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.
So with the new drop pod rule ignoring the reinforcement rules can you now start the game with virtually everything in reserves so long as you still have a single model on the table?
you do not even need a single model on the table.
As long as every model in reserves is a drop pod.
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Actually the earlier discussion was inconclusive in reaching a concensuss on the matter. Certainly I still believe that RAW null deployment is not allowed.
Cornishman wrote: Actually the earlier discussion was inconclusive in reaching a concensuss on the matter. Certainly I still believe that RAW null deployment is not allowed.
on what grounds ?
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
There is no doubt. Drop pods and their embarked units are exempt from the tactical reserves rule, it doesnt exist for them. You can null deploy and have your entire army in drop pods, and arrive as reinforcements turn 1.
Matched Play: This model and any units embarked aboard it are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule, except that if it and any units embarked aboard it have not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round, they count as having been destroyed.
Exactly, the FAQ did happen and it clarified only that they can't come in past turn 3. other then that the entire Tactical reserves rule is ignored... hence turn one drops and no need to have 50 % on the table.
On that note, if your playing a mission with boots on the ground, make sure there is something on the field by the end of BR 2.
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Type40 wrote: Exactly, the FAQ did happen and it clarified only that they can't come in past turn 3. other then that the entire Tactical reserves rule is ignored... hence turn one drops and no need to have 50 % on the table.
On that note, if your playing a mission with boots on the ground, make sure there is something on the field by the end of BR 2.
The only thing the FAQ changed with respect to the previous discussions was needing to come on by turn 3 or be destroyed.
The errata about turn 3 is actually consistent with both interpretations.
Null deployment possible - see it is except from Tactical Reeves other than the part about turn 3 therefor it supports null deploymentt
Null Deployment not possible - The first paragraph doesn't levy the restrictions directly on the units, it's a requirement that must be meet by the army as a whole. The FAQ doesn't need to errata this not to apply as it doesn't apply to start with.
Everything else concerning the two possible interpretations remains the same, and thus inconclusive.
Type40 wrote: Exactly, the FAQ did happen and it clarified only that they can't come in past turn 3. other then that the entire Tactical reserves rule is ignored... hence turn one drops and no need to have 50 % on the table.
On that note, if your playing a mission with boots on the ground, make sure there is something on the field by the end of BR 2.
The only thing the FAQ changed with respect to the previous discussions was needing to come on by turn 3 or be destroyed.
The errata about turn 3 is actually consistent with both interpretations.
Null deployment possible - see it is except from Tactical Reeves other than the part about turn 3 therefor it supports null deploymentt
Null Deployment not possible - The first paragraph doesn't levy the restrictions directly on the units, it's a requirement that must be meet by the army as a whole. The FAQ doesn't need to errata this not to apply as it doesn't apply to start with.
Everything else concerning the two possible interpretations remains the same, and thus inconclusive.
‘This model and any units embarked aboard it are
exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule
If your interpretation was correct, it would also not levy the restrictions about turn one deployment,,, because they must be meat by the army as a whole lol. Meaning the inclusion of the rule, at all, means nothing and doesn't affect the game what so ever.
The syntax on the restrictions are the same, so either we acknowledge the unit is completely exempt, or we decide that the drop pod rule means nothing because the TR rule affects the army as a whole.
Though to some extent you are correct. This is why the stipulation that all units in reserve must all be drop pods. Models that are not drop pods would still need to count the drop pods as part of the 50%. But if every model in reserve is exempt from the rule, then you can have null deployment... i.e. null deployment drop pods have been in the game since 3rd, it doesn't surprise me that this is the intent.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/29 13:10:56
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
This is why the stipulation that all units in reserve must all be drop pods. Models that are not drop pods would still need to count the drop pods as part of the 50%.
If that were true, then the drop pods would not be exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule...
So the drop pods can not count as part of the 50%, if you are counting them, then they are not exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule.
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
So this did not get an FAQ? Safe to say GW doesn't even understand the problem? I say go for it. Want to play 1500 points vs 2000 - youll lose - but could be fun.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
This is why the stipulation that all units in reserve must all be drop pods. Models that are not drop pods would still need to count the drop pods as part of the 50%.
If that were true, then the drop pods would not be exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule...
So the drop pods can not count as part of the 50%, if you are counting them, then they are not exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule.
Tactical reserves says
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, and the
combined points value of all the units you set up on the battlefield during deployment must be at least
half your army's total point value
So yes, drop pods need not adhere to this,
but any unit that does have to follow this rule does have to follow the restriction and does not ignore drop pods as part of what's on the battlefield and whats not on the battlefield.
i.e.
I am playing 2000 pts. I have already placed 1000 pts of drop pods on the battlefield,,, I go to deploy my next drop pod and I check if there is any restrictions,,, nope no restrictions,,, so I deploy the drop pod.
Alternatively
I have already deployed 1000 pts of drop pods on the battlefield. I am preparing to deploy my terminators in a teleport chamber. I can not do this, as the terminators MUST follows the TR restriction. 50% of my army is not set up on the battlefield so I do not have permission to set up the terminators in a teleport chamber when checking the restriction at the end of deployment.
This has nothing to do with the drop pods being exempt or not. It has to do with the wording on the restriction given to everything else. Is 50 % on the battlefield at the end of my deployment, if yes , all is good for models that follow tactical reserves, if 50% is not on the battlefield, it is illegal to set up the terminators,,, it is not illegal to set up drop pods. Drop pods are exempt from following the restriction, they are not exempt from being counted as or not being counted as a model set up on the battlefield.
unlike the GSC exception which says
Matched Play: In matched play, units set up in ambush using
this rule count as being set up on the battlefield for the purposes
of Tactical Reserves.
If drop pods also had that exception, you would be right. But they do not.
Null deployment is only allowed if everything set up as reinforcements are drop pods. Otherwise, any non-drop pod set up in reserves will not be following the restriction outlined in TR because they MUST check to see whether or not 50% of the army is on the battlefield.
They do not "count as being set up on the battlefield" they just don't care whether or not 50% is on the battlefield themselves. They don't remove that restrictions from others.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2019/10/29 14:04:28
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Type40 wrote: you do not even need a single model on the table. As long as every model in reserves is a drop pod.
thats op as hell
You're not serious, are you? That's very far from OP. In order to do this, you'd have to build your entire list to be able to fit into Pods, which is a limited set of units (no Primaris at all, Devs, Sternguard, Tacticals basically) and you'd have to pay for all those pods (which is theoretically 1/3 of your army point for models that do nearly nothing once dropped)
Could you build a decent list around this? Sure, but you're joking if you think it would be OP It's a gimmick list, but after the "shock and aww" of it, it will get it's butt handed to it quickly as it will be fighting at a handicap from then on
-
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/29 14:34:31
Bohême Jonathan wrote: Basically, you simply don't count the drop pods and their content.
So if your 2.000 pts army have a grand total of 18 units, including 4 drop pods and the 4 units embarked in them, for a subtotal of 800pts, then you'll follows Tactical Reserve as if you only had a 1.200 points army made of 10 units.
Warhammer 40,000 wrote: Hi Robert - as we play it in the Community office, we agree with Bohême. This may be worth feeding back as a question to the FAQ and rules team at 40kFAQ@gwplc.com so they can look into clarifying this specifically on a future FAQ for us all.
So when they say that they're exempt from the Tactical Reserve rule, then they're exempt from the whole rule unless noted otherwise (i.e., the requirement to be on the battlefield at the end of the third battle round).
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
Bohême Jonathan wrote: Basically, you simply don't count the drop pods and their content.
So if your 2.000 pts army have a grand total of 18 units, including 4 drop pods and the 4 units embarked in them, for a subtotal of 800pts, then you'll follows Tactical Reserve as if you only had a 1.200 points army made of 10 units.
Warhammer 40,000 wrote: Hi Robert - as we play it in the Community office, we agree with Bohême. This may be worth feeding back as a question to the FAQ and rules team at 40kFAQ@gwplc.com so they can look into clarifying this specifically on a future FAQ for us all.
So when they say that they're exempt from the Tactical Reserve rule, then they're exempt from the whole rule unless noted otherwise (i.e., the requirement to be on the battlefield at the end of the third battle round).
Well, if that's how they play it. But it's definitely not RAW.
My examples do make them exempt from the WHOLE rule. again, the rule has nothing to do with what is and is not on the battlefield. It doesn't care whether or not something is exempt from the rule. The rule simply says "at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined points value of all the units you set up on the battlefield during deployment must be at least half your army's total point value."
So for a unit that is not exempt from the rule, they simply check how many points are or are not on the battlefield. TR says literally nothing about being considered to be on or off the battlefield.
Exempt from the WHOLE rule. Sure. but that doesn't mean my terminators are exempt from any part of the rule. Is the drop pod a model that can be on or off the battlefield. Yes, definitely. Does the TR rule say anything about what counts as being on or off the battlefield. Nope does not. How does being exempt from a rule that has nothing to do with "on/off battlefield" status magically make it not count towards the number of models / points of your army that is not on the battlefield ? It doesn't have to check the restriction, sure, but that doesn't magically remove it from being counted towards how many models are on the battlefield, it doesn't magically make it not a part of the total points included in your list.
Being exempt from TR doesn't give it special permission to be exempt from anything other then specifically following the rules of TR . i.e. it doesn't have to check how much is on the battlefield, everything else does. TR isn't a rule that defines what is or is not on the battlefield, it is only a rule that checks to see what is or is not on the battlefield, so how can a drop pod be considered to be exempt from the "on/off battlefield" status just because it is exempt from a rule that says to check for that status?
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/10/29 14:45:47
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Yep. You're still trying to make the 'Tactical Reserves' rule apply to a unit that is exempt from the rule.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
Ghaz wrote: Yep. You're still trying to make the 'Tactical Reserves' rule apply to a unit that is exempt from the rule.
How ?
please point out how I am doing that ?
In my explanation, TR rule doesn't apply to the drop pod.
It applies to everything else.
again, TR says
at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the
combined points value of all the units you set up on the battlefield during deployment must be at least
half your army's total point value
The drop pod ignores this.
Other unit has to follow this restriction
at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the
combined points value of all the units you set up on the battlefield during deployment must be at least
half your army's total point value
So other units can not ignore this.
Again, the drop pod being exempt from the rule does not change whether or not it is considered to be on the battlefield for everything that does follow the rule.
Just because my Terminators HAVE to follow this rule, does not make my drop pod magically not exempt from the rule. It just means the terminators are not exempt from it.
What part of the terminators being restricted means the drop pod is not exempt ?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/10/29 15:06:23
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
The only way it works is with a null deploy. If you have a single unit deployed on the table you must also deploy 50% of your "ARMY" not 50% of your army that isn't exempt from tactical reserves. The only reason Null deploy works is questionable anyways because it is an absurd fraction - a bizarre anomaly of mathematics. 0/0=1 1 = 100%.
I think what a lot of your aren't realizing here is that units are part of your "army" even if they are exempt from tactical reserves.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/29 15:07:16
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Xenomancers wrote: The only way it works is with a null deploy. If you have a single unit deployed on the table you must also deploy 50% of your "ARMY" not 50% of your army that isn't exempt from tactical reserves. The only reason Null deploy works is questionable anyways because it is an absurd fraction - a bizarre anomaly of mathematics. 0/0=1 1 = 100%.
I think what a lot of your aren't realizing here is that units are part of your "army" even if they are exempt from tactical reserves.
Exactly this.
The TR rule (which everything but a DP must follow) checks the % of your army units/pts on the table. That is it. Nothing about being exempt from needing to do that makes the DP not a part of the % of your army which is or isn't on the table because nothing about the TR rule defines what is or isn't on the table. This means that if you want to legally deploy your terminators, 50% of the army needs to be on the table, including DPs. Even though the DPs are exempt and you can legally deploy them without needing to check that restriction. The termies are not exempt and do check the % of units/pts on the table, including the DPS, because what part of being exempt from checking how much is on the table makes you exempt from being considered to be on the table ? termies following the defined restrictions of TR does not mean the DPs are not exempt,,, they continue to be exempt, even though the termies are not and must follow that rule.
Not sure what the math formula is @Xenomancers XD.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2019/10/29 15:23:08
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
English isn't precise enough, at least in this situation:
Exempt: "free from an obligation or liability imposed on others."
Free from Obligation: You are free of the obligation to set these specific units up on the table in regards to Tactical Restraint.
This reading could mean that if you have 1500 Pods/contents and 500 non-Pods/contents, you are obligated to set up 1000 points up on the table. But that 1500 points of pods/contents can't be obligated. So the pods/contents aren't obligated to be set up on the table, but the other points could still be obligated.
Free from liability: You are free of the liability of the pods/contents. So, again with 15000 points of Pods/contents and 500 otherwise, you're obligated to set up 250 points.
And that's just two variants. "Exempt" has too many readings, some of which contradict. So this question cannot be answered authoritatively RAW (unless/until WOG, which would be an FAQ).
Xenomancers wrote: The only way it works is with a null deploy. If you have a single unit deployed on the table you must also deploy 50% of your "ARMY" not 50% of your army that isn't exempt from tactical reserves. The only reason Null deploy works is questionable anyways because it is an absurd fraction - a bizarre anomaly of mathematics. 0/0=1 1 = 100%.
I think what a lot of your aren't realizing here is that units are part of your "army" even if they are exempt from tactical reserves.
Exactly this.
The TR rule (which everything but a DP must follow) checks the % of your army units/pts on the table. That is it. Nothing about being exempt from needing to do that makes the DP not a part of the % of your army which is or isn't on the table because nothing about the TR rule defines what is or isn't on the table. This means that if you want to legally deploy your terminators, 50% of the army needs to be on the table, including DPs. Even though the DPs are exempt and you can legally deploy them without needing to check that restriction. The termies are not exempt and the termies following the defined restriction does not mean the DPs are not exempt,,, they continue to be exempt, even though the termies are not.
Not sure what the math formula is @Xenomancers XD.
The % of your army units/pts on the table is a liability. One reading of 'exempt' is a freedom from liability. As such, it's an entirely reasonable reading for the 'exempt' to impact that rule.
Pretend there's a rule that 50% of lunches must be collected as tax. Someone takes 50% of everyone's food at lunch as a tax. If you're exempt from tax, he takes 50% of everyone else's lunch - but can't take 50% of yours. So the tax collected is less than 50% of *all* exempted-included lunches, but is still 50% of all exempted-excluded lunches. That's how exemptions frequently work.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/29 15:26:39
Bharring wrote: English isn't precise enough, at least in this situation:
Exempt: "free from an obligation or liability imposed on others."
Free from Obligation: You are free of the obligation to set these specific units up on the table in regards to Tactical Restraint.
This reading could mean that if you have 1500 Pods/contents and 500 non-Pods/contents, you are obligated to set up 1000 points up on the table. But that 1500 points of pods/contents can't be obligated. So the pods/contents aren't obligated to be set up on the table, but the other points could still be obligated.
Free from liability: You are free of the liability of the pods/contents. So, again with 15000 points of Pods/contents and 500 otherwise, you're obligated to set up 250 points.
And that's just two variants. "Exempt" has too many readings, some of which contradict. So this question cannot be answered authoritatively RAW (unless/until WOG, which would be an FAQ).
No
once again TR says
at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the
combined points value of all the units you set up on the battlefield during deployment must be at least
half your army's total point value
This means being exempt for this rule would be
Drop pods do not nead to abide by the following : at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the
combined points value of all the units you set up on the battlefield during deployment must be at least
half your army's total point value
The English language is clear on this. If you are exempt from a rule, you are exempt from that EXACT rule. It doesn't mean you are exempt from everything related to that rule in every minute way.
If I had a rule "every person gets 1 cookie"
and then "john is exempt from this cookie rule"
John can have 0 - infinite cookies.
It doesn't mean john isn't considered to be a person.
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Xenomancers wrote: The only way it works is with a null deploy. If you have a single unit deployed on the table you must also deploy 50% of your "ARMY" not 50% of your army that isn't exempt from tactical reserves. The only reason Null deploy works is questionable anyways because it is an absurd fraction - a bizarre anomaly of mathematics. 0/0=1 1 = 100%.
0/0 is not an absurd fraction. It's nonsesnse. It doesn't parse. The closest concept is "0 of 0", which is not the same thing.
"0 of 0" would be 100% for questions like "How many of the things don't fit $condition". But 0% for things like "How many of the things fit $condition".
Beyond that, it's just looking for trouble. "0 of 0" has no percentage value, but "50% of 0" is 0. So, if you had 0 counted items (everything were exempt), you'd have 50% of your army deployed. (And 100%. And 0%. And 200%.)
I think what a lot of your aren't realizing here is that units are part of your "army" even if they are exempt from tactical reserves.
Typically, exempting something from a rule modifies the entire body that rule applies to. So, if something is exempt from a rule of "At least 50% of $army must $condition", they aren't counted in $army for the purpose of that rule. So if you have 1500 points of pods/contents and 500 other points, the "army" the rule refers to is 2000 - 1500, or the 500 non pods/contents points. With that reading, you're required to set up 250 of those points.
It's an entirely reasonable - and the most frequently used - reading of "exempt".
All that said, it's no the only valid/reasonable reading.
The % of your army units/pts on the table is a liability. One reading of 'exempt' is a freedom from liability. As such, it's an entirely reasonable reading for the 'exempt' to impact that rule.
Pretend there's a rule that 50% of lunches must be collected as tax. Someone takes 50% of everyone's food at lunch as a tax. If you're exempt from tax, he takes 50% of everyone else's lunch - but can't take 50% of yours. So the tax collected is less than 50% of *all* exempted-included lunches, but is still 50% of all exempted-excluded lunches. That's how exemptions frequently work.
You are ignoring the precise language used for this rule.
Because of the precise language your example is as follows.
"in order to eat lunch at least half the total number of lunches brought to school must be taxed by John"
"this does not apply to lunches brought to school by people named Alex"
If everyone at school is named Alex, they may all eat lunch with no restrictions.
Now if Terry comes to school with his lunch. It is no longer possible for terry to eat lunch unless half the total amount of lunches are taxed by john. Even though Alex may eat his lunch without being taxed. Terry can not, because he does not meet the restriction.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/29 15:53:27
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Type40 wrote: I have already deployed 1000 pts of drop pods on the battlefield. I am preparing to deploy my terminators in a teleport chamber. I can not do this, as the terminators MUST follows the TR restriction. 50% of my army is not set up on the battlefield so I do not have permission to set up the terminators in a teleport chamber when checking the restriction at the end of deployment.
what this is saying in different angle?
Bharring wrote: Typically, exempting something from a rule modifies the entire body that rule applies to. So, if something is exempt from a rule of "At least 50% of $army must $condition", they aren't counted in $army for the purpose of that rule. So if you have 1500 points of pods/contents and 500 other points, the "army" the rule refers to is 2000 - 1500, or the 500 non pods/contents points. With that reading, you're required to set up 250 of those points.
Say, if 2k pt army has 20 units comprised of: -5x drop pod + 5x drop pod contents (1,000 pts) -5x units with deepstrike (500 pts) -5x units without deepstrike (500 pts)
And, at deployment, the drop pods with contents embarked in it were deployed first, leaving the remaining 1,000 pts of non-drop pod units not yet deployed.
Given that Drop pods and its contents are exempt from the TR rules, the 5x deepstriking units would not be able to be placed in reserves unless the 500 pts of non-deepstriking units were placed on the battlefield.
Is your argument "deployed droppods are no longer exempt from TR rule because it has been placed on the battlefield"?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/29 16:21:04
Xenomancers wrote: The only way it works is with a null deploy. If you have a single unit deployed on the table you must also deploy 50% of your "ARMY" not 50% of your army that isn't exempt from tactical reserves. The only reason Null deploy works is questionable anyways because it is an absurd fraction - a bizarre anomaly of mathematics. 0/0=1 1 = 100%.
0/0 is not an absurd fraction. It's nonsesnse. It doesn't parse. The closest concept is "0 of 0", which is not the same thing.
"0 of 0" would be 100% for questions like "How many of the things don't fit $condition". But 0% for things like "How many of the things fit $condition".
Beyond that, it's just looking for trouble. "0 of 0" has no percentage value, but "50% of 0" is 0. So, if you had 0 counted items (everything were exempt), you'd have 50% of your army deployed. (And 100%. And 0%. And 200%.)
I think what a lot of your aren't realizing here is that units are part of your "army" even if they are exempt from tactical reserves.
Typically, exempting something from a rule modifies the entire body that rule applies to. So, if something is exempt from a rule of "At least 50% of $army must $condition", they aren't counted in $army for the purpose of that rule. So if you have 1500 points of pods/contents and 500 other points, the "army" the rule refers to is 2000 - 1500, or the 500 non pods/contents points. With that reading, you're required to set up 250 of those points.
It's an entirely reasonable - and the most frequently used - reading of "exempt".
All that said, it's no the only valid/reasonable reading.
Again, this is wrong because of the precise wording.
You are right, the drop pods are not counted because they ignore the condition. But again only drop pods. You are missing that $army is a global variable and $condition is a function not a variable [condition()]
$army (the total points and unit construction of your army is defined outside of the rule and something being exempt from this particular rule does not change this value)
Condition() checks the global venerable of $army and if it is met then it is legal.
what is on and off the battlefield is not contained ONLY to this rule and your army total is not contained ONLY to this rule. This numbers don't change just because you are exempt for THIS rule. you are only
your example should look more like this
global $army = X
function TR() {
50% of $army must have condition() return as true.
}
if (deploying a unit that /= drop pod) then {
TR ()
}
its not as simple as you are trying to make it.
As soon as you deploy something that is not a DP you MUST check to see how much is on the battlefield. That variable is not defined by TR rule (or function) and therefor is not changed based on whether or not something is exempt from it.
What is and isn't on the battlefield and what your total army amount is defined elsewhere in the game, being exempt from the TR rule does not change those variables. Because TR does not define those variables.
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Xenomancers wrote: The only way it works is with a null deploy. If you have a single unit deployed on the table you must also deploy 50% of your "ARMY" not 50% of your army that isn't exempt from tactical reserves. The only reason Null deploy works is questionable anyways because it is an absurd fraction - a bizarre anomaly of mathematics. 0/0=1 1 = 100%.
0/0 is not an absurd fraction. It's nonsesnse. It doesn't parse. The closest concept is "0 of 0", which is not the same thing.
"0 of 0" would be 100% for questions like "How many of the things don't fit $condition". But 0% for things like "How many of the things fit $condition".
Beyond that, it's just looking for trouble. "0 of 0" has no percentage value, but "50% of 0" is 0. So, if you had 0 counted items (everything were exempt), you'd have 50% of your army deployed. (And 100%. And 0%. And 200%.)
I think what a lot of your aren't realizing here is that units are part of your "army" even if they are exempt from tactical reserves.
Typically, exempting something from a rule modifies the entire body that rule applies to. So, if something is exempt from a rule of "At least 50% of $army must $condition", they aren't counted in $army for the purpose of that rule. So if you have 1500 points of pods/contents and 500 other points, the "army" the rule refers to is 2000 - 1500, or the 500 non pods/contents points. With that reading, you're required to set up 250 of those points.
It's an entirely reasonable - and the most frequently used - reading of "exempt".
All that said, it's no the only valid/reasonable reading.
There is a lot of reasoning and assuming going on to think that this rule gives you permission to subtract the total points of exempt units from your total army points total. Not saying it's not reasonable but applying the same level of reasoning - we have a rule which it's intent is to explicitly not allow null deploy tactics because they dominated events with such tactics as tyranids. The is literally no reason drop pods should be exempt from the tactical reserves point restrictions. The intent of this rule is clear - they want drop pods to be able to come in turn 1. Null deploy is just some gimmick of wording. RAW I would say Nulldeploy is allowed. But the permission to exceed 1000 points in reserve while still deploying some units on the table is not. Maybe something is lost in translation with the meaning of exempt. IDK about that.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Edit: misinterpreted the person I was quoting, sorry.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/10/29 17:00:50
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Xenomancers wrote: The only way it works is with a null deploy. If you have a single unit deployed on the table you must also deploy 50% of your "ARMY" not 50% of your army that isn't exempt from tactical reserves. The only reason Null deploy works is questionable anyways because it is an absurd fraction - a bizarre anomaly of mathematics. 0/0=1 1 = 100%.
0/0 is not an absurd fraction. It's nonsesnse. It doesn't parse. The closest concept is "0 of 0", which is not the same thing.
"0 of 0" would be 100% for questions like "How many of the things don't fit $condition". But 0% for things like "How many of the things fit $condition".
Beyond that, it's just looking for trouble. "0 of 0" has no percentage value, but "50% of 0" is 0. So, if you had 0 counted items (everything were exempt), you'd have 50% of your army deployed. (And 100%. And 0%. And 200%.)
I think what a lot of your aren't realizing here is that units are part of your "army" even if they are exempt from tactical reserves.
Typically, exempting something from a rule modifies the entire body that rule applies to. So, if something is exempt from a rule of "At least 50% of $army must $condition", they aren't counted in $army for the purpose of that rule. So if you have 1500 points of pods/contents and 500 other points, the "army" the rule refers to is 2000 - 1500, or the 500 non pods/contents points. With that reading, you're required to set up 250 of those points.
It's an entirely reasonable - and the most frequently used - reading of "exempt".
All that said, it's no the only valid/reasonable reading.
Again, this is wrong because of the precise wording.
You are right, the drop pods are not counted because they ignore the condition. But again only drop pods. You are missing that $army is a global variable and $condition is a function not a variable [condition()]
$army (the total points and unit construction of your army is defined outside of the rule and something being exempt from this particular rule does not change this value)
Condition() checks the global venerable of $army and if it is met then it is legal.
what is on and off the battlefield is not contained ONLY to this rule and your army total is not contained ONLY to this rule. This numbers don't change just because you are exempt for THIS rule. you are only
your example should look more like this
global $army = X
function TR() {
50% of $army must have condition() return as true.
}
if (deploying a unit that /= drop pod) then {
TR ()
}
its not as simple as you are trying to make it.
As soon as you deploy something that is not a DP you MUST check to see how much is on the battlefield. That variable is not defined by TR rule (or function) and therefor is not changed based on whether or not something is exempt from it.
What is and isn't on the battlefield and what your total army amount is defined elsewhere in the game, being exempt from the TR rule does not change those variables. Because TR does not define those variables.
Hypothetical Rule: I must pay at least 6% sales tax on the *total* of *all* sales
Exemption: Food is exempt from this tax.
Scenaro: I sell $100 dollars total (pre-tax) of video games, and $100 dollars total (pre-tax) of food.
Result:
The *total* of *all* sales is $200.
The *total* of *all* sales, for the purpose of Sales Tax, is $100.
I pay at least $6 of Sales Tax (it can be more, it can't be less).
I charge an extra $6 to the person buying the video games.
I do not charge $12 to the person buying video games because someone else is going to buy food. The food is exempt.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/29 17:01:16
Some of you guys think way to complicated. Imagine the GW rules team as a bunch of 10 year olds. Which isnt far from the truth when you look how horrible some rules are written, and that they keep making the same mistakes over and over again. When they say a drop pod and its embarked unit(s) are exempt from the TR rule, then it means that the entire TR rule doesnt apply to the pod and embarked unit(s). If they wanted to let drop pods arrive turn 1 they could have written something like : This unit, and any embarked units, can arrive from reinforcements on turn 1, even when using the tactical reserves rule. All other restrictions from tactical reserves would still apply. The way its written now, drop pods and embarked units ignore the entire tactical reserves rule.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/10/29 17:18:43
Xenomancers wrote: The only way it works is with a null deploy. If you have a single unit deployed on the table you must also deploy 50% of your "ARMY" not 50% of your army that isn't exempt from tactical reserves. The only reason Null deploy works is questionable anyways because it is an absurd fraction - a bizarre anomaly of mathematics. 0/0=1 1 = 100%.
0/0 is not an absurd fraction. It's nonsesnse. It doesn't parse. The closest concept is "0 of 0", which is not the same thing.
"0 of 0" would be 100% for questions like "How many of the things don't fit $condition". But 0% for things like "How many of the things fit $condition".
Beyond that, it's just looking for trouble. "0 of 0" has no percentage value, but "50% of 0" is 0. So, if you had 0 counted items (everything were exempt), you'd have 50% of your army deployed. (And 100%. And 0%. And 200%.)
I think what a lot of your aren't realizing here is that units are part of your "army" even if they are exempt from tactical reserves.
Typically, exempting something from a rule modifies the entire body that rule applies to. So, if something is exempt from a rule of "At least 50% of $army must $condition", they aren't counted in $army for the purpose of that rule. So if you have 1500 points of pods/contents and 500 other points, the "army" the rule refers to is 2000 - 1500, or the 500 non pods/contents points. With that reading, you're required to set up 250 of those points.
It's an entirely reasonable - and the most frequently used - reading of "exempt".
All that said, it's no the only valid/reasonable reading.
There is a lot of reasoning and assuming going on to think that this rule gives you permission to subtract the total points of exempt units from your total army points total.
Reading "Exempt" to mean "free from an obligation or liability imposed on others", and applying that as the exempt units being free of liability imposed by the rule? That's "a lot of reasoning and assuming"? That's "A textbook application of the dictionary definition".
Not saying it's not reasonable but applying the same level of reasoning - we have a rule which it's intent is to explicitly not allow null deploy tactics because they dominated events with such tactics as tyranids.
Like how they removed Move And Fire Without Penalty? Slot Shifting? Reactive movement? Hardly conclusive.
The is literally no reason drop pods should be exempt from the tactical reserves point restrictions.
This model and any units embarked aboard it are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule
I'd say a rule that says "$thing are exempt from the Tactical Reserves [rule]" would be reason that $thing should "be exempt from the tactical reserves rule". The points restrictions are part of the rule.
The intent of this rule is clear - they want drop pods to be able to come in turn 1. Null deploy is just some gimmick of wording. RAW I would say Nulldeploy is allowed. But the permission to exceed 1000 points in reserve while still deploying some units on the table is not. Maybe something is lost in translation with the meaning of exempt. IDK about that.
The language is ambiguous at best. There's as much reason to think that they intended to reenable Steel Rain as they intended just to bring back a couple T1 pods. I think I like the latter better, but both are possible technical readings of the same words.
