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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

From Warhammer Community today:

"One of the most hotly anticipated improvements is that Drop Pods will now be universally exempt from the Tactical Reserves rule in matched play. Loyal Space Marines can once again live up to their epithet as the Angels of Death, crashing down from orbit into the heart of the battle, just like they do in the lore. Whatever happens, though, don’t forget about missions that use the rules for Sudden Death – not even Space Marines can win a battle if they’re not actually there!"

There's also downloads of the rule for drop pod saying they're exempt from Tactical Reserves. No limbo at all.

I have to agree. The RAW was clear already, but this makes the intent pretty clear too. Unfortunately.

Sudden Death doesn't exist in CA2018 missions so weeee..

 doctortom wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

From Warhammer Community today:

"One of the most hotly anticipated improvements is that Drop Pods will now be universally exempt from the Tactical Reserves rule in matched play. Loyal Space Marines can once again live up to their epithet as the Angels of Death, crashing down from orbit into the heart of the battle, just like they do in the lore. Whatever happens, though, don’t forget about missions that use the rules for Sudden Death – not even Space Marines can win a battle if they’re not actually there!"

There's also downloads of the rule for drop pod saying they're exempt from Tactical Reserves. No limbo at all.

I guess I am miss understanding then. Because the rule where 50% of your points have to start on the table is not sudden death. Drop pods are not exempt to that and it's not even alluded to. Null deploy implies starting your whole army in drop pods. You cant do that because 50% of your army has to start on the table. Right?

 Xenomancers wrote:
I guess I am miss understanding then. Because the rule where 50% of your points have to start on the table is not sudden death. Drop pods are not exempt to that and it's not even alluded to. Null deploy implies starting your whole army in drop pods. You cant do that because 50% of your army has to start on the table. Right?

It's the Tactical Reserves rule which says half of your army must be set up on the battlefield.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I guess I am miss understanding then. Because the rule where 50% of your points have to start on the table is not sudden death. Drop pods are not exempt to that and it's not even alluded to. Null deploy implies starting your whole army in drop pods. You cant do that because 50% of your army has to start on the table. Right?

It's the Tactical Reserves rule which says half of your army must be set up on the battlefield.

Yeah that is what I though. I see what they are saying.They make mistakes in these articles all the time. RAW yes it means you can null deploy but I am pretty confident that isn't what they mean. No argument about RAW - GW just doesn't know their own rules. The sad part is - at this point they might not even fix it. They might say. "Oh cool! So maybe people will stop complaining about drop pods now."

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I guess I am miss understanding then. Because the rule where 50% of your points have to start on the table is not sudden death. Drop pods are not exempt to that and it's not even alluded to. Null deploy implies starting your whole army in drop pods. You cant do that because 50% of your army has to start on the table. Right?

It's the Tactical Reserves rule which says half of your army must be set up on the battlefield.

And Drop Pods are exempt from that rule, meaning you don't count them for the purposes of that rule.

That means if all units are in Drop Pods, the rules state you must place half of 0 units and half of 0 points on the battlefield (so goes the argument).

Everything points to the rules saying exactly what they were intended to say (i.e., you can place your entire army in reserve at the start of the game if they're in drop pods).

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I guess I am miss understanding then. Because the rule where 50% of your points have to start on the table is not sudden death. Drop pods are not exempt to that and it's not even alluded to. Null deploy implies starting your whole army in drop pods. You cant do that because 50% of your army has to start on the table. Right?

It's the Tactical Reserves rule which says half of your army must be set up on the battlefield.

Yeah that is what I though. I see what they are saying.They make mistakes in these articles all the time. RAW yes it means you can null deploy but I am pretty confident that isn't what they mean. No argument about RAW - GW just doesn't know their own rules. The sad part is - at this point they might not even fix it. They might say. "Oh cool! So maybe people will stop complaining about drop pods now."

From the errata:

Add the following to the Drop Pod Assault ability:
‘Matched Play: This model and any units embarked aboard it are exempt
from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule.’

The article just reinforces what we are told in the rule. Being "pretty confident" that that isn't what them mean seems to be ignoring what they're saying. This is a case of you not accepting what they are saying rather then them just not knowing their own rules. You're not going to get them coming out and admitting directly "the drop pod kits aren't moving any more, so we need to make a rule that makes people want to use drop pods again". What we got is as close as what you're going to get for that. On the contrary, in this case they know their rules fully well and know what special rules they want to add to drop pods to make them desirable again.

 Ghaz wrote:
Everything points to the rules saying exactly what they were intended to say (i.e., you can place your entire army in reserve at the start of the game if they're in drop pods).

Agreed. And anyone who argues against it is missing a couple things:
A) As Xenos pointed out, you give up so many good units that can't go in pods, so your army would be horrible
B) It's a game and someone trying this is obviously just playing for fun, because no one would play this to power game (see A above)

-

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I guess I am miss understanding then. Because the rule where 50% of your points have to start on the table is not sudden death. Drop pods are not exempt to that and it's not even alluded to. Null deploy implies starting your whole army in drop pods. You cant do that because 50% of your army has to start on the table. Right?

It's the Tactical Reserves rule which says half of your army must be set up on the battlefield.

Yeah that is what I though. I see what they are saying.They make mistakes in these articles all the time. RAW yes it means you can null deploy but I am pretty confident that isn't what they mean. No argument about RAW - GW just doesn't know their own rules. The sad part is - at this point they might not even fix it. They might say. "Oh cool! So maybe people will stop complaining about drop pods now."

They have explicitly written the rules to allow it, highlighted that it is worded to allow this, isnt some autowin game breaking ability.
Yet you think you know better.
That it's clealry a mistake and that it's against the rules.
GSC can break the tactical reserves rules
GW specifically call out that you loose if you have 0 models.
A null deploment list sounds terrifying untill you actually think through the practical issues of playing a null deployment list in 8th edition, it's an auto loose.

Ice_can wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I guess I am miss understanding then. Because the rule where 50% of your points have to start on the table is not sudden death. Drop pods are not exempt to that and it's not even alluded to. Null deploy implies starting your whole army in drop pods. You cant do that because 50% of your army has to start on the table. Right?

It's the Tactical Reserves rule which says half of your army must be set up on the battlefield.

Yeah that is what I though. I see what they are saying.They make mistakes in these articles all the time. RAW yes it means you can null deploy but I am pretty confident that isn't what they mean. No argument about RAW - GW just doesn't know their own rules. The sad part is - at this point they might not even fix it. They might say. "Oh cool! So maybe people will stop complaining about drop pods now."

They have explicitly written the rules to allow it, highlighted that it is worded to allow this, isnt some autowin game breaking ability.
Yet you think you know better.
That it's clealry a mistake and that it's against the rules.
GSC can break the tactical reserves rules
GW specifically call out that you loose if you have 0 models.
A null deploment list sounds terrifying untill you actually think through the practical issues of playing a null deployment list in 8th edition, it's an auto loose.

Well it's not really a benefit because the drop pod is crap for 65 points. I guess you could go really all in on it and deep strike more than 1000 points of 2000 points. Cause everything in the pod is exempt. Now they will need to give us clarification as to how to calculate how much you can put in reserves. Do exempt units count towards your total point allotment? I guess they cant because if they did you would still auto lose because you don't have 50% of your army on the table. Right? GSC doesn't really break the rules ether. They deploy in ambush - they are technically on the table just in an undetermined position.

Ice_can wrote:

A null deploment list sounds terrifying untill you actually think through the practical issues of playing a null deployment list in 8th edition, it's an auto loose.

It's not if you can arrive turn 1 though. You don't lose until the end of the first Battle Round.

 Stux wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

A null deploment list sounds terrifying untill you actually think through the practical issues of playing a null deployment list in 8th edition, it's an auto loose.

It's not if you can arrive turn 1 though. You don't lose until the end of the first Battle Round.

And how many armies can if they go first totally zone out an entire table it's actually not as hard as you would think.

Drop pods will be a 1 or 2 per army thing tops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I guess I am miss understanding then. Because the rule where 50% of your points have to start on the table is not sudden death. Drop pods are not exempt to that and it's not even alluded to. Null deploy implies starting your whole army in drop pods. You cant do that because 50% of your army has to start on the table. Right?

It's the Tactical Reserves rule which says half of your army must be set up on the battlefield.

Yeah that is what I though. I see what they are saying.They make mistakes in these articles all the time. RAW yes it means you can null deploy but I am pretty confident that isn't what they mean. No argument about RAW - GW just doesn't know their own rules. The sad part is - at this point they might not even fix it. They might say. "Oh cool! So maybe people will stop complaining about drop pods now."

They have explicitly written the rules to allow it, highlighted that it is worded to allow this, isnt some autowin game breaking ability.
Yet you think you know better.
That it's clealry a mistake and that it's against the rules.
GSC can break the tactical reserves rules
GW specifically call out that you loose if you have 0 models.
A null deploment list sounds terrifying untill you actually think through the practical issues of playing a null deployment list in 8th edition, it's an auto loose.

Well it's not really a benefit because the drop pod is crap for 65 points. I guess you could go really all in on it and deep strike more than 1000 points of 2000 points. Cause everything in the pod is exempt. Now they will need to give us clarification as to how to calculate how much you can put in reserves. Do exempt units count towards your total point allotment? I guess they cant because if they did you would still auto lose because you don't have 50% of your army on the table. Right? GSC doesn't really break the rules ether. They deploy in ambush - they are technically on the table just in an undetermined position.

If they are exempt from the rule why would they be included in any calculation to so with said rule.
If you so desire as BCB said you can deploy 0 points and 0 units of your entire army as 50% of zero outside of a pod is 0 and 0 units.
Your clealry not getting it but you hate on drop pods I can see them actually becoming a meta list unit only 1 maybe 2 but I expect they will be in a few high placing list.

Ice_can wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

A null deploment list sounds terrifying untill you actually think through the practical issues of playing a null deployment list in 8th edition, it's an auto loose.

It's not if you can arrive turn 1 though. You don't lose until the end of the first Battle Round.

And how many armies can if they go first totally zone out an entire table it's actually not as hard as you would think.

Very few, unless they're running an extreme skew list specifically to build for it.

Hilariously the best army at doing this would be Marines doing a null deploy Drop Pod army - and getting first turn

Stux wrote:
It's not if you can arrive turn 1 though. You don't lose until the end of the first Battle Round.

You cannot be tabled in the first battle round.

Page 215 – Sudden Death
If at the end of any turn after the first battle round, one
player has no models on the battlefield, the game ends
immediately and their opponent automatically wins a
crushing victory....

Ice_can wrote:

And how many armies can if they go first totally zone out an entire table it's actually not as hard as you would think.

If you build a list to do that, most armies can. But you dont build a list for T1 area denial, so only a few armies will be able to do that.

Good catch.

Yeah, Space Marines really don't need to worry about losing without deploying unless that list so strong it becomes the meta list to beat.

Ice_can wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

A null deploment list sounds terrifying untill you actually think through the practical issues of playing a null deployment list in 8th edition, it's an auto loose.

It's not if you can arrive turn 1 though. You don't lose until the end of the first Battle Round.

And how many armies can if they go first totally zone out an entire table it's actually not as hard as you would think.

Drop pods will be a 1 or 2 per army thing tops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I guess I am miss understanding then. Because the rule where 50% of your points have to start on the table is not sudden death. Drop pods are not exempt to that and it's not even alluded to. Null deploy implies starting your whole army in drop pods. You cant do that because 50% of your army has to start on the table. Right?

It's the Tactical Reserves rule which says half of your army must be set up on the battlefield.

Yeah that is what I though. I see what they are saying.They make mistakes in these articles all the time. RAW yes it means you can null deploy but I am pretty confident that isn't what they mean. No argument about RAW - GW just doesn't know their own rules. The sad part is - at this point they might not even fix it. They might say. "Oh cool! So maybe people will stop complaining about drop pods now."

They have explicitly written the rules to allow it, highlighted that it is worded to allow this, isnt some autowin game breaking ability.
Yet you think you know better.
That it's clealry a mistake and that it's against the rules.
GSC can break the tactical reserves rules
GW specifically call out that you loose if you have 0 models.
A null deploment list sounds terrifying untill you actually think through the practical issues of playing a null deployment list in 8th edition, it's an auto loose.

Well it's not really a benefit because the drop pod is crap for 65 points. I guess you could go really all in on it and deep strike more than 1000 points of 2000 points. Cause everything in the pod is exempt. Now they will need to give us clarification as to how to calculate how much you can put in reserves. Do exempt units count towards your total point allotment? I guess they cant because if they did you would still auto lose because you don't have 50% of your army on the table. Right? GSC doesn't really break the rules ether. They deploy in ambush - they are technically on the table just in an undetermined position.

If they are exempt from the rule why would they be included in any calculation to so with said rule.
If you so desire as BCB said you can deploy 0 points and 0 units of your entire army as 50% of zero outside of a pod is 0 and 0 units.
Your clealry not getting it but you hate on drop pods I can see them actually becoming a meta list unit only 1 maybe 2 but I expect they will be in a few high placing list.

K lets just sazy you have 650 points in drop pods. Do you take the remaining 1350 points and divid by 2? So can you deep strike 675 points worth of other stuff? with 675 on the table? Or do they count the stuff that is in pods as part of your total army of 2000. They ether count as being part of your army or they don't. If they aren't part of your army you can't null deploy because you have 0 of 2000 on the table - tactical reserves is a rule for your army - not individual units. If they aren't part of your armies point allowance the most you can deep strike is what ever is not in pods up to the difference of total points - drop pods divided by 2. Seems to me you have to have at least 1 unit on the table not in deep strike in order to bring the rest of your army in pods.It is also clear this hasn't be thought out because it is not clarified. Which also leads me to believe it is not intended. Heck...why would they intend this? Null deploy was effing destroyed for tyrranids and they came up with the 50% of points must start on table rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:
Good catch.

Yeah, Space Marines really don't need to worry about losing without deploying unless that list so strong it becomes the meta list to beat.

0 risk of that space marines will have a hard enough time winning games without 65 point taxes for doing what other armies can do for free with m much more threatening units.

Drop your pods by objectives too.

Forces your opponent to pour firepower (or CC it) instead of targeting the rest of your army.

Right?

Also... don't know if this was answered... what about the pod's "doors"? Is it the hull? If so... that's a hella denial area.

 Xenomancers wrote:

K lets just sazy you have 650 points in drop pods. Do you take the remaining 1350 points and divid by 2? So can you deep strike 675 points worth of other stuff? with 675 on the table? Or do they count the stuff that is in pods as part of your total army of 2000. They ether count as being part of your army or they don't. If they aren't part of your army you can't null deploy because you have 0 of 2000 on the table - tactical reserves is a rule for your army - not individual units. If they aren't part of your armies point allowance the most you can deep strike is what ever is not in pods up to the difference of total points - drop pods divided by 2. Seems to me you have to have at least 1 unit on the table not in deep strike in order to bring the rest of your army in pods.It is also clear this hasn't be thought out because it is not clarified. Which also leads me to believe it is not intended. Heck...why would they intend this? Null deploy was effing destroyed for tyrranids and they came up with the 50% of points must start on table rule.

It's simple if you have 1000 points of your 2000 point list in drop pods you need to put 500 points and half of the number of units in that 1000 points not in drop pods on the table.

I really don't get what you think needs clarification this model and all models embarked are exempted from tactical reserves rules.

It couldn't be any more obviously intentional.

Just to really clarify this if every unit in your army is exempted from tactical reserves rules your army is exempted from tactical reserves rules.

Any percentage of 0 and 0 is still 0

It requires clarification. If these units are exempt in pods. They don't even count towards your deep strike allowance. You could deep strike however many points you want in pods and then deep strike 1/2 of your remaining forces as well. Therein lies the problem - they didn't tell us how to do that. Nothing limits this to use in a space marine mono army ether. You really think they intended to overrule the first big change they made to the game with deep strike reserves? The literally just want to allow you to deep strike turn 1 in a pod. It's not even reasonable otherwise. There is nothing to gain ether but breaking the rules.

Also for null deploy. 0% of 100% is not 50%. 0% of 0% is undefined. How can you have no army?

 Xenomancers wrote:
It requires clarification. If these units are exempt in pods. They don't even count towards your deep strike allowance. You could deep strike however many points you want in pods and then deep strike 1/2 of your remaining forces as well. Therein lies the problem - they didn't tell us how to do that. Nothing limits this to use in a space marine mono army ether. You really think they intended to overrule the first big change they made to the game with deep strike reserves? The literally just want to allow you to deep strike turn 1 in a pod. It's not even reasonable otherwise. There is nothing to gain ether but breaking the rules.

Also for null deploy. 0% of 100% is not 50%. 0% of 0% is undefined. How can you have no army?

You're not trying to determine 0% of 0%, you're determining 0% of an arbitrary value (say, 2000), which is always 0. The 100% in your example is simply 2000.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It requires clarification. If these units are exempt in pods. They don't even count towards your deep strike allowance. You could deep strike however many points you want in pods and then deep strike 1/2 of your remaining forces as well. Therein lies the problem - they didn't tell us how to do that. Nothing limits this to use in a space marine mono army ether. You really think they intended to overrule the first big change they made to the game with deep strike reserves? The literally just want to allow you to deep strike turn 1 in a pod. It's not even reasonable otherwise. There is nothing to gain ether but breaking the rules.

Also for null deploy. 0% of 100% is not 50%. 0% of 0% is undefined. How can you have no army?

Again from the Space Marines Errata:

‘Matched Play: This model and any units embarked aboard it are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule.’

The rule is clear. They are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule. No exceptions.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It requires clarification. If these units are exempt in pods. They don't even count towards your deep strike allowance. You could deep strike however many points you want in pods and then deep strike 1/2 of your remaining forces as well. Therein lies the problem - they didn't tell us how to do that. Nothing limits this to use in a space marine mono army ether. You really think they intended to overrule the first big change they made to the game with deep strike reserves? The literally just want to allow you to deep strike turn 1 in a pod. It's not even reasonable otherwise. There is nothing to gain ether but breaking the rules.

Also for null deploy. 0% of 100% is not 50%. 0% of 0% is undefined. How can you have no army?

If your army, for tactical restraint, has 0 points, you need to deploy 0 points on the table. It's really not that hard to do this, it's just that you don't want to accept it.

The proper calculation is 0 divided by 2. Not. That. Hard.

You are assuming that the point for units put into pods are subtracted from your armys total points for tactical restraint. This is an assumption no?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It requires clarification. If these units are exempt in pods. They don't even count towards your deep strike allowance. You could deep strike however many points you want in pods and then deep strike 1/2 of your remaining forces as well. Therein lies the problem - they didn't tell us how to do that. Nothing limits this to use in a space marine mono army ether. You really think they intended to overrule the first big change they made to the game with deep strike reserves? The literally just want to allow you to deep strike turn 1 in a pod. It's not even reasonable otherwise. There is nothing to gain ether but breaking the rules.

Also for null deploy. 0% of 100% is not 50%. 0% of 0% is undefined. How can you have no army?

Again from the Space Marines Errata:

‘Matched Play: This model and any units embarked aboard it are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule.’

The rule is clear. They are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule. No exceptions.

Exempt would impliy restrictions do apply to you. The rest of your army is not exempt and still has to comply with the half points have to start on the table requirement - this would remain true even if you don't have anymore army IMO - you still have a 2000 point army. So you are saying exempt units don't have a point value added to your whole armies total? I am assuming that is what you are assuming. Assuming is not good in a game based on rules.

Easy solution would be to take a single, easy to hide unit that isn't in a Pod and everything else in a Pod. So the Pods are exempt and you just deploy your 1 unit. Now 100% of your non-exempt units have been deployed. Rule satisfied

-

 Xenomancers wrote:
Exempt would impliy restrictions do apply to you. The rest of your army is not exempt and still has to comply with the half points have to start on the table requirement - this would remain true even if you don't have anymore army IMO - you still have a 2000 point army. So you are saying exempt units don't have a point value added to your whole armies total? I am assuming that is what you are assuming. Assuming is not good in a game based on rules.

Again, you're still trying to make the Tactical Reserves rule apply to units that are exempt to the rule.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You are assuming that the point for units put into pods are subtracted from your armys total points for tactical restraint. This is an assumption no?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It requires clarification. If these units are exempt in pods. They don't even count towards your deep strike allowance. You could deep strike however many points you want in pods and then deep strike 1/2 of your remaining forces as well. Therein lies the problem - they didn't tell us how to do that. Nothing limits this to use in a space marine mono army ether. You really think they intended to overrule the first big change they made to the game with deep strike reserves? The literally just want to allow you to deep strike turn 1 in a pod. It's not even reasonable otherwise. There is nothing to gain ether but breaking the rules.

Also for null deploy. 0% of 100% is not 50%. 0% of 0% is undefined. How can you have no army?

Again from the Space Marines Errata:

‘Matched Play: This model and any units embarked aboard it are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule.’

The rule is clear. They are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule. No exceptions.

Exempt would impliy restrictions do apply to you. The rest of your army is not exempt and still has to comply with the half points have to start on the table requirement - this would remain true even if you don't have anymore army IMO - you still have a 2000 point army. So you are saying exempt units don't have a point value added to your whole armies total? I am assuming that is what you are assuming. Assuming is not good in a game based on rules.

I read a rule that says that certain units are exempt from Tactical restrain. So I get to ignore any unit that's exempt.

If I put half my army in pods, the other half is what TR applies to. Since it ignores my exempt units, it'll consider my army to be whatever there is that isn't exempt.

If that's 1000 points and 5 units, you'll have to deploy at least 500 points and 3 units on the table.

If it's 0 points and 0 units, you must deploy half of that. And that's 0 points and 0 units.

Its not "assuming". It's applying the rules.

You're the one that assumes that this can't be correct, and that there has to be a way to prevent null deployment, and now you're grasping at straws to justify that opinion.

Just an FYI for everyone in this thread:

The rule in question is Tactical RESERVES.

Tactical Restraint is the one about capping the amount of CP you can generate.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Exempt would impliy restrictions do apply to you. The rest of your army is not exempt and still has to comply with the half points have to start on the table requirement - this would remain true even if you don't have anymore army IMO - you still have a 2000 point army. So you are saying exempt units don't have a point value added to your whole armies total? I am assuming that is what you are assuming. Assuming is not good in a game based on rules.

Again, you're still trying to make the Tactical Reserves rule apply to units that are exempt to the rule.

No I am not. Tactical reserves is a rule your army must follow. Some units being exempt does not make the rest of your army exempt. What I am saying is. If you are in a 2000 point game and even if all your units you are fielding are exempt you still have 0 points of 2000 on the battle field. No where in this clarification on the community article does it state that the calculation you should use here is "0 points of 0 points" - you still have a 2000 point army so 1000 points must be on the table even if all of those 2000 points are exempt. The tactical reserves rule applies to your army. Not any particular unit. In order to null deploy a clarification of how to calculate exempt units is needed. Anything less is an assumption. Assumption = not valid.

GW can't write rules - that isn't my fault. I think it is pretty clear what they are trying to do here. They are trying to allow you to deep strike turn 1 in a pod and also allow you to deep strike turn 4, 5, or 6.