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: 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.
No this is wrong again because of the PRECISE WORDING.
Imagine if you were not allowed to buy anything with sales tax.
Sure if you go to the store and ONLY buy food you do not have to pay sales tax. But if you go to the store and try to get a purchase with BOTH food and electronics you will be denied. The food is exempt, but with the TR rule we are not talking about a TAX we are talking about a precisely worded condition for a BAN. This also doesn't behave like taxes.
The drop pod IS exempt from the rule. The rule says " CHECK IF THERE ARE 50% OF THE UNITS IN YOUR ARMY ARE ON THE TABLE DURING YOUR DEPLOYMENT PHASE" THE DROP POD DOES NOT CHECK FOR THIS EVERYTHING ELSE DOES !
its really not complicated... its not some random TAX its not some random limit, it is a simple rule. CHECK IF THERE ARE 50% of the models on the table. if yes then your breaking the rules.
drop pods DO NOT CHECK THIS. so if you only include drop pods,,, do what ever you want... the second you include something that is not exempt YOU MUST CHECK TO SEE IF 50 % OF THE ARMY IS ON THE BATTLEFIELD. that is the RAW. no exceptions, no weird wording. no tyranids exception.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/29 17:21:19
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.
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
I have a list with 1500 points of Pods, and 500 points of non-Pods (and every 250pts is it's own unit, for simplicity).
I deploy 250 points of non-Pods on the table.
I deploy the other 250 points of non-Pods in reserve.
"the total number of units" in my army is 8. However, 6 of those are "exempt" specifically to the TR rule. So 6 of those are free from liability. So do not count against me. So the total number of units in my army, in respect to this rule, is 2. I have 1 on the table, which is 50%. So I meet both requirements.
Whether a tax or a ban, reading "exempt" as "free from liability" frees us from liability.
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
I have a list with 1500 points of Pods, and 500 points of non-Pods (and every 250pts is it's own unit, for simplicity).
I deploy 250 points of non-Pods on the table.
I deploy the other 250 points of non-Pods in reserve.
"the total number of units" in my army is 8. However, 6 of those are "exempt" specifically to the TR rule. So 6 of those are free from liability. So do not count against me. So the total number of units in my army, in respect to this rule, is 2. I have 1 on the table, which is 50%. So I meet both requirements.
Whether a tax or a ban, reading "exempt" as "free from liability" frees us from liability.
Right. They are exempt as a whole from the calculations for TR.
drop pods DO NOT CHECK THIS. so if you only include drop pods,,, do what ever you want... the second you include something that is not exempt YOU MUST CHECK TO SEE IF 50 % OF THE ARMY IS ON THE BATTLEFIELD. that is the RAW. no exceptions, no weird wording. no tyranids exception.
Exempted doesn't just mean "do not check". It means "do not count". Counting the unit in regards to what you can do is a *liability*.
You're not free to violate a rule just because no active decision deliberately violates it. A rule must be met at all times. So if "Exempt" only meant "Do not apply while deploying, but still count", you'd be unable to use it. Because you would have violated the rule.
drop pods DO NOT CHECK THIS. so if you only include drop pods,,, do what ever you want... the second you include something that is not exempt YOU MUST CHECK TO SEE IF 50 % OF THE ARMY IS ON THE BATTLEFIELD. that is the RAW. no exceptions, no weird wording. no tyranids exception.
Exempted doesn't just mean "do not check". It means "do not count". Counting the unit in regards to what you can do is a *liability*.
You're not free to violate a rule just because no active decision deliberately violates it. A rule must be met at all times. So if "Exempt" only meant "Do not apply while deploying, but still count", you'd be unable to use it. Because you would have violated the rule.
Ok, but when you check you are ignoring the drop pods, so you don't count their point cost in the value of your army. So your army's point cost for the purposes of the rule is 0. 50% of 0 is 0, so you don't need any units on the board.
Again, this is wrong because of the precise wording.
Okay, precise wording.
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.
It doesn't specify a part of the Tactical Reserves matched play rule, they (both the drop pods and units embarked in them) are exempt from the whole rule, which includes counting those units as part of the army for determinining what can can can't be placed in reserves.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/29 17:41:04
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.
So if...
25% (500pts) of your army is drop pods, 25% (500pts) is in the drop pods
25% (500pts) of your army are deepstrikers, 25% (500pts) of your army deploys as normal
Then
"25% (500pts) of your army is drop pods, 25% (500pts) is in the drop pods" means that 50% (1000pts) of your army is now exempt from the Tactical Reserves rule, thanks to the new drop pod rule.
Then you have to deal with the remaining 50% (1000pts)
"25% of your army are deepstrikers, 25% of your army deploys as normal", so now thats 50% (500pts) of your remaining army are deepstrikers, and 50% (500pts) of your army deploys as normal.
That does sound like a reasonable interpretation of the rules, and play-wise makes sense to me. The reality is that anything on the table turn 1 500pts is a known quantity, up to 1000pts might show up turn 1, so it messes up counter deploying, and a couple hundred points of the army is wasted on drop pods. Lots of uncertainty, but your playing against a smaller army. I think its fair.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: No, because summoned units aren't part of your army until they arrive.
From what I have seen described in previous posts. Reinforcements from summons count as being points in deep strike reserve.
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
The Tactical Reserves rules is split into 3 sections
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in ambush, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. 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 (including those that are embarked aboard Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your army’s total points value, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
Furthermore, in matched play games, units that are not placed on the battlefield during deployment in order to arrive on the battle mid-game as reinforcements cannot arrive on the battlefield during the first battle round.
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.
The post-errata Pod Pod Assault rule
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.’
Let’s start by looking at the parts that everyone is in agreement on: Looking at the Tactical Reserves rule in reverse order it is clear that the 3rd section specifically places a restriction on a unit held in reserves ‘Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield’, thus by the initial section of Drop Pod Assault the pod (and embarked) units would be able to turn up on turn 4 or later (as was the case pre-errata), however the 2nd part of Drop Pod Assault ‘except that if it and any units…’ effectively removes the exemption from this point by re-introducing it.
The second part again clearly places a restriction on a unit in reserves ‘in matched play games, units that are not placed’, and without any specific instructions modifying this within the Drop Pod Assault Rule the drop pod and any embarked unit is exempt and can thus arrive on turn 1.
Now looking at the first paragraph which is where there is disagreement: Again units are mentioned, however this is initially done so as a general introduction ‘…during deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums…’. Following this introduction units are used to describe what must be done to adhere to the rules in relation to the amount of the army that must be deployed. Hence it would appear that restriction is levied upon, calculated, and directed at the army as a whole ‘When setting up your army during deployment…’ ‘…must be at least half of your army’s total points value…’ Thus individual (or even all units) being exempt doesn’t change the size of the obligation, nor the target of that obligaton as the units aren't being targeted by the rule.
The size of the army, and the number of units are pretty much fundamental properties of the army and are not determined by Tactical Reserves. If your army totals 1997 pts of which consists of 15 units totalling 1350 points and 647 reinforcements then your army size is 1997pts, and 15 units. It doesn’t matter how many of those points or units are or are not drop pods. Thus, you must deploy at least 8 units totalling 999 points. Drop pods that are selected by the very definition form part of your army and thus contribute the army totals.
An ‘Army’ consists is all the units that have been selected for a force, plus any reserve points for that force. Nothing about Drop Pod Assault tells us to exclude exempt units for the purposes of determining deployment requirements. Whilst this may be what is intended the RAW, or FAQs simply don’t state to do this, and any such exclusion would need to be added to the Errata/FAQ.
Null deployment also raises the question of timing in respect to both determining the minimum deployment requirement, and then checking adherence to it.
Assuming that the basic principles of deployment, and thus drop pod use are same irrespective of mission then the Missions from the main 40k rule book show us that deployment is a sequence of events. Player One selects a single unit, and deploys it (with the option to embark units in it if the unit is a transport) and then the other player similarly chooses a unit to deploy and so on and so forth until all units have been deployed. Thus the only difference would seem to be the whether players alternate in selecting a single unit.
As an instruction to do something the only logical place to determine the deployment requirement is prior to any unit being deployed. Thus, at the time of determining the deployment requirements any and all units which are intended to be embarked can not be embarked, as units can only embark when the transport is deployed. As such any units to be embarked must be included in the calculation to determine the minimum deployment requirements, even if they later embark on a drop pod. It would require an FAQ or Errata to place determining the deployment requirements, and adherence to them to at the end of Deployment. Space Marines have the ability to alter the number of units in the army through combat squadding, thus logically this the number of the units in the army must be finalised prior to determing the minimum number of units. This is consistent with the requirement to make the decision on combat squadding prior to any unit being set up.
So how do you end up with 100% of the army either drop pods, units deployed in drop pods, and everything held in reserve? The argument seems to be either that 1) Drop Pod and any embarked units are excluded from the army when determining the deployment size
As laid out above Drop Pods and the units which are intended to be embarked on are part of the army and thus must form part of an army’s total points values and the number of units in an army. There is nothing in the RAW to indisputably support excluding them from determing the deployment requiremnt, at best this exclusion is assumed on the interpretation that the rule is trying to, but failing to allow null deployment and thus would seem to fall under RAI. This also creates the problem of when the deployment requirements would seem to be calcuated (immediately prior to any units being set up), that the units to be embarked are not yet exempt, and therefor must be included in the totals (even if the drop pods themselves are not). Excluding them completely from determing the requirement and checking adherence to them would place determination of the requirement at the end of deployment which runs contrary to the instruction to do something, hence the only way to get around this is 2) below.
If the deployment requirements was described as ‘Each unit contributes 0.5 to the number of units that must be so deployed, and each unit and any reinforcement points contribute ½ their values to the points value of those units to be deployed. When calculating the number of units and the points values only round after adding up the totals for the army. This check is performed once the army is deployed.’ Then this clearly levies the requirement on each of the continent units of the army, and places determination after units have embarked. Without the later point of checking once the army is deployed then there is the issue of the units to be embarked contributing towards the army total as they are not yet embarked.
2) That as the drop pod and any embarked units are exempt from Tactical Reserves, thus you can not be forced to deploy them onto the table to confirm to the requirements Tactical Reserves. This opens a whole pandora’s box of unintended consequences. If Deployment is to work the same in all games, other than players alternating choosing units then this would allow null deployment so long as at least ½ the army is drop pods or units to be embarked on them, and the remainder can be deployed into reserves by conventional means.
Simply place the units that can go into reserve conventionally into reserve first such that at maximum one half your army in terms of points and/or number of units are in reserve (as the remaining 1/2 is coud still be placed on the board to adhere the to requirements), and then proceed to use the exemption to place the drop pods and now embarked units into reserve too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/29 20:08:21
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
I have a list with 1500 points of Pods, and 500 points of non-Pods (and every 250pts is it's own unit, for simplicity).
I deploy 250 points of non-Pods on the table.
I deploy the other 250 points of non-Pods in reserve.
"the total number of units" in my army is 8. However, 6 of those are "exempt" specifically to the TR rule. So 6 of those are free from liability. So do not count against me. So the total number of units in my army, in respect to this rule, is 2. I have 1 on the table, which is 50%. So I meet both requirements.
Whether a tax or a ban, reading "exempt" as "free from liability" frees us from liability.
This is the correct way to apply the rules.
"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.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: No, because summoned units aren't part of your army until they arrive.
From what I have seen described in previous posts. Reinforcements from summons count as being points in deep strike reserve.
There is no unit associated with summoning until a unit is successfully summoned and is placed on the table. The points set aside for summoning are treated like the unspent points in any other army.
'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
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
I have a list with 1500 points of Pods, and 500 points of non-Pods (and every 250pts is it's own unit, for simplicity).
I deploy 250 points of non-Pods on the table.
I deploy the other 250 points of non-Pods in reserve.
"the total number of units" in my army is 8. However, 6 of those are "exempt" specifically to the TR rule. So 6 of those are free from liability. So do not count against me. So the total number of units in my army, in respect to this rule, is 2. I have 1 on the table, which is 50%. So I meet both requirements.
Whether a tax or a ban, reading "exempt" as "free from liability" frees us from liability.
This is the correct way to apply the rules.
I agree, and to put it another way for those that INSIST the total number HAS to include all units, you could think of it like this:
Those same 8 units, each 250 pts, including 2 non-Pod units could be broken down like this: 3 Pod units & 1 non-Pod unit can be in reserves. Leaving 3 Pod units & 1 non-Pod unit must deploy 50% satisfied. Now the 3 Pod units that had to deploy can go in reserves because they ignore the TR rule
Net result= still only 1 unit had to deploy
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/29 21:10:35
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
I have a list with 1500 points of Pods, and 500 points of non-Pods (and every 250pts is it's own unit, for simplicity).
I deploy 250 points of non-Pods on the table.
I deploy the other 250 points of non-Pods in reserve.
"the total number of units" in my army is 8. However, 6 of those are "exempt" specifically to the TR rule. So 6 of those are free from liability. So do not count against me. So the total number of units in my army, in respect to this rule, is 2. I have 1 on the table, which is 50%. So I meet both requirements.
Whether a tax or a ban, reading "exempt" as "free from liability" frees us from liability.
This is the correct way to apply the rules.
IF this is the case would you be kind enough to address some of the issues I have raised?
Principly it would appear that the minimum deployment requirements are determined prior to units being embarked (as instruction to do something first we must determine what must be done), and thus are determined before any units to be embarcked are excluded from the calculations are you are proposing.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: No, because summoned units aren't part of your army until they arrive.
From what I have seen described in previous posts. Reinforcements from summons count as being points in deep strike reserve.
There is no unit associated with summoning until a unit is successfully summoned and is placed on the table. The points set aside for summoning are treated like the unspent points in any other army.
I would disagree with this. As per pg. 214 Reinforcement points must be recorded on the army rooster, and must come out of the agreed points limits. If there is a 2,000 pt limits and I choose to bring 1,750pts of units and 0 reinforcement points, then my army size is 1750pts, not 2,000.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/29 21:15:28
[...] Thus individual (or even all units) being exempt doesn’t change the size of the obligation, nor the target of that obligaton as the units aren't being targeted by the rule. [...]
That is the core of the disagreement.
Being exempt means to be freed of obligation or liability. Your argument here is that being exempt doesn't free the units of their liability. The argument that "other units don't have the rule" might cover the freedom from obligation meaning of "exempt", but if you're counting those units against a figure that includes the affected units, you've not freed the affected units from their *liability* under the rule.
As such, while everything before it was well formed and logical, this particular claim is disputed.
[...]Nothing about Drop Pod Assault tells us to exclude exempt units for the purposes of determining deployment requirements.
Determining deployment requirements, in this case, is applying Tactical Reserves. "exempt" units are explicitly "exempt" from that rule. Again, we're back to "If I buy $100 of taxable goods and $100 of nontaxable goods, do I pay tax on $200?" Tactical Reserves establishes a liability produced by every unit and point you put in the army. Being exempt to TR means not generating that liability.
It gets hazy because liability is an ephemeral value, not an explicit action.
[...]As an instruction to do something the only logical place to determine the deployment requirement is prior to any unit being deployed.
If you'd refer back to the actual text of the rule, the rule governs state not actions. It does not say "When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game [do $thing]". IT says "When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game [$condition]". It's not telling you steps you must take. It's telling you conditions you must meet.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/29 21:19:51
Yeah, the way I see it, you become exempt when you become exempt.
Meaning if you have 10 units in your army, only 5 must deploy. But if 8 of those units become exempt at any time, whether by being Drop Pods or choosing to embark in them, you "new" total of units that must still abide by TR is altered to 2, thus only 1 must deploy
If everything in your list is a Pod or chooses to embark in Pods, your total becomes 0, thus 0 units must deploy
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
I have a list with 1500 points of Pods, and 500 points of non-Pods (and every 250pts is it's own unit, for simplicity).
I deploy 250 points of non-Pods on the table.
I deploy the other 250 points of non-Pods in reserve.
"the total number of units" in my army is 8. However, 6 of those are "exempt" specifically to the TR rule. So 6 of those are free from liability. So do not count against me. So the total number of units in my army, in respect to this rule, is 2. I have 1 on the table, which is 50%. So I meet both requirements.
Whether a tax or a ban, reading "exempt" as "free from liability" frees us from liability.
This is the correct way to apply the rules.
IF this is the case would you be kind enough to address some of the issues I have raised?
Principly it would appear that the minimum deployment requirements are determined prior to units being embarked (as instruction to do something first we must determine what must be done), and thus are determined before any units to be embarcked are excluded from the calculations are you are proposing.
Gladly: The Drop pods are "exempt".
so you can not count them at all.
"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.
Cornishman wrote: The Tactical Reserves rules is split into 3 sections
[...] Thus individual (or even all units) being exempt doesn’t change the size of the obligation, nor the target of that obligaton as the units aren't being targeted by the rule. [...]
That is the core of the disagreement.
Being exempt means to be freed of obligation or liability. Your argument here is that being exempt doesn't free the units of their liability. The argument that "other units don't have the rule" might cover the freedom from obligation meaning of "exempt", but if you're counting those units against a figure that includes the affected units, you've not freed the affected units from their *liability* under the rule.
As such, while everything before it was well formed and logical, this particular claim is disputed.
As laid out I have freed the units from the liabilties that are imposed on them (e.g. the restriction no turn 1 arrival does not apply), I am then asserting that the deployment liabilities are calculuated and levied upon the army and it's properties, not on any specific individual units within that army.
I would agree that it's not clear. And both cases have had to make some assumptions, and those are different.
I did try to avoid re-openning this entire can of worms with my inital post.
[...]Nothing about Drop Pod Assault tells us to exclude exempt units for the purposes of determining deployment requirements.
Determining deployment requirements, in this case, is applying Tactical Reserves. "exempt" units are explicitly "exempt" from that rule. Again, we're back to "If I buy $100 of taxable goods and $100 of nontaxable goods, do I pay tax on $200?" Tactical Reserves establishes a liability produced by every unit and point you put in the army. Being exempt to TR means not generating that liability.
It gets hazy because liability is an ephemeral value, not an explicit action.
In effect Tactical Reserves could be said to apply a liability on each any every consistient part of an army through that elements contribution to the total size (whether in points or number of units).
Equally Tactical Reserves could be said to place no such liability on any specific unit. For instance in terms of fullfilment there is no requirement to use any specifc or given unit(s) to fulfil the requirement, nor the the requirment calculated on a 'per unit' basis.
Overall I think many a high paid lawyers would have a field day arguing for both cases.
[...]As an instruction to do something the only logical place to determine the deployment requirement is prior to any unit being deployed.
If you'd refer back to the actual text of the rule, the rule governs state not actions. It does not say "When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game [do $thing]". IT says "When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game [$condition]". It's not telling you steps you must take. It's telling you conditions you must meet.
The criteria for adherence still seems to be determined prior setting up any model...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/29 21:43:56
[...]Nothing about Drop Pod Assault tells us to exclude exempt units for the purposes of determining deployment requirements.
Determining deployment requirements, in this case, is applying Tactical Reserves. "exempt" units are explicitly "exempt" from that rule. Again, we're back to "If I buy $100 of taxable goods and $100 of nontaxable goods, do I pay tax on $200?" Tactical Reserves establishes a liability produced by every unit and point you put in the army. Being exempt to TR means not generating that liability.
It gets hazy because liability is an ephemeral value, not an explicit action.
In effect Tactical Reserves could be said to apply a liability on each any every consistient part of an army through that elements contribution to the total size (whether in points or number of units).
Equally Tactical Reserves could be said to place no such liability on any specific unit. For instance in terms of fullfilment there is no requirement to use any specifc or given unit(s) to fulfil the requirement, nor the the requirment calculated on a 'per unit' basis.
Overall I think many a high paid lawyers would have a field day arguing for both cases.
That's why lawyers get paid. Systems are hard. Nontrivial systems are incredibly hard.
That said, a liability is a liability whether you want to call it that or not. Taking a 200 point unit adds a liability to deploy another 100 points and half a unit under Tactical Reserves. Regardless of the intermediate steps (how you count points), the liability is incurred from the unit.
This is why I'm trying to fall back on tax. Discussing liability and exemption is complicated, but people have experience working with it via tax. So it seems simpler in those examples.
[...]As an instruction to do something the only logical place to determine the deployment requirement is prior to any unit being deployed.
If you'd refer back to the actual text of the rule, the rule governs state not actions. It does not say "When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game [do $thing]". IT says "When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game [$condition]". It's not telling you steps you must take. It's telling you conditions you must meet.
The criteria for adherence still seems to be determined prior setting up any model...
No, the criteria for adherence is a condition over a timeframe - specifically, that half your army not be in reserves, and during deployment. It's not targetted at any one specific point in time or action.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To add; thank you for being so even-handed and positive in this discussion. We can disagree, and recognize that the other is "wrong". But we don't need to be incivil or unfriendly about it. Thank you for your attitude.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/29 21:55:08
That said, a liability is a liability whether you want to call it that or not. Taking a 200 point unit adds a liability to deploy another 100 points and half a unit under Tactical Reserves. Regardless of the intermediate steps (how you count points), the liability is incurred from the unit.
This is why I'm trying to fall back on tax. Discussing liability and exemption is complicated, but people have experience working with it via tax. So it seems simpler in those examples
The criteria for adherence still seems to be determined prior setting up any model...
Would the tax analogy be more akin to:
Silly Sales Law:
Goods may not be sold before 8am Monday
Goods may not be sold afer 10pm Friday
A premium equal to 10% total value of all goods purchased is payable per transaction.
Some goods are exempt from this. Thus they can sold prior to 8am Monday and after 10pm Friday.
How much purchsing £100 worth of 'exempt' good will end up costing I think would only be determined in highest courts of the land.
I bet the relevant taxation authority will be adamant that as the premium is levied on the total value of goods purchased, rather than 10% added to the value of each every goods purchased that even if a transaction is purchasing only items that are 'exempt' that they are still entitled to thier 10%.
Hence why I initially said 'Actually the earlier discussion was inconclusive in reaching a concensuss on the matter.'
Until there is a clear FAQ or errata indicating which is correct I doubt the matter can be settled.
Again, this is wrong because of the precise wording.
Okay, precise wording.
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.
It doesn't specify a part of the Tactical Reserves matched play rule, they (both the drop pods and units embarked in them) are exempt from the whole rule, which includes counting those units as part of the army for determinining what can can can't be placed in reserves.
Your right, again they are exempt from the ENTIRE rule. So if I can maybe not be the only one who keeps quoting the actual TR rule, please read what the actual rule says.
The drop pods ignore the rule that says "50% of your army must be on the battlefield" nothing else ignores that rule. The TR rule does not dictate what does and doesn't count as being on the battlefield, we can see this when we read the TR rule and it doesn't mention anything about what does and doesn't count as being on the battlefield. So if something is exempt from this TR rule, how can you argue that it is also exempt from being considered to be off the battlefield... TR has no dictate of what is and isn't on the battlefield, it just isn't written in there. You can't claim to be exempt from something that isn't in the rule you are exempt from.
The rule checks whether or not 50% is on the battlefield... That's it. Having only drop pods means you don't have to check,,, but if you have something that does have to check,,, then you HAVE to check,,, and as I explained, DPs are exempt from the TR rule (the checking for 50% itself) there is nothing that says they are exempt from any rule thay dictates what is and isn't on the battlefield... Those are different rules, unconnected to TR,, that drop pods are not exempt from,, seriously, read the TR rule, it's just not there. Nothing ever says "deployed units are not considered to be on the battlefield" so drop pods are not exempt from that. Just like they aren't exempt from any other regular reinforcement rules.
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.
Cornishman wrote: Until there is a clear FAQ or errata indicating which is correct I doubt the matter can be settled.
Except the matter can be settled if you do not ignore what the word "exempt" means.
"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.
People are claiming drop pods are exempt from a different rule not even mentioned in TR, just read it. Does TR address what gives or does not give the status of being on the battlefield?
It does address checking for what is and isn't on the battlefield, drop pods are exempt from this check, as that is the rule, nothing more nothing less. They are not exempt from what gives it the on/off battlefield status, that's a different rule and not covered in TR.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you went to a school where you manditorialy had to stay on school property between 9 and 3. Then
If I told you that you were exempt from gym class, that doesn't mean you are also exempt from needing to be on school property. You must still follow other rules outside of what you have been exempt from. You don't have to be in gym class, what does that have to do with whether or not you are on school property.
DPs do not need to check to see whether or not 50%of units are on the battlefield. What does that have to do with whether or not they themselves are considered to be on the battlefield?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And for those who don't like that I keep saying they don't have to "check"
I will put it like this :
DPs are exempt from a rule that 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 of your army's total points value
What does being exempt from this have to do with whether or not a unit is considered to be on or off the battlefield ?
This rule has nothing to do with that status. No where in this are DPs exempted from being considered to be off the battlefield. That's status is not a part of the TR rule and DPs are not exempt from regular reinforcement rules. They can only be on the battlefield during deployment, or not on the battlefield during deployment. They are exempt from the rule that cares whether or not things are on the battlefield but they themselves are not exempt from the status of being on or off the battlefield.
So what happens when something comes along that isn't exempt from the TR rule ? the rule doesn't care whether or not the DP is exempt from not being allowed to be deployed if 50% of the army is not on the battlefield, it only cares whether or not the DP has that status of being on/off the battlefield. A different set of parameters dictates this, not the TR rule. It is simple, they are considered to be off the battlefield, because of a completely different set of parameters that they are not exempt from. They are ONLY exempt from the TR rule, NOTHING ELSE.
We can't just pretend DPs are exempt from ALL reinforcement rules and all reinforcement related game states because they are exempt from the TR rule, the TR rule doesn't cover ALL of those things. TR rule only covers what it says it covers, nothing extra. So being exempt from that rule means just that. They don't need to use that rule BUT OTHER MODELS DO. Nothing about the TR rule makes something considered to be on/off the table and therefor the DP is not exempt from what ever IS making it considered to be on/off the table.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/10/29 23:19:44
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.
Cornishman wrote: Until there is a clear FAQ or errata indicating which is correct I doubt the matter can be settled.
Except the matter can be settled if you do not ignore what the word "exempt" means.
As I've explained I'm not ignoring what the word 'exempt' means. I have freed the drop pods and any embarked units from any obligations and restrictions placed upon them from the Tactical Reserves Rule. Hence why I'm not disputing that Drop Pods (and embarked units) can arrive on turn 1 (or pre-errata could arrive on turn 4 or later)
The issue is that that the deployment requirement isn't derived directly against the units.
The process as written appears to be takes the totals points value of your army (so this includes reinforcement points) V, take the number of units in your army N. Halve each of these two numbers (round up), This is the deployment requirement.
It doesn't matter what the specific unit make up of the army is, all the matters is the points value V, and the total number of units N as the army isn't exempt from Tactical Reserves, nor are these properties determined by Tactical Reserves.
The process isn't:
The points cost of any of the N units in the army is C such that the costs of unit n is Cn, and R is the number of reinforcement points.
The minimum deployment requirement in terms of value = (sum between 1 and N of (50% x Cn) ) + (1/2 R), and in terms of number of units = (sum between 1 and N of (50% x1) ). Rounding up any factions after summing.
This would be altered should a unit n be exempt E from the rule. The exemption, or not of the nth units can be expressed as En = 1 if the unit isn't not exempt, and En=0 if it is exempt. This the calculation becomes.
The minimum deployment requirement in terms of value = (sum between 1 and N of (50% x Cn x En) )+ (1/2 R), and in terms of number of units = (sum between 1 and N of (50% x 1 x En) ). Rounding up any factions after summing.
Yes in the first proposal, the points value of the army V is determined by summing the cost of each of the N units in the army, and can be described points along the lines of where the cost of any of the N units in the army is C such that the costs of unit n is Cn, and R is the number of reinforcement points that V = (sum between 1 and N of Cn) + R , and N = (sum between 1 and N of 1). However as these values V and P are not determined by the Tactical Reserves rule it is completely unaffected by the tactical reserves rules and/or exemption from the tactical reserves rule. Just because in practice where units are not exempt you can get the same results through either of the methods doesn't mean that the 2nd method is the one being used.
...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 (including those that are embarked aboard Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your army’s total points value...
'...total number of units in your army...' would appear to be N, thus '...at least half the total number of units in your army..' = N/2
'...half of your army’s total points value...' would appear to by V, thus '...must be at least half of your army’s total points value...' = V/2.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/30 08:14:47
The process as written appears to be takes the totals points value of your army (so this includes reinforcement points) V, take the number of units in your army N. Halve each of these two numbers (round up), This is the deployment requirement.
And the totals points value of your army does not include units that are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule
TACTICAL RESERVES FAQ rules wrote:
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in ambush, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. 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 (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your army’s total points value, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
Furthermore, in matched play games, units that are not placed on the battlefield during deployment in order to arrive on the battle mid-game as reinforcements cannot arrive on the battlefield during the first battle round.
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.
(Emphasis mine)
See the underlined section? well Drop Pods are exempt from that, so they are not counted in the total number of units, or the combined points value of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment.
Stop trying to count units in the total that are exempt from the 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.
The process as written appears to be takes the totals points value of your army (so this includes reinforcement points) V, take the number of units in your army N. Halve each of these two numbers (round up), This is the deployment requirement.
And the totals points value of your army does not include units that are exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule
TACTICAL RESERVES FAQ rules wrote:
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in ambush, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. 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 (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your army’s total points value, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
Furthermore, in matched play games, units that are not placed on the battlefield during deployment in order to arrive on the battle mid-game as reinforcements cannot arrive on the battlefield during the first battle round.
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.
(Emphasis mine)
See the underlined section? well Drop Pods are exempt from that, so they are not counted in the total number of units, or the combined points value of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment.
Stop trying to count units in the total that are exempt from the rule.
Honestly, how is being exempt from not being able to deploy if half 50 % of the army is on the battlefield mean the unit is not included as 50% of the units not on the battlefield ? These are different things. TR says one thing, being considered to be on or off the battlefield is something else. emphasis on what you underlined. Again, its all well and good that a DP can ignore that line when you deploy it . But what bearing does that line have on giving it the status of on and off the battlefield. Yes it is exempt and can ignore the line. Sure. It is not exempt from any rule that qualifies it as being on/off the battlefield. Being on/off the battlefield has nothing to do with TR. DPs ignore that line other things do not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/30 11:53:06
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.
"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.
Honestly, how is being exempt from not being able to deploy if half 50 % of the army is on the battlefield mean the unit is not included as 50% of the units not on the battlefield ? These are different things.
Because the 50% stipulation is part of the rule that podded units are exempt from. These arent Schrodinger's Drop Pods.
