what you would need to do.

In the second interpretation the tactical reserves rule doesnt apply either because all units are exempt or because those points don't count as being in your army for the purposes of tactical reserves. So you can null deploy. What do people think

I think the Tactical Reserves rule applies to your army, but the Drop Pod (and the unit it carries) deducted from the total. As such, you could null deploy if you army was 100% embarked in Drop Pods. Since the rule is such that any units in the Drop Pod are also exempt from Tactical Reserves rule, an army that is 100% embarked in Drop Pods does not have any part of the Tactical Reserves rule apply to any unit. So you have to have 50% of your 0 points and 0 units start on the battlefield, which is 0. As such, yes, you can null deploy this way.

I'm not able to reason out a way that the Drop Pod could only ignore a portion of the Tactical Reserve rule without it specifically saying so. If you say that the Drop Pod still has to count towards your points and drops, then it's following the Tactical Reserve rule, which we're told to ignore. So if it has to follow that part of the rule, why wouldn't it have to follow the entire rule?

(rules for Drop Pods, for those interested: https://www.belloflostsouls.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/SM-droppod-datafax-2019.jpg)

My answer is I can see that both ways but if your saying the rule applies to your army and that the rule says half your army must be deployed.

Then it is a question of whether the units being exempted would change that initial calculation.

"When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield,"

If i have 2 hq 6 pods and 6 tac squads in my army -to me the answer would be 7 this is calculated before deployment so your not guessing what is a legal number.

Exempting from the tactical reserves rule wouldnt change that army level calculation of 7. Because it occurs before deployment. Even if you exempt pods it might not exempt the units inside because they are not inside and thus exempt till after deployment in the pod.

You could also view them as becoming exempt at the point they are put in the pod but that would only exempt from counting towards the 1000pts.

If you calculate after deployment you could run into a situation where especially with alternate deployments you have deployed all your units but the deployment is illegal

Drops pods and their embarked units ignore the tactical reserves rule, it doesnt apply to them. If you manage to put your entire army in drop pods you can have zero units on the table during deployment. You are not tabled because that cannot happen during the first battle round. Your entire army can deepstrike T1. Your drop pods can deepstrike on any turn. You can do this until the codex FAQ drops, where it will be changed.

 p5freak wrote:
Drops pods and their embarked units ignore the tactical reserves rule, it doesnt apply to them. If you manage to put your entire army in drop pods you can have zero units on the table during deployment. You are not tabled because that cannot happen during the first battle round. Your entire army can deepstrike T1. Your drop pods can deepstrike on any turn. You can do this until the codex FAQ drops, where it will be changed.

Speculation...There is nothing wrong with Null deployment, too much salt.

ThatMG wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Drops pods and their embarked units ignore the tactical reserves rule, it doesnt apply to them. If you manage to put your entire army in drop pods you can have zero units on the table during deployment. You are not tabled because that cannot happen during the first battle round. Your entire army can deepstrike T1. Your drop pods can deepstrike on any turn. You can do this until the codex FAQ drops, where it will be changed.

Speculation...There is nothing wrong with Null deployment, too much salt.

Just need to have enough infiltration type units to spread them 17" apart, so there's no where on the table that's not 9" from an enemy, and you'd prevent them from deploying at all. Highly unlikely, and a very focused-specialized army, but would be hilarious.

Wasn't there a battle where someone with bikes was prevented from deploying by the other player lining scouts up on his table edge? Something like that, bit harder this way though.

It depends on how you parse the Tactical Reserves rule.

 Kcalehc wrote:

ThatMG wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Drops pods and their embarked units ignore the tactical reserves rule, it doesnt apply to them. If you manage to put your entire army in drop pods you can have zero units on the table during deployment. You are not tabled because that cannot happen during the first battle round. Your entire army can deepstrike T1. Your drop pods can deepstrike on any turn. You can do this until the codex FAQ drops, where it will be changed.

Speculation...There is nothing wrong with Null deployment, too much salt.

Just need to have enough infiltration type units to spread them 17" apart, so there's no where on the table that's not 9" from an enemy, and you'd prevent them from deploying at all. Highly unlikely, and a very focused-specialized army, but would be hilarious.

It would be tricky, but an opponent with a fast enough army with enough bodies could flood the board on Turn 1 if they go first. Know your enemy!

Wasn't there a battle where someone with bikes was prevented from deploying by the other player lining scouts up on his table edge? Something like that, bit harder this way though.

There was infamous ETC game where a White Scars biker army deployed totally in reserves. They all would have needed to come on his board edge, so the Tau player lined the back end of the WS deployment zone with Kroot. Game Over before Turn 1 even started.

 alextroy wrote:

 Kcalehc wrote:
Wasn't there a battle where someone with bikes was prevented from deploying by the other player lining scouts up on his table edge? Something like that, bit harder this way though.

There was infamous ETC game where a White Scars biker army deployed totally in reserves. They all would have needed to come on his board edge, so the Tau player lined the back end of the WS deployment zone with Kroot. Game Over before Turn 1 even started.

And that was an arbitrary decision by a tournament judge to hand the game to the Tau player.

Nothing in the rules at the time gave a victory to anyone in that situation.


As for the OP. it looks like null deployment is back.

it was also a different edition

It's an exemption from the entirety of the rule, not just part of the rule.

 Kcalehc wrote:

ThatMG wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Drops pods and their embarked units ignore the tactical reserves rule, it doesnt apply to them. If you manage to put your entire army in drop pods you can have zero units on the table during deployment. You are not tabled because that cannot happen during the first battle round. Your entire army can deepstrike T1. Your drop pods can deepstrike on any turn. You can do this until the codex FAQ drops, where it will be changed.

Speculation...There is nothing wrong with Null deployment, too much salt.

Just need to have enough infiltration type units to spread them 17" apart, so there's no where on the table that's not 9" from an enemy, and you'd prevent them from deploying at all. Highly unlikely, and a very focused-specialized army, but would be hilarious.

Wasn't there a battle where someone with bikes was prevented from deploying by the other player lining scouts up on his table edge? Something like that, bit harder this way though.

If you can't block the entire board what you can do is force where they drop...what is obviously good. I have never had an issue with deploy from off the board armies in any edition as I feel it is thematic. It requires the players to be aware of what they are doing (Skill). Regardless if GW have had a total hatred of it in past editions.

AAANNNDDD, now we're back to the discussion as to whether a deployed drop pod should have the all the doors up or down or some up and some down, and can you change them about during your turn......

Cheers

Andrew

Probably should wait for FAQ on this. It's really not an issue anyways because to null deploy with droppods youd have an absolutely terrible army. Youd be putting 650 points into worthless immobile vehicles with a single storm bolter. Auto lose basically.

Also while they might be exempt for tactical reserve when it comes to 1st turn deep strike which was the intent of the rule they wrote. I would say it isn't immune to the clarifications regarding how much has to start on the table. Regardless of how it is worded.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Probably should wait for FAQ on this. It's really not an issue anyways because to null deploy with droppods youd have an absolutely terrible army. Youd be putting 650 points into worthless immobile vehicles with a single storm bolter. Auto lose basically.

Also while they might be exempt for tactical reserve when it comes to 1st turn deep strike which was the intent of the rule they wrote. I would say it isn't immune to the clarifications regarding how much has to start on the table. Regardless of how it is worded.

Agreed.

I can already hear the rules team groaning, having to write an FAQ to solve this painfully obvious issue.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It depends on how you parse the Tactical Reserves rule.

While this is true the parsing is quite easily done: all the three paragraphs of Tactical Reserves rules state "in matched play" and as DPs are exempt from the "Tactical Reserves Matched Play rules" they are exempt from all of those three paragraphs.

 Yarium wrote:
I think the Tactical Reserves rule applies to your army, but the Drop Pod (and the unit it carries) deducted from the total. As such, you could null deploy if you army was 100% embarked in Drop Pods. Since the rule is such that any units in the Drop Pod are also exempt from Tactical Reserves rule, an army that is 100% embarked in Drop Pods does not have any part of the Tactical Reserves rule apply to any unit. So you have to have 50% of your 0 points and 0 units start on the battlefield, which is 0. As such, yes, you can null deploy this way.

And to go a step ahead:
If you got one 300pt unit of "classic deep strikers" (e.g. Terminators), one 300pt unit starting on the board (e.g. Devastators) and then 1400pts in any number of units in Drop Pods, you could even deep strike the terminators, because -if you exclude the Drop Pods like the rule is written- you got 50% (the 300pts Devs) on the board and they allow you to deep strike the other 50% (the 300pts Terminators).

 Stux wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Probably should wait for FAQ on this. It's really not an issue anyways because to null deploy with droppods youd have an absolutely terrible army. Youd be putting 650 points into worthless immobile vehicles with a single storm bolter. Auto lose basically.

Also while they might be exempt for tactical reserve when it comes to 1st turn deep strike which was the intent of the rule they wrote. I would say it isn't immune to the clarifications regarding how much has to start on the table. Regardless of how it is worded.

Agreed.

I can already hear the rules team groaning, having to write an FAQ to solve this painfully obvious issue.

I actually suspect havibg read the rule via a leak that it's was intended to be completely exempted from the restrictions on all of the drop pod units, as when you actually dig into the rules you can still autoloose due to boots on the ground, can easily be screened off the entire board. It sounds brokenly powerful untill you actually think through the practical issues of playing a 100% drop pod list, it's basically you need a compliant opponent or your probably loosing.

As to the tactical reserves rules if drop pods and unit within them arn't discounted from those limits they may aswell not have bothered to change the rules as they will still be a could've been good but just arn't worthwhile.

I guess we'll see if there's a day one FAQ (or a week 2 FAQ or something).

It's possible it's intended I'll admit - it has been a thing in previous editions. It just seems to go so strongly against the philosophy of 8e.

I am happy to wait and see though, and the RAW is clear until then.

 Stux wrote:
I guess we'll see if there's a day one FAQ (or a week 2 FAQ or something).

It's possible it's intended I'll admit - it has been a thing in previous editions. It just seems to go so strongly against the philosophy of 8e.

I am happy to wait and see though, and the RAW is clear until then.

The entire second SM codex is "against the philosophy of 8e".

No USRs? Let's introduce codex-level mini-USRs.

No Model, No Rules? Captain gets a Bike, no-one else.

Lowered "Rules Bloat"? Everyone gets three hundred different special rules, half of which aren't on the datasheet anymore.

No more codex supplements/Minidexes? Well... you see how well that worked out.

Id say you completely ignore DPs and their passengers for Tactical Reserves as it's really not that obvious that they didn't mean for this to apply to the full rule.
Its not an issue to have it work like that outside of balance concerns, and balance isn't really how you determine whether or not a rule works as intended.

And balance wise I'd think it's a terrible idea to limit yourself to units in drop pods. You're missing out on anything that's not a classic space marine - terminators, vehicles, primaris, Centurions and so on.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I guess we'll see if there's a day one FAQ (or a week 2 FAQ or something).

It's possible it's intended I'll admit - it has been a thing in previous editions. It just seems to go so strongly against the philosophy of 8e.

I am happy to wait and see though, and the RAW is clear until then.

The entire second SM codex is "against the philosophy of 8e".

No USRs? Let's introduce codex-level mini-USRs.

No Model, No Rules? Captain gets a Bike, no-one else.

Lowered "Rules Bloat"? Everyone gets three hundred different special rules, half of which aren't on the datasheet anymore.

No more codex supplements/Minidexes? Well... you see how well that worked out.

You are right here. I'm quietly hopeful for the FAQ on this one, but I won't be totally surprised if it doesn't come.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

No Model, No Rules? Captain gets a Bike, no-one else.

Khan on a Bike?
That's still for sale at GW though.

Khan on a Bike is in the White Scars Codex Supplement, because he is a White Scars model. And he has no options, because the model has no options.

The errata that went live today suggests this was indeed intentional...

They didn't outright say it, but they made a reference to Sudden Death that implies they are aware of this implication.

 Stux wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Probably should wait for FAQ on this. It's really not an issue anyways because to null deploy with droppods youd have an absolutely terrible army. Youd be putting 650 points into worthless immobile vehicles with a single storm bolter. Auto lose basically.

Also while they might be exempt for tactical reserve when it comes to 1st turn deep strike which was the intent of the rule they wrote. I would say it isn't immune to the clarifications regarding how much has to start on the table. Regardless of how it is worded.

Agreed.

I can already hear the rules team groaning, having to write an FAQ to solve this painfully obvious issue.

To be honest they should expect this by now but there is no question in my mind they don't intend the 50% on the board rule to not apply to drop pods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:
The errata that went live today suggests this was indeed intentional...

They didn't outright say it, but they made a reference to Sudden Death that implies they are aware of this implication.

My god. Worst actual outcome. More light suggesting that total exemption is intended. Nothing worse than rules limbo.

Well, making the drop pods ignore tactical restraint makes sense if they're trying to sell more drop pods. I suspect sales haven't been good for a while for them.

 doctortom wrote:
Well, making the drop pods ignore tactical restraint makes sense if they're trying to sell more drop pods. I suspect sales haven't been good for a while for them.

Yeah...They should probably drop it's points to an acceptable value then.

 doctortom wrote:
Well, making the drop pods ignore tactical restraint makes sense if they're trying to sell more drop pods. I suspect sales haven't been good for a while for them.

It doesn't make sense if they're trying to kill Oldmarines though. The GW conspiracy people must be very confused!

If they didn't intend for drop pods to exempt from the entirety of the tactical reserves rule. Then they would have just said, "this unit can deep strike on turn 1 in matched play."

The only other explanation is that the rules writers don't know their own rules. Which would be crazy talk.

balmong7 wrote:
The only other explanation is that the rules writers don't know their own rules. Which would be crazy talk.

This is Games Workshop, this should be the default assumption.