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.
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.
Exactly. Exempt means Exempt. They ignore the Tactical Reserves rule, that means ALL of the rule.
I am not,
I am exempting it from the line provided in the TR rule and nothing extra. You are claiming it should be exempt from something not directly stated in the TR rule. It is exempt from needing 50% of all models to be on the battlefield in order to be deployed. Sure, it is totally exempt from that. What does that have to do with whether it counts as being or not being on the table ? TR doesn't address whether it is or is not on the table.
Because the 50% stipulation is part of the rule that podded units are exempt from. These arent Schrodinger's Drop Pods.
Yes ! and the DP does ignore that ! Other units do not ignore that. It isn't considered on or off the table because of the TR rule, it is considered to be on/off the table because of other rules and it is not exempt from other rules. Other models MUST follow the rule. The DP gets to ignore that rule all it wants. It doesn't change whether it is or is not on the table, whether it is or is not on the table is NOT stipulated in the TR rule and is not something it is exempt from.
DPs don't get to be exempt from all related rules just the EXACT rules outlined in TR. How can you claim that it applies to how OTHER units must follow the rule. The DP ignores it, other units do not. Nothing in TR dictates an on/off the table status. The DPs do not get to ignore that status, they only get to ignore the line DeathReaper highlighted.
How does ignoring this line make it not count as being off the table ?
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,
It totally ignores this line. It totally doesn't abide by it. Other models must abide by this line and nothing about this line or ignoring it determines whether or not a unit is on/off the table. Nothing about ignoring this line or being exempt from it allows other models to also ignore certain parts of it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/30 13:01:34
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.
I am not,
I am exempting it from the line provided in the TR rule and nothing extra. You are claiming it should be exempt from something not directly stated in the TR rule. It is exempt from needing 50% of all models to be on the battlefield in order to be deployed. Sure, it is totally exempt from that. What does that have to do with whether it counts as being or not being on the table ? TR doesn't address whether it is or is not on the table.
What rule, outside of TR, are you seeing that addresses "whether it's on the table" for some sort of 50% rule?
Because the 50% stipulation is part of the rule that podded units are exempt from. These arent Schrodinger's Drop Pods.
Yes ! and the DP does ignore that ! Other units do not ignore that. It isn't considered on or off the table because of the TR rule, it is considered to be on/off the table because of other rules and it is not exempt from other rules. Other models MUST follow the rule. The DP gets to ignore that rule all it wants. It doesn't change whether it is or is not on the table, whether it is or is not on the table is NOT stipulated in the TR rule and is not something it is exempt from.
DPs don't get to be exempt from all related rules just the EXACT rules outlined in TR. How can you claim that it applies to how OTHER units must follow the rule. The DP ignores it, other units do not. Nothing in TR dictates an on/off the table status. The DPs do not get to ignore that status, they only get to ignore the line DeathReaper highlighted.
How does ignoring this line make it not count as being off the table ?
What rule other than Tactical Reserves, then, requires 50% of units to be on the table?
As for your "exempt from Gym Class", there are two seperate rules:
A) Students must take Gym. At least 50% of all classes a student takes must be Phsical Education.
B) Students must be on school grounds from 9 to 3
If the student is exmpet from (A), not only does he not need to take Gym, but also he doesn't need to meet the 50% Physical Education requirement. These rules don't require him to replace the class (although other rules probably do). And, regardless, he can now take 100% Social Studies classes, as far as Gym rule is concerned.
Except TR rule kicks in during deployment, not list building. Your total army roster, no. of units and points are separate matter.
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,
This stipulates that during the Deployment "phase", the number of units deployed as normal must be greater than or equal to number of units set aside to come in as reinforcement. At this time, only the unit count comes into play as far as TR rule is concerned.
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,
Then, this stipulates that once all the units have been set up, whether deployed as normal or set aside to enter as reinforcement, you tally up all of the points for the units that are deployed as normal and those that were set aside to enter as reinforcements, and check to make sure at least half of that are on the battlefield, deployed as normal.
Drop pods are exempt from all this because of it's rule. It does not count towards [unit deployed as normal] or [unit set aside as reinforcement]. It also does not count towards [part of sum deployed as normal] or [part of sum set aside for reinforcements].
If drop pods set aside as reinforcements still count towards the number of drops or army's total point value, and assuming the drop pods account for 50% of the army's total point value, then no further units can be placed in reserve as 50% of the army's total point value must be deployed as normal.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/10/30 14:16:21
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.
I see the underlined section. It is describing how much of the army must be deployed (both in terms of the number of particular consitient elements, and the points values of those elements).
It is not describing placing an obligation or a requirement on any individual or specifc unit, nor is the total obligation calculated based on applying an obligation specifically on each consistient unit within the army, which is then aggregated up across all units to form the total obligation.
The 1st paragraph isn't targetting the units through either applying a restriction, or producing the obligation based on the properties of the individual units (e.g. points value, whether the unit is exempt from this...). It's targetting the army, based on the size on the properties of the army.
Simply put as written the minimum deployment requirements as based solely and only on the total points value of the army, and the number of units within it. If two armies have 1999pts and 13 units, but are composed of completely different units, with a completely different points breakdown of the consistient units, then the minimum deployment requirements are still the same, and as far as Tactical Reserves is concerned calculated identically. The 1st paragraph doesn't look an individual specific units, only the army totals. Whilst used by Tactical Reserves these measurements of the size of the army (points and no. units) are intrisic properties of the army which are not determined by Tactical Reserves, but are used by tactical reserves.
Thus even if units are exempt, this can be interpretted as having no affect on determining the minimum deployment values as this isn't calculated based levying the requirement based on the properties of the individual units, is based soley on the properties of the army, and targets the army with respect to adhering to those.
Can you see the subtle difference here? This isn't about me being confused about what 'exempt' means, it about that first paragraph targetting the army, not the individual constitient units.
DeathReaper wrote:Do not ignore what the word "exempt" means.
Again I'm not. As I've explained units being exempt from the restrictions and obligations placed upon them from Tactical Reserves does not make the army exempt, nor does it stop them being part of the army.
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.
Exactly. Exempt means Exempt. They ignore the Tactical Reserves rule, that means ALL of the rule.
Any exempt units do not ignore the rule, and critically are not ignored by it, they simpy are not bound by the restrictions placed or levieed upon them by the rule. As I've discussed previously the minimum deployment is not determined by levying an obligation on any specific unit, nor does it determine the total minimum deployment requirement by placing an obligation upon each constieunt unit which is then agregated together across the entire army.
Tactical Reserves states 'Army' the drop pods and any units to be or that are embarked on them must be by the very defination part of the army. Creating an 'effective army size' based upon these elements of the army not exempt is not a step that we are instructed to do, nor is it nessary to do so.
I can see where the such an assumption comes from, I've also been around long enough to have seen all drop pods before. However such an assumption isn't the only reasonable interpretation that can be drawn from the rules as written.
Yes the units from part of the army, but it doesn't automatically mean that they are excluded from the army when determining the deployment requirements.
Whilst the taxable goods has been used as an analogy I see no one has got back to me about how the 'Silly Sales Law' would work. Tax exemption is an interesting analogy as isn't there usually a significant amount of guidance and/or case law surrounding them to clarify any possible amigiouty...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/30 14:25:41
So you guys are saying drop pods are exempt from being considered on/off the table during deployment.
You are saying being exempt from the TR rule means this.
Not sure how that is possible, but if that's how you'd play it, go for it, I just can't see how being exempt from a rule that says you can't deploy more then 50% of your army off the table also means they are exempt from being consider to be in fact off the table.
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.
Whilst the taxable goods has been used as an analogy I see no one has got back to me about how the 'Silly Sales Law' would work.
The "Silly Sales Law" is a good example.
You have a law in three parts.
Someone is exempted to that law.
The question is, which, if any, of the three parts still apply?
The most simple and common reading is "none", as you're exempt. However, it's *possible* that someone is only exempted for the first one or two clauses. The word "exempt" doesn't specify if it applies to *all* clauses, or just some clauses.
Also note that, of the three clauses, GW found the need to clarify that the rule did *not* exempt the user from the third clause.
Clearly, it must exempt the user from at least one of the two remaining clauses. It's suggestive that the user is exempt from both, but English isn't that precise - it's possible they're only exempt from the first or second clause.
I think I'm of the opinion that the intent and ideal direction is to exempt the user from both clauses. And that's what is most in line with general usage, along with being the simplest and most likely meaning. But RAW is not 100% clear.
All that said, I'm having trouble coming up with reasonable cases where "exempt" is commonly used or understood as applying to only parts of the rule it modifies.
Type40 wrote: 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.
Not true. The rule that was quoted stated that drop pods and units embarked in them are exempt from the TR rule. As part of the rule is 50% of your army must be on the battlefield, the embarked units as well as dthe drop pods are exempt from that rule.
Type40 wrote: 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.
Simple, the rule stated that units embarked are exempt from the TR rule, which is setting up the requirement for 50 % of the army to be on the board. The drop pods and unit embarked are exempt from this, meaning they don't count as part of the army for determining the 50%.
Type40 wrote: 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...
Nonsense. Thier rule states they are exempt from the TR rule, which means the entire TR rule, which includes stating that 50% of the army must be on the board. The drop pod rule itself makes them exempt from counting toward the total for having 50% on the board. If they are being included the way you insist, then they aren't exempt and you're not following the rules for drop pods. You must have 50% of the army on the battlefield, but this would be only 50% of the army that's not in drop pods or the drop pods themselves, since those are exempt.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/30 14:37:51
Whilst the taxable goods has been used as an analogy I see no one has got back to me about how the 'Silly Sales Law' would work.
The "Silly Sales Law" is a good example.
You have a law in three parts.
Someone is exempted to that law.
The question is, which, if any, of the three parts still apply?
The most simple and common reading is "none", as you're exempt. However, it's *possible* that someone is only exempted for the first one or two clauses. The word "exempt" doesn't specify if it applies to *all* clauses, or just some clauses.
Also note that, of the three clauses, GW found the need to clarify that the rule did *not* exempt the user from the third clause.
Clearly, it must exempt the user from at least one of the two remaining clauses. It's suggestive that the user is exempt from both, but English isn't that precise - it's possible they're only exempt from the first or second clause.
I think I'm of the opinion that the intent and ideal direction is to exempt the user from both clauses. And that's what is most in line with general usage, along with being the simplest and most likely meaning. But RAW is not 100% clear.
All that said, I'm having trouble coming up with reasonable cases where "exempt" is commonly used or understood as applying to only parts of the rule it modifies.
(slightly tweaked) from my preivous post
Silly Sales Law:
1) Goods may not be sold before 8am Monday
2) Goods may not be sold after 10pm Friday
3) 10% of the total sale value of a transaction is payable as tax
Some goods are exempt from this. Thus they can sold prior to 8am Monday and after 10pm Friday.
How much tax will the shop have to pay if a customer purchases £100 of goods exempt from this law? - Discuss
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/10/30 14:47:35
Type40 wrote: So you guys are saying drop pods are exempt from being considered on/off the table during deployment.
You are saying being exempt from the TR rule means this.
Not sure how that is possible, but if that's how you'd play it, go for it, I just can't see how being exempt from a rule that says you can't deploy more then 50% of your army off the table also means they are exempt from being consider to be in fact off the table.
Because you're misreading the argument.
The pods are clearly off the table. For all rules purposes, in the absence of an exception or exemption, they are off the table.
There exists one rule that cares whether 50% of your army is on/off the table. That's the TR rule. Which they are exempted to. As such, the pod is freed of any liability under the rule. So you take no liability to deploy half it's points.
The fact that the liability is ephemeral, and the pod's points are added to a subtotal used elsewhere, does not mean the points that count against the TR rule are not a liability.
Look at almost any tax form. You record your entire income. Then a bunch of math happens. Then taxes are run against the adjusted number. For any tax purpose, your "total income" is the adjusted number, not the original number. So if I make $500 in a year, and $100 was exempted from Income Tax, my total Income when doing my taxes is $400. My total income for assisted housing or whatever is (likely) still $500 - as that income is specifically exempted from Income Tax, not assisted housing. But any rule about Income Tax that references "total income" is looking at liability against the $400 figure, not the $500 figure.
To take that further, to mirror "deploying other units and checking the rule", lets pretend there's a 50% tax bracket on money over $500 (and 10% under that).
So when running my income tax, I made $500 total with $100 being exempt. That's $400. So I pay the 10% - $40.
Now I make another $100. How much tax do I pay on that? I've made $600 total in real dollars, but only $500 is taxable. So I pay 10% not 50% - I only have to pay $10 on that additional $100.
It doesn't matter that *this* $100 isn't exempt, and I'd previously made $500 - as far as income tax is concerned, I've only previously made $400.
In a related point, all this tax doesn't care *what order* I made the money in. I made $600 now, $100 of which is exempt. I don't really pay tax on each additional dollar I make. There's no order-of-operations or steps that matter. The total is identified, and the rules require I meet a condition. So if that $100 being exempt only mattered for that $100, we're now in an impossible state.
Once again, these are very-long-settled rules. Something anyone who's ever filed taxes has successfully and correctly implemented (even if only through a web app).
"Exempt" doesn't mean "Ignore $target while applying $rule". Or "Ignore $rule while acting on $target". It means "$Target is freed from obligations or liabilites from $rule". It doesn't proscribe a course of actions, it specifies state and conditions (or, rather, the removal thereof).
I think you're getting hung up on treating rules as actions that can be allowed or denied sequentially. Not all rules are. Some - like the second clause of TR - are about permissible/impermissible state. Not actions.
1) Goods may not be sold before 8am Monday
2) Goods may not be sold after 10pm Friday
3) 10% of the total sale value of a transaction is payable as tax
Some goods are exempt from this. Thus they can sold prior to 8am Monday and after 10pm Friday.
How much tax will the shop have to pay if a customer purchases £100 of goods exempt from this law? - Discuss
A nearly perfect proxy for the rule at hand. People considering this thread should consider this question first.
As stated - "Exempt from [Silly Sales Law]" - outside other factors, the most common reading *IMHO* $0 in tax for this law. It's noteworthy that you're still probably paying $6 under the "Reasonable Sales Law", though. (And dollars instead of Pounds because #mytoxicnationalism, F YA!)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/30 14:54:39
You are wrong in a literal sense. Being exempt from tactical reserves rule does not make them exempt from being a model in your army (which is how the 50% part of the rule is described) . It is as I stated on page 1. It requires clarification or you can't do it in a tournament. In a casual game...who cares? Have a discussion - find an opponent who wants to play against a null deploy army with shaky at best rules support and go for it.
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: You are wrong in a literal sense. Being exempt from tactical reserves rule does not make them exempt from being a model in your army (which is how the 50% part of the rule is described) . It is as I stated on page 1. It requires clarification or you can't do it in a tournament. In a casual game...who cares? Have a discussion - find an opponent who wants to play against a null deploy army with shaky at best rules support and go for it.
In either interpretations, null deployment is impossible unless the entire army is in pods.
Under the interpretation where drop pods count towards total army point, once you've put half of your army in pods in reserves, then the remaining 50% cannot be put into reserves.
Under the interpretation where drop pods do not count towards total army point, and half of your army in pod is put in reserves, you must deploy 25% of army as normal, and 25% can be put in reserves.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/30 15:09:33
Galef wrote: So wait, is the crux of this debate that DPs are exempt from TR, but TR does not exempt the DPs from being counted?
That's....an interesting take.
-
YES !!! because the TR rule doesn't say anything about being counted as on / off the table! Nothing exempts them from being considered to be on/off the table. They are ONLY exempt from a restriction about what is on/off the table and not a the status of being on/off the table. They ignore the restriction! that is it ! the restriction is the TR rule, nothing else.
As people keep pointing out DPs are exempt from the ENTIRE rule. They do not care how many things are on the table. You can have what ever amount of DPs you want and they never care if it is above 50%. I agree ! this undeniably true ! they are exempt from the entire rule. Everyone keeps trying to explain that they are exempt and do not have to follow the rule. No doubt, they do not. People have now said that being exempt from the TR rule doesn't mean that they are not on the table. Because factually they are not on the table. Nothing about the TR rule determines whether or not they count as being on the table or not. Nothing about being on or off the table is involved in the TR rule. The TR rule is just a restriction about deploying when certain things are on or off the table. They are exempt from a rule that is specifically concerned with SEEING HOW MANY THINGS ARE ON THE BATTLEFIELD. Being exempt from that rule doesn't mean that you can ignore whether or not they ARE IN FACT ON OR OFF THE BATTLEFIELD.
So, if you have a model that is not exempt from a rule that tells you are restricted from deploying more then 50% off the table then the drop pod is still counted as something that can be on/off the table. The non-exempt unit doesn't get to ignore that line. DPs are not exempt from having a status of on/off the table. That status doesn't go away. All drop pods = yes null deploy they do not care if 50% is on the battlefield. Having even 1 more non-exempt unit as reinforcements, that unit then brings the restriction with it, because it must follow the rule that says 50% must be on the table. This doesn't mean the DPs arn't exempt, it only means that the other unit is not exempt !
My termies in a teleport chamber ARE NOT exempt from 50% of my models needing to be on the table. My drop pods ARE exempt from it. My drop pods will not care how much is on the table, this is all well and good. My termies DO care how much is on and off the table. Nothing about the TR rule or being exempt from it makes the Termies exempt from counting the drop pods. The termies still must adhere to the rule. The termies still must ensure 50% of my units are on the table. The DPs being exempt doesn't magically make my termies exempt from having to count everything that is not on the table. The termies MUST follow the rule. They MUST count what is and isn't on the table. No exceptions, they are NOT exempt. Only the DPs do not need to count what is and isn't on the table. Non-Exempt units are not exempt from the rule. Why do people keep trying to imply that the exemption carries over to rules other models MUST follow !
Type40 wrote: 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.
Not true. The rule that was quoted stated that drop pods and units embarked in them are exempt from the TR rule. As part of the rule is 50% of your army must be on the battlefield, the embarked units as well as dthe drop pods are exempt from that rule.
Type40 wrote: 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.
Simple, the rule stated that units embarked are exempt from the TR rule, which is setting up the requirement for 50 % of the army to be on the board. The drop pods and unit embarked are exempt from this, meaning they don't count as part of the army for determining the 50%.
Type40 wrote: 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...
Nonsense. Thier rule states they are exempt from the TR rule, which means the entire TR rule, which includes stating that 50% of the army must be on the board. The drop pod rule itself makes them exempt from counting toward the total for having 50% on the board. If they are being included the way you insist, then they aren't exempt and you're not following the rules for drop pods. You must have 50% of the army on the battlefield, but this would be only 50% of the army that's not in drop pods or the drop pods themselves, since those are exempt.
YES like I said, DPs are exempt from the restriction. Other models are NOT exempt from the restriction.
This message was edited 12 times. Last update was at 2019/10/30 15:32:16
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.
YES like I said, DPs are exempt from the restriction. Other models are NOT exempt from the restriction.
They are when they're contained in pods, as the pod datasheet explicitly states.
Sure DPs and what ever is in the pod is exempt from the rule. FINE.
My termies still are not exempt from the rule and neither is EVERY other model that is not either within the DP or the DP itself.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/30 15:39:53
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.
Galef wrote: So wait, is the crux of this debate that DPs are exempt from TR, but TR does not exempt the DPs from being counted?
That's....an interesting take.
-
It's not as complicated as it sounds.
A unit you deploy that is not exempt is affected by the tactical reserves rule. The wording of tactical reserves states total points for the 50% calculation of what is on the battlefield. At no point are we instructed how to make this points calculation for "exempt units". It may be simple but there are a few ways you could do this with different outcomes. The lack of an instruction is quite clear they did not intend for exempt to mean exempt from being counted as part of your army's total points. They literally did not understand this was a consequence of such a rule just like they didn't understand people were deep striking 7 tyrants 3 mawlocks....
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/10/30 15:48:51
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
Galef wrote: So wait, is the crux of this debate that DPs are exempt from TR, but TR does not exempt the DPs from being counted?
That's....an interesting take.
-
It's not as complicated as it sounds.
A unit you deploy that is not exempt is effected by the tactical reserves rule. The wording of tactical reserves states total points for the 50% calculation of what is on the battlefield. At no point are we instructed how to make this points calculation for "exempt units".
By extension of this argument, if a drop pod and its contents count towards the total army points, then it should also also count towards the total number of units in the army. Then, if a drop pod contains 10 single model units, then you've put in 11 units in reserves, which means you are now required to deploy 11 units on the battlefield unless every thing in your army is in drop pods, in reserve.
If you deployed 10 units as normal, and then as your last drop, you put the said drop pod (with 10 single model units) into reserves. Now your entire deployment is illegal, despite the drop pod being allowed to ignore the TR rule. So then, it's not actually ignoring or being exempt from the TR rule at all.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/10/30 15:53:24
My termies still are not exempt from the rule and neither is EVERY other model that is not either within the DP or the DP itself.
Ok. And? Seriously, this was never in doubt. Did...you think people were saying that? Because nobody has been saying that.
They are literally saying that. A tactical squad deployed on the table is not exempt and therefore has to follow the rule to be deployed legally. The wording doesn't suddenly change to total army points to total army points - exempt units from tactical reserves.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/30 16:05:10
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
My termies still are not exempt from the rule and neither is EVERY other model that is not either within the DP or the DP itself.
Ok. And? Seriously, this was never in doubt. Did...you think people were saying that? Because nobody has been saying that.
YES people are saying that.
They are saying you can reserve 50% your units of DPs and units within them as well as another 25% of other stuff in reserve as well. Read the posts, this is what people have been trying to argue.
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.
YES people are saying that.
They are saying you can reserve 50% your units of DPs and units within them as well as another 25% of other stuff in reserve as well. Read the posts, this is what people have been trying to argue.
*sigh*
These are two explicitly different statements, and I've only been responding to one. So get off your high horse.
"Units outside pods are subject to Tactical Reserves" and "Units outside pods but in reserve are subject to Tactical reserves, but therefore weird gak happens when you apply Tactical Reserves to non-podded units" are not remotely the same thing.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/30 16:14:30
Galef wrote: So wait, is the crux of this debate that DPs are exempt from TR, but TR does not exempt the DPs from being counted?
That's....an interesting take.
-
It's not as complicated as it sounds.
A unit you deploy that is not exempt is effected by the tactical reserves rule. The wording of tactical reserves states total points for the 50% calculation of what is on the battlefield. At no point are we instructed how to make this points calculation for "exempt units".
By extension of this argument, if a drop pod and its contents count towards the total army points, then it should also also count towards the total number of units in the army. Then, if a drop pod contains 10 single model units, then you've put in 11 units in reserves, which means you are now required to deploy 11 units on the battlefield unless every thing in your army is in drop pods, in reserve.
If you deployed 10 units as normal, and then as your last drop, you put the said drop pod (with 10 single model units) into reserves. Now your entire deployment is illegal, despite the drop pod being allowed to ignore the TR rule. So then, it's not actually ignoring or being exempt from the TR rule at all.
Seems correct yes
Q: The Tactical Reserves matched play rule states that at least
half the total number of units in my army must be set up on the
battlefield during Deployment. If I have units embarked in a
transport, do they count against the number of units I have to set
up during Deployment? If, for example, I have a Valkyrie with
three units embarked inside it that will arrive on the battlefield
during the game, how many other units do I need to set up
during Deployment to satisfy the Tactical Reserves rule?
A: Yes, embarked units count as units in your army, so must
be counted when referring to this rule. If you have three
units embarked inside a transport that will arrive during
the game, you need to set up at least four other units on
WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK 12
the battlefield during Deployment – equivalently, if you set
up three units in a transport on the battlefield, you could
set up four other units to arrive during the game.
Just because the DP and contents IS ignoring the restriction of TR doesn't mean something else in reserves is allowed to.
Your example looks correct.
YES people are saying that.
They are saying you can reserve 50% your units of DPs and units within them as well as another 25% of other stuff in reserve as well. Read the posts, this is what people have been trying to argue.
*sigh*
These are two explicitly different statements, and I've only been responding to one. So get off your high horse.
"Units outside pods are subject to Tactical Reserves" and "Units outside pods but in reserve are subject to Tactical reserves, but therefore weird gak happens when you apply Tactical Reserves to non-podded units" are not remotely the same thing.
Just read the previous posts please.
I responded to those saying you can deploy a mix of DPs and Non-DPs over 50% ... plenty of posts suggesting that.
You asked me if I "seriously thought people were saying that" So I responding by saying "YES people are saying that"
Don't then turn around and go "ooohhhh *sigh* well I am not saying that, stop acting like I am"
I had a reasonable response to your post.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/10/30 16:19:25
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: Just because the DP and contents IS ignoring the restriction of TR doesn't mean something else in reserves is allowed to. Your example looks correct.
Then when is a DP ever being exempt from TR rule other than when null deploying will all units in pods?
If you are making sure there are 50% non-pods being deployed as normal for the said 50% of the army to be of a legal deployment, the only exemption the DP is claiming is turn 1 drop.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/30 16:22:49
Type40 wrote: Just because the DP and contents IS ignoring the restriction of TR doesn't mean something else in reserves is allowed to.
Your example looks correct.
Then when is a DP ever being exempt from TR rule other than when null deploying will all units in pods?
DPs are always exempt from TR rule.
What ever model you have that isn't in a DP must follow the restriction.
So unless you null deploy DPs, you must have 50% on the table.
Again, its not about the DPs being exempt, they are always exempt, its about other units not being exempt.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If I am in a car with 5 people and I am exempt from boarder security but the other people in the car are not exempt from boarder security, my car will still be stopped at the boarder because the others are not exempt. It doesn't mean I am not exempt. But I am with people who are not. So the car must be stopped.
Just because one thing is exempt does not give everything else a free pass. It is exempt and if it was alone it would have a benefit. Unfortunately, the things that are brought with it don't get that benefit. Still doesn't stop it from being exempt, the other things just stop it from gaining any benefit to being exempt, because the other things still trigger the restriction.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/10/30 16:36:03
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: Just because the DP and contents IS ignoring the restriction of TR doesn't mean something else in reserves is allowed to. Your example looks correct.
Then when is a DP ever being exempt from TR rule other than when null deploying will all units in pods?
DPs are always exempt from TR rule.
What ever model you have that isn't in a DP must follow the restriction.
So unless you null deploy DPs, you must have 50% on the table.
Again, its not about the DPs being exempt, they are always exempt, its about other units not being exempt.
Going back to the tax analogy - what you're claiming is like saying: I purchase $100 of non-taxable goods and $100 of taxable goods, at rate of 50% tax. The subtotal is $200. Which makes the total $300 dollars because the $100 from the non-taxable goods are not taxed but the $200 subtotal is subject to 50% tax.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/30 16:42:10
Type40 wrote: Just because the DP and contents IS ignoring the restriction of TR doesn't mean something else in reserves is allowed to.
Your example looks correct.
Then when is a DP ever being exempt from TR rule other than when null deploying will all units in pods?
DPs are always exempt from TR rule.
What ever model you have that isn't in a DP must follow the restriction.
So unless you null deploy DPs, you must have 50% on the table.
Again, its not about the DPs being exempt, they are always exempt, its about other units not being exempt.
Going back to the tax analogy - what you're claiming is like saying:
I purchase $100 of non-taxable goods and $100 of taxable goods, at rate of 50% tax.
The subtotal is $200. Which makes the total $300 dollars because the $100 from the non-taxable goods are not taxed but the $200 subtotal is subject to 50% tax.
This isn't tax law.
This is whether or not being exempt from a specific restriction means others are exempt from a specific restriction.
This is more akin to
If I have a coupon, with my name on it, that can only be used for me, for 200$ off of tattoos. Can my friend use any leftover money to reduce the price of his tattoos ?
The TR rule is simply a restriction. If you are exempt from it, you ignore it completely. You ignore the restriction. The 50% doesn't change for any other unit. Every other unit in the army still needs to follow the rule verbatim. The rule verbatim says 50%. What precedence do you have that says because this unit can ignore a 50% restriction means other units can change the specified 50% they have to follow ? The rule hasn't changed for anything else. It is still 50% . DPs ignore the restriction. Other things do not ignore it, they don't change it, they MUST follow it, verbatim. The DPs ignoring it doesn't make other units have a rule that reads 25% of your army must be on the battlefield... that would be changing the rule for the other units. It still says 50% for them.
Trying to claim that being exempt from a restriction changes how the restriction operates for other units is unprecedented. No other rule in the game does that, if something ignores a restriction, every other model must follow that restriction as is.
Tax law has much more nuance to it then the rules for 40k. Being exempt from a certain tax is not the same as being exempt from an entire rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you had 200$ gift card
The owner of the store is walking around putting a sticker with words onto all sorts of products.
You walk into a store and see product A
the sticker says "if you buy this product you must return 50% of your gift cards value tomorrow"
Product B
Has no sticker as the store owner has exempted it from the stipulation.
you buy 100$ of product A and
you buy 100$ of product B
How can buying product B change product A's rule to only imply 25% ?
Product B specifically says, you must return 50% of the gift cads value tomorrow. Product B, whilst exempt from that rule, has no bearing on product A's rule.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/10/30 17:21:12
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.
1) Goods may not be sold before 8am Monday
2) Goods may not be sold after 10pm Friday
3) 10% of the total sale value of a transaction is payable as tax
Some goods are exempt from this. Thus they can sold prior to 8am Monday and after 10pm Friday.
How much tax will the shop have to pay if a customer purchases £100 of goods exempt from this law? - Discuss
A nearly perfect proxy for the rule at hand. People considering this thread should consider this question first.
As stated - "Exempt from [Silly Sales Law]" - outside other factors, the most common reading *IMHO* $0 in tax for this law. It's noteworthy that you're still probably paying $6 under the "Reasonable Sales Law", though. (And dollars instead of Pounds because #mytoxicnationalism, F YA!)
I would say 10% (so 10 of your local currency). Whilst the goods are exempt from the Silly Sales Law, it is the (value of) transaction that this obligation of levied on, thus the only difference goods being exempt, or not from the this law is when the goods may be sold.
Yes the exempt goods contribute to the value of the transaction but the case as presented is very is very different from the Silly Sales Law levying a tax of 10% on the goods (which exempt goods would certianly be exempt from).
The direct causality between goods, the value of each and every goods purchased, the emergent property of the total value isn’t being disputed. However there is a critical and subtle nuance of between apply the tax on the value of any goods, or on the transaction itself.
The Silly Sales Law doesn’t entirely directly apply to the Goods, nor to the Transaction require to purchase things, parts of it apply to each. The exemption of the goods from the law does not affect the transaction to pay for them as the transaction is not exempt.
Can people see where this side is coming from?
Likewise Tactical Reserves doesn’t in it’s entirety apply directly target units (where a unit being exempt from the rule does affect how the game operates e.g. the allowance (or not) of Turn 1 arrival), that initial paragraph applies to the Army. Thus, the 1st paragraph does not directly apply to units (the rules doesn’t specify which units must be used to meet the requirement, nor does the rule use the properties of the units to determine the requirements) - all the description is in relation to 'the army', yes units are mentioned but as a way of describing the army, not the source of, nor target of the obligation and restriction.
Whilst the army is formed of units and any reserves points a emergent and separate entity to those units, and units being exempt does not prevent the rules applying to the army even if all the constituent elements of that army are exempt. The ‘inheritance’ of the exemption whilst may be intended isn't stipulated.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/30 18:06:45
1) Goods may not be sold before 8am Monday
2) Goods may not be sold after 10pm Friday
3) 10% of the total sale value of a transaction is payable as tax
Some goods are exempt from this. Thus they can sold prior to 8am Monday and after 10pm Friday.
How much tax will the shop have to pay if a customer purchases £100 of goods exempt from this law? - Discuss
A nearly perfect proxy for the rule at hand. People considering this thread should consider this question first.
As stated - "Exempt from [Silly Sales Law]" - outside other factors, the most common reading *IMHO* $0 in tax for this law. It's noteworthy that you're still probably paying $6 under the "Reasonable Sales Law", though. (And dollars instead of Pounds because #mytoxicnationalism, F YA!)
I would say 10% (so 10 of your local currency). Whilst the goods are exempt from the Silly Sales Law, it is the (value of) transaction that this obligation of levied on, thus the only difference goods being exempt, or not from the this law is when the goods may be sold.
Yes the exempt goods contribute to the value of the transaction but the case as presented is very is very different from the Silly Sales Law levying a tax of 10% on the goods (which exempt goods would certianly be exempt from).
The direct causality between goods, the value of each and every goods purchased, the emergent property of the total value isn’t being disputed. However there is a critical and subtle nuance of between apply the tax on the value of any goods, or on the transaction itself.
The Silly Sales Law doesn’t entirely directly apply to the Goods, nor to the Transaction require to purchase things, parts of it apply to each. The exemption of the goods from the law does not affect the transaction to pay for them as the transaction is not exempt.
Can people see where this side is coming from?
There's a world of difference between "Goods are exempt from Silly Sales Law" and "Whilst the goods are exempt from the Silly Sales Law, it is the (value of) transaction that this obligation of levied on, thus the only difference goods being exempt, or not from the this law is when the goods may be sold." You're using some other source to interpret 'exempt' as applying to clauses 1 or 2, while explicitly asserting that being exempt to the rule does not cause exemption to the rule's third clause.
Spoiler:
Likewise Tactical Reserves doesn’t in it’s entirety apply directly target units (where a unit being exempt from the rule does affect how the game operates e.g. the allowance (or not) of Turn 1 arrival), that initial paragraph applies to the Army. Thus, the 1st paragraph does not directly apply to units (the rules doesn’t specify which units must be used to meet the requirement, nor does the rule use the properties of the units to determine the requirements) - all the description is in relation to 'the army', yes units are mentioned but as a way of describing the army, not the source of, nor target of the obligation and restriction.
Likewise, with TR, we have a rule with 3 clauses (although the FAQ explicitly excludes the third clause). One could argue being exempt from TR should mean being exempt from clause #1 of TR but being bound by clause #2, but that's not inherent in the rule.
Whilst the army is formed of units and any reserves points a emergent and separate entity to those units, and units being exempt does not prevent the rules applying to the army even if all the constituent elements of that army are exempt. The ‘inheritance’ of the exemption whilst may be intended isn't stipulated.
My sales tax liability for a purchase is leveraged on the total of the purchase, not the individual units I purchased. Exempted goods are freed of *liability* - even when that liability is applied to an ephemeral concept of which the exempted goods are a part. The 'inheritence', as you call it, isn't stipulated - but neither is the lack of this 'inherentence'. As it's how the term usually functions, it's absence certainly doesn't imply the less-standard use of the term.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/30 18:17:55
Being exempt from a certain tax is not the same as being exempt from an entire rule.
How is it not? Pods are explicitly exempt from the TR rule. What logic makes Pods not exempt from the TR rule?
Again DPs ARE exempt from the rule. Nothing else is !.
Again we arn't talking about something being exempt from a percentage of a rule. We are talking about something being exempt from an ENTRIRE rule along with things that are not exempt from the ENTIRE rule.
again, things that are not exempt must follow the entirety of the rule i.e. 50% of units MUST be on the battlefield. Just because your DPs are exempt does not magically make the rule for your termies change. Your termies must still follow the rule verbatim in its entirety.
again, this example.
If you had 200$ gift card
The owner of the store is walking around putting a sticker with words onto all sorts of products.
Product A
the sticker says "if you buy this product you must return 50% of your gift cards value tomorrow"
Product B
Has no sticker as the store owner has exempted it from the stipulation.
you buy 100$ of product A and
you buy 100$ of product B
How can buying product B change product A's rule somehow to only imply 25% ? Product A still must follow the rule, even though product B does not have that rule. It does not mean product B is not exempt just because product A must follow the rule.
Product B specifically says, you must return 50% of the gift cads value tomorrow. Product B, whilst exempt from that rule, has no bearing on product A's rule.
How do you not understand that being exempt from the restriction has no bearing on how other things must follow the restriction in its entirety ?
If I want to go into a bar that says "no shirts no service"
If I am with my friend and I am not wearing a shirt. They will not let the two of us into the bar together. He, by wearing his shirt, is exempt from the rule. Alone or with other people who are all wearing shirts, is allowed to go into the bar. But with me, who is not wearing a shirt he is no longer allowed. This does not mean he is not exempt from the rule, it just means he is in a group WITH someone who is not exempt.
It's not that complicated. Why are we trying to use TAX law as an example or trying to figure out what % is allowed afterwords. There is a restriction, there are units that do not have to follow the restriction. If they are in a list (aka grouped) with things that do have to follow the restriction, the list as a whole/ the group as a whole is in violation. It does not mean the unit is not exempt just that the other things are.
If I have 10 units with a rule that says
"if this model is in this army your army can not include more then 50% named character units"
and I have 10 units that do not have that rule.
I don't sit down and go,,, well this one unit is exempt from that rule so I can clearly have 15 named characters because 50% of my units do not restrict me from only having 50% named characters. The inclusion of ANY models that do have the restriction must be followed verbatim and in its entirety. This doesn't mean the 10 units the do not have the rule arn't exempt from the rule. It just means the models who do have the rule make it so you MUST follow it verbatim .
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/10/30 18:52:01
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.
