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.

not sure all these analogies are necessary.

Keep it simple.

Are exempt units still considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes. So they clearly contribute points to your total points. Done. Period.

Argument can be made etherway without a clarification and they are both good arguments. However, I would err on the side of greater than 1000 points reserve deployment should not be allowed as it is the president that has been set in literally every other circumstance. Though I do agree currently that a full drop pod army is RAW legal - just not greater than 1000 points of reinforcements as long as a single non-exempt unit is deployed.

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 ?

Exempt: free from an obligation or liability imposed on others.

If each unit provides a liability of half-a-unit-must-be-deployed under TR, and pods are free of liability from TR, then how are you still applying the liability they otherwise would apply?

 Xenomancers wrote:
not sure all these analogies are necessary.

Keep it simple.

Are exempt units still considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes. So they clearly contribute points to your total points. Done. Period.

Argument can be made etherway without a clarification and they are both good arguments. However, I would err on the side of greater than 1000 points reserve deployment should not be allowed as it is the president that has been set in literally every other circumstance.

The ENTIRE reason the Drop Pods have that rule is to break the precedent.

This is like saying "GW have a precedent of not allowing invulnerable saves to go to 2+, therefore the Shadowfield can't be a 2+ invulnerable save."

Also, the rules don't care about "precedent", the rules are what the rules are.

 Xenomancers wrote:
not sure all these analogies are necessary.

Keep it simple.

Are exempt units still considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes. So they clearly contribute points to your total points. Done. Period.

Are exempt units exempt from being considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes.

Super simple.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
not sure all these analogies are necessary.

Keep it simple.

Are exempt units still considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes. So they clearly contribute points to your total points. Done. Period.

Argument can be made etherway without a clarification and they are both good arguments. However, I would err on the side of greater than 1000 points reserve deployment should not be allowed as it is the president that has been set in literally every other circumstance.

The ENTIRE reason the Drop Pods have that rule is to break the precedent.

This is like saying "GW have a precedent of not allowing invulnerable saves to go to 2+, therefore the Shadowfield can't be a 2+ invulnerable save."

Disagree. The principle reason they have the rule is to break part of the rule. Being able to come in turn 1. Not so you can go above 1000 points of reinforcements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
not sure all these analogies are necessary.

Keep it simple.

Are exempt units still considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes. So they clearly contribute points to your total points. Done. Period.

Are exempt units exempt from being considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes.

Super simple.

They are exempt from the tactical reserve rule. They aren't exempt from being part of your army. Like I said - both are good arguments. Nether has any additional support but our opinions. This really needs clarification.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
not sure all these analogies are necessary.

Keep it simple.

Are exempt units still considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes. So they clearly contribute points to your total points. Done. Period.

Argument can be made etherway without a clarification and they are both good arguments. However, I would err on the side of greater than 1000 points reserve deployment should not be allowed as it is the president that has been set in literally every other circumstance.

The ENTIRE reason the Drop Pods have that rule is to break the precedent.

This is like saying "GW have a precedent of not allowing invulnerable saves to go to 2+, therefore the Shadowfield can't be a 2+ invulnerable save."

Disagree. The principle reason they have the rule is to break part of the rule. Being able to come in turn 1. Not so you can go above 1000 points of reinforcements.

There are three clauses to the rule. There's even an FAQ that they're not exempt to the third clause. What reason do we have to believe the purpose was only to exempt the first clause?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
not sure all these analogies are necessary.

Keep it simple.

Are exempt units still considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes. So they clearly contribute points to your total points. Done. Period.

Argument can be made etherway without a clarification and they are both good arguments. However, I would err on the side of greater than 1000 points reserve deployment should not be allowed as it is the president that has been set in literally every other circumstance.

The ENTIRE reason the Drop Pods have that rule is to break the precedent.

This is like saying "GW have a precedent of not allowing invulnerable saves to go to 2+, therefore the Shadowfield can't be a 2+ invulnerable save."

Disagree. The principle reason they have the rule is to break part of the rule. Being able to come in turn 1. Not so you can go above 1000 points of reinforcements.

Then they should have made the rule say "You can arrive turn 1".

The fact they didn't shows that that is not what they intended. They have even errata'd the rule since release (because of course they have, GW couldn't rules write their way out of a wet paper bag), proving that exempt means exempt, except for the Turn 3 part of the rule.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
not sure all these analogies are necessary.

Keep it simple.

Are exempt units still considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes. So they clearly contribute points to your total points. Done. Period.

Are exempt units exempt from being considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes.

Super simple.

They are exempt from the tactical reserve rule. They aren't exempt from being part of your army.

They *are* exempt from the Tactical Reserve rule. So as far as it's concerned, they're exempt from being part of your army. For any other rule, they are part of your army.

It really is simple. In trying to split hairs, you're just complicating it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
not sure all these analogies are necessary.

Keep it simple.

Are exempt units still considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes. So they clearly contribute points to your total points. Done. Period.

Argument can be made etherway without a clarification and they are both good arguments. However, I would err on the side of greater than 1000 points reserve deployment should not be allowed as it is the president that has been set in literally every other circumstance.

The ENTIRE reason the Drop Pods have that rule is to break the precedent.

This is like saying "GW have a precedent of not allowing invulnerable saves to go to 2+, therefore the Shadowfield can't be a 2+ invulnerable save."

Disagree. The principle reason they have the rule is to break part of the rule. Being able to come in turn 1. Not so you can go above 1000 points of reinforcements.

Then they should have made the rule say "You can arrive turn 1".

The fact they didn't shows that that is not what they intended. They have even errata'd the rule since release (because of course they have, GW couldn't rules write their way out of a wet paper bag), proving that exempt means exempt, except for the Turn 3 part of the rule.

Yeah that makes no sense. Coming in turn 4 after your entire army is obliterate is to good but alpha striking with a whole army is permitted? I call BS. In any case. Nothing about being exempt from TR makes you not part of the army for calculating total army points. Without clarification it is not clear how to handle that situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
not sure all these analogies are necessary.

Keep it simple.

Are exempt units still considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes. So they clearly contribute points to your total points. Done. Period.

Are exempt units exempt from being considered part of your army? The answer is clearly yes.

Super simple.

They are exempt from the tactical reserve rule. They aren't exempt from being part of your army.

They *are* exempt from the Tactical Reserve rule. So as far as it's concerned, they're exempt from being part of your army. For any other rule, they are part of your army.

It really is simple. In trying to split hairs, you're just complicating it.

Maybe you are right but there are other way of interpreting that.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Nothing about being exempt from TR makes you not part of the army for calculating total army points.

What are you using the total army points for?
TR? The "Exempt from TR" means they're exempt.
Other rule? They're not exempt.

Yes, this means your "total army points" aren't the same value as used under different rules.

Without clarification it is not clear how to handle that situation.

Regardless, agree clarification would be ideal.

Ask yourself this instead.

Are non-drop pod/non-drop pod transported units exempt from the TR rule or given permission to change the rule in anyway ?

No, they MUST follow the rule verbatim.

Yes, it seems if you bring your entire army in drop pods you can have more then 50% of your army off the battlefield. No you can not have more then 50% of your army off the battle if you even have a single model that MUST follow the TR rule.

Why do people think that a DP and contained units being exempt from a rule changes the wording of the rule as written for other units that are not exempt?

Other things are not exempt, so they MUST follow the rule verbatim. They don't get some special exception because exempt things are in the army. The fact that they MUST follow the rule doesn't mean things that things that that don't have to follow the rule are not exempt. DPs continue to be exempt. It is the things in your army that are not exempt that are stopping them and you from benefiting from any kind of over 50% off the table benefit.

Just like if I tried to walk into a bar that had a sign that said "no shirts no service" whilst not wearing a shirt, my friend who is exempt from the rule can not walk in with me. He is exempt, but I ruin that for him by not wearing a shirt. I must follow and adhere to the restriction. He can go in alone, or with a group of others who are all weaaring shirts or even with a group of others who are all exempt. But with me, who is not exempt, no dice. He continues to be exempt, but as a group, we have no service.

Bharrings argument is that "exempt" implies the subtraction from the total army points being applied in the TR rule. However it does not give instruction on how to do so.

It could mean you subtract the exempt units points total then take the reaming points and divide by 2 and that is how much you can deep strike. That is a good argument. We have no instruction to do that though.

I can also think of some other crap pot ideas that we are also not instructed to do that could meet this definition too.

I just don't understand how such a giant change in deployment allotment could be permissible without instructions.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Then they should have made the rule say "You can arrive turn 1".

The fact they didn't shows that that is not what they intended. They have even errata'd the rule since release (because of course they have, GW couldn't rules write their way out of a wet paper bag), proving that exempt means exempt, except for the Turn 3 part of the rule.

To take a page from your book BCB

Because GW doesn't always write rules that are efficient.
That doesn't mean the RAW isn't what it is.
and just because they wrote the rule in a confusing way, that allows null deploy if you only play where everything is in a pod, doesn't mean that it isn't what is intended.

If they had just wrote "you can arrive turn 1" then you couldn't have a null deploy with everything coming in pods.
Why are we assuming they didn't intend for the possibility of null deploy pods but nothing else, no other bells and whistles, just null deploy pods and their contents?
It wouldn't be the first time GW wrote confusing rules in order to get across something that could have been explained in a simple way.
Hence, they tell you, when in doubt, follow the RAW.

So a unit that is not exempt, should follow the RAW, unchanged (i.e. not changing the "50%" to anything other then "50%")

 Type40 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Then they should have made the rule say "You can arrive turn 1".

The fact they didn't shows that that is not what they intended. They have even errata'd the rule since release (because of course they have, GW couldn't rules write their way out of a wet paper bag), proving that exempt means exempt, except for the Turn 3 part of the rule.

To take a page from your book BCB

Because GW doesn't always write rules that are efficient.
That doesn't mean the RAW isn't what it is.
and just because they wrote the rule in a confusing way, that allows null deploy if you only play where everything is in a pod, doesn't mean that it isn't what is intended.

If they had just wrote "you can arrive turn 1" then you couldn't have a null deploy with everything coming in pods.
Why are we assuming they didn't intend for the possibility of null deploy pods but nothing else ?

We have no idea what the intent is. In fact if you want to argue intent you can argue the errata shows the intent for allowing null deployment because they didn't change the rule to prevent it.

Remember the whole debacle about whether you could Da Jump turn 1 a while back, and how the rules prevented it, then GW changed the rule to allow it, thus proving the RaW camp correct? Or the issue with using Loot It after bailing out from a destroyed transport, and how you couldn't RaW do so, then GW change the rule to allow it, thus proving the RaW camp correct? Or how using Loot It with Meganobz allowed for 1+ Sv Meganobz that resulted in Meganobz with an effective 2++ because of GW's silly FAQ capping dice to 1, then GW change the rule to allow it, thus proving the RaW camp correct? Remember when the first SM FAQ resulted in a single 6 to hit causing an infinite amount of hits, then GW changed the rule to disallow it, thus proving the RaW camp correct? Remember when you used to be forced to fire Single Use Weapons the first time you fired, then GW changed the rule to disallow it, thus proving the RaW camp correct?

It's almost (almost, mind you), that GW will change rules that are not working as "intended" via errata, or something.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Then they should have made the rule say "You can arrive turn 1".

The fact they didn't shows that that is not what they intended. They have even errata'd the rule since release (because of course they have, GW couldn't rules write their way out of a wet paper bag), proving that exempt means exempt, except for the Turn 3 part of the rule.

To take a page from your book BCB

Because GW doesn't always write rules that are efficient.
That doesn't mean the RAW isn't what it is.
and just because they wrote the rule in a confusing way, that allows null deploy if you only play where everything is in a pod, doesn't mean that it isn't what is intended.

If they had just wrote "you can arrive turn 1" then you couldn't have a null deploy with everything coming in pods.
Why are we assuming they didn't intend for the possibility of null deploy pods but nothing else ?

We have no idea what the intent is. In fact if you want to argue intent you can argue the errata shows the intent for allowing null deployment because they didn't change the rule to prevent it.

Remember the whole debacle about whether you could Da Jump turn 1 a while back, and how the rules prevented it, then GW changed the rule to allow it, thus proving the RaW camp correct? Or the issue with using Loot It after bailing out from a destroyed transport, and how you couldn't RaW do so, then GW change the rule to allow it, thus proving the RaW camp correct? Or how using Loot It with Meganobz allowed for 1+ Meganobz that had an effective 2++ because of GW's silly FAQ capping dice to 1, then GW change the rule to allow it, thus proving the RaW camp correct? Remember when the first SM FAQ resulted in a single 6 to hit causing an infinite amount of hits, and GW changed the rule to disallow it, thus proving the RaW camp correct?

It's almost (almost, mind you), that GW will change rules that are not working as "intended" via errata, or something.

It's just that this time, for some reason, you are not arguing for the RAW camp. You are arguing on the side of "Units that are not exempt should treat this rule as if it says 25%-50% because an exempt unit exists in the army, even though the RAW says 50%"

Hence, I do not know the intent, so I turn to the RAW.

Just strange to see you arguing for a RAI side.

 Type40 wrote:
It's just that this time, for some reason, you are not arguing for the RAW camp. You are arguing on the side of "Units that are not exempt should treat this rule as if it says 25%-50% because an exempt unit exists in the army, even though the RAW says 50%"

Hence, I do not know the intent, so I turn to the RAW.

Just strange to see you arguing for a RAI side.

I am not touching the "1k in pods, 1k out of pods" argument because frankly I feel there simply is not enough information to answer that.

What I am discussing is if you have EVERY unit in drop pods, then you can null deploy.

Analogy: I go to a shop with a 5% sales tax, but food is exempt. I buy $0 of Thunderfire Cannon Citadel Miniatures and $100 of food. How much tax do I pay?

Edit: a lot of this was repetitive, cut it down to key points.


What you're missing is that it *doesn't*. It just exempts the DP from the rule. Which doesn't mean "don't apply rule to DP". It means "Free DP of obligations *OR LIABILITIES*" of the rule. Needing to deploy 1 other unit because you brought 2 Drop Pods would be a liability of the Pods under TR. You are freed of liabilities of the Pods under TR.

Other things are not exempt, so they MUST follow the rule verbatim. They don't get some special exception because exempt things are in the army. The fact that they MUST follow the rule doesn't mean things that things that that don't have to follow the rule are not exempt. DPs continue to be exempt. It is the things in your army that are not exempt that are stopping them and you from benefiting from any kind of over 50% off the table benefit.

I have a rule that says that my Uthwe Guardians get a 6+++ if they're in an Uthwe detatchment with no non-Uthwe units.
I include Asurmen. He is not Uthwe. He has a rule exempting him from the pure-detatchment rule.
My Guardians still get a 6+++. Because my army - with the exception of units that with exceptions - is Uthwe.

You're assuming a rule on a unit only counts when directly acting upon said unit, yet it's non-rule stats (points and count) always count. That might be a useful mental shortcut, but that's not the rules. When my Guardians are shot, Asurmen does not have <Uthwe>, and is part of the same detatchment. I still get a 6+++, even though Asurmen isn't (directly) involved.

Just like if I tried to walk into a bar that had a sign that said "no shirts no service" whilst not wearing a shirt, my friend who is exempt from the rule can not walk in with me. He is exempt, but I ruin that
for him by not wearing a shirt. I must follow and adhere to the restriction. He can go in alone, or with a group of others who are all weaaring shirts or even with a group of others who are all exempt. But with me, who is not exempt, no dice. He continues to be exempt, but as a group, we have no service.

Not even close. It's more like a sign that says "For every shirt-wearer, there must be one non-shirt-wearer inside". Your buddy Paul is exempt from that rule.
If you and Sam walks in with a shirt. Jim walks in without a shirt. Paul is exempt. Paul walks in without a shirt. That's fine.
Alternately, Paul can walk in first. Paul walks in without a shirt. Sam walks in with a shirt. Jim walks in without a shirt. That's fine, too - Paul doesn't count as he's exempt.

Consider this one though: Jim and Paul are both exempt. Jim walks in without a shirt. Paul walks in without a shirt. Can Sam walk in with a shirt? By your argument no - as there's now 2 shirtless people and one shirted person. That seems awfully silly.

The exemption covers the individual, but not as a simple allowance. It excludes the exempt item from consideration. In your example, you're trying to spread an exemption to a group. It'd be like buying $100 of exempt and $100 of non-exempt goods, and claiming you owe no taxes at all. That's not what we're arguing. We're arguing you owe taxes on $100.

It could mean you subtract the exempt units points total then take the reaming points and divide by 2 and that is how much you can deep strike. That is a good argument. We have no instruction to do that though.

That's not an argument. That's an implementation of a condition. The rules tell you to deploy 50% of your "total army points". The rules tell you that certain units are exempt. Thus, the rules tell you not to count the points of certain units. The instructions don't tell you to implement this by subtracting, or implement it by counting up points that aren't exempt - the implementation is up to the user.

They also don't tell you to not exempt the exempt units from the second clause of the TR rule. You're making that instruction up whole cloth.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Super simple.

They are exempt from the tactical reserve rule. They aren't exempt from being part of your army. Like I said - both are good arguments. Nether has any additional support but our opinions. This really needs clarification.

 doctortom wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Super simple.

They are exempt from the tactical reserve rule. They aren't exempt from being part of your army. Like I said - both are good arguments. Nether has any additional support but our opinions. This really needs clarification.

They are exempt from being counted as part of the army for purposes of a calculation for something in the tactical reserves rule. If you aren't treating them as exempt, then you're not following the drop pod rule which states they are exempt. You only get to count 50% of the non-exempt part of the army.

But yes, given the debate here this obviously needs clarification.

Agree clarification in a FAQ would be good. It's like the Merge Request dictum of "If you're asked, it was too confusing - change it".

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
It's just that this time, for some reason, you are not arguing for the RAW camp. You are arguing on the side of "Units that are not exempt should treat this rule as if it says 25%-50% because an exempt unit exists in the army, even though the RAW says 50%"

Hence, I do not know the intent, so I turn to the RAW.

Just strange to see you arguing for a RAI side.

I am not touching the "1k in pods, 1k out of pods" argument because frankly I feel there simply is not enough information to answer that.

What I am discussing is if you have EVERY unit in drop pods, then you can null deploy.

Analogy: I go to a shop with a 5% sales tax, but food is exempt. I buy $0 of Thunderfire Cannon Citadel Miniatures and $100 of food. How much tax do I pay?

Ah, in that case we agree.

If it is directly or indirectly affecting rest of the army it's not really being exempt from the rule.

(old rule) You must deploy 50% of your army as normal in order to put 50% of army, embarked in drop pods, in reserves.
(new rule) You must deploy 50% of your army is as normal, because 50% of your army, embarked in drop pods, are placed in reserves.

The only thing different is that drop pods can arrive in turn 1, because it is exempt from TR rule.

Which means the whole 'exemption' is moot because all it really does is allow turn 1 DS.

 skchsan wrote:
If it is directly or indirectly affecting rest of the army it's not really being exempt from the rule.

(old rule) You must deploy 50% of your army as normal in order to put 50% of army, embarked in drop pods, in reserves.
(new rule) You must deploy 50% of your army is as normal, because 50% of your army, embarked in drop pods, are placed in reserves.

The only thing different is that drop pods can arrive in turn 1, because it is exempt from TR rule.

Which means the whole 'exemption' is moot because all it really does is allow turn 1 DS.

Incorrect. The rule states that they're exempt from the tactical reserves rule, it doesn't say that they're exempt only from the portion of the rule prohibiting turn 1 DS.

 doctortom wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
If it is directly or indirectly affecting rest of the army it's not really being exempt from the rule.

(old rule) You must deploy 50% of your army as normal in order to put 50% of army, embarked in drop pods, in reserves.
(new rule) You must deploy 50% of your army is as normal, because 50% of your army, embarked in drop pods, are placed in reserves.

The only thing different is that drop pods can arrive in turn 1, because it is exempt from TR rule.

Which means the whole 'exemption' is moot because all it really does is allow turn 1 DS.

Incorrect. The rule states that they're exempt from the tactical reserves rule, it doesn't say that they're exempt only from the portion of the rule prohibiting turn 1 DS.

Right. The end result of drop pods being exempt from the rule is that it can ignore the 50/50 deployed/reserved threshold as outlined in TR rule, in addition to being allowed to come in turn 1.

If it indeed counted towards no of units/points in reserve, there's no point of the rule being worded the way it is. It may have as well have read 'this unit and units embarked in it can ds turn 1'.

no because this allows for a null deploy if your units are all drop pods or being transported within them.

If it said "this unit and units embarked in it can DS turn 1" then it would not allow for this.

It is worded correctly and you can not ignore the 50/50 deployed/reserve threshold if any non-DP or non-DP contained units are included in your deployment.

As those non-DP and non-DP contained units must follow the restriction that they are not exempt from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If every unit you deploy is exempt from the rule then the restriction does not rise.

But as soon as one unit with the restriction is deployed then you must follow it.

 Type40 wrote:


But as soon as one unit with the restriction is deployed then you must follow it.

Yes, however when following it you ignore the Drop Pods for the purposes of the rules, and therefore they are not included and calculating what 50% of your army is for the purposes of that rule.

 Stux wrote:

 Type40 wrote:


But as soon as one unit with the restriction is deployed then you must follow it.

Yes, however when following it you ignore the Drop Pods for the purposes of the rules, and therefore they are not included and calculating what 50% of your army is for the purposes of that rule.

So are you saying that my Terminiators are somehow effected by a Drop Pod being exempt from the TR rule ?

My terminators still require 50% of the army to be deployed on the battlefield ?

My drop pod does not require 50% of the army to be deployed on the battlefield, ignoring the TR rule doesn't magically make my drop pod not a part of my army or not something that has been deployed off the battlefield. Being exempt from the TR rule ONLY means my drop pod and contained units do not have to follow a restriction that says 50% of my army is not on the battlefield. Ignoring that rule doesn't change the status of my drop pod being on or off the battlefield for any other unit that does not ignore the TR rule. On or off the battlefield status is not a rule dictated by the TR rule so it is not something that the DP can be exempt from if it is exempt from TR.

Unless you mean the RAW of TR for my terminators going into a teleport chamber changes somehow because a completely different unit is exempt from the rule ? I am pretty sure the terminators still have to adhere to "50% of my army must be deployed on the battlefield" and nothing about the TR rule or being exempt from it makes a drop pod not a part of my army or lets it ignore the status of being on/off the battlefield.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The drop pod is exempt,
Everything else is not.

The rule doesn't change for everything else.
To echo my earlier example.

If I go to a bar that says "no shirts no service"
I try to walk in with my friend, we are both not wearing shirts. He is exempt from the rule. I am not. We are not allowed to enter. He can go in alone, or with people who are following the restriction he can even go in if his entire group is exempt from the rule. But I am not exempt, so if he tries to go in with me, no dice. It doesn't mean he is not exempt, just as a group we can not enter, because I am not exempt.

Terminators must follow the rule. They are not DPs. Your army must follow the restriction, because the termies have to adhere to a 50/50 restriction and nothing about being exempt from the TR rule causes a DP to not be in your army or have ignore an on/off battlefield status.

Can you quote where, in the Tactical Reserve rule, it tells you to apply it when deploying your Terminators?

It does not. It applies "while" deploying your *army*.

Once again, your shirt analogy is off. It's basically the scenario where you try to use the Pod rule to DS your Termies T1. Which isn't what we are talking about.

The analogous "shirt" rule is a bar with the rule that, while in operation, at least half the people inside must have a shirt on. Jim is shirtless and exempt and is allowed in. 0 of 0 relevant people have no shirt on, so you're fine. Bob is shirtless and exempt, so is allowed in. Still fine. Now you try to walk in with a shirt on. By your argument, you're not allowed In? That's not what happens.

The other massive flaw is the rule states a condition that must be true. You are arguing that the rule adds a logic step on deployment of each model. Reread the rule. It does nothing of the sort.

- Pick your army
- Set Drop Pods and the units in them to one side in your head - They don’t count for the 50/50 on/off table.
- Everything else must adhere to the 50/50 units/points
- So if you have 500pts of Pods/units in Pods, and 1500pts / 10 units not Pod-y, you have to have at least 750pts / 5 units on the board.

That’s how it’s done.

Bharring wrote:
Can you quote where, in the Tactical Reserve rule, it tells you to apply it when deploying your Terminators?

It does not. It applies "while" deploying your *army*.

Once again, your shirt analogy is off. It's basically the scenario where you try to use the Pod rule to DS your Termies T1. Which isn't what we are talking about.

The analogous "shirt" rule is a bar with the rule that, while in operation, at least half the people inside must have a shirt on. Jim is shirtless and exempt and is allowed in. 0 of 0 relevant people have no shirt on, so you're fine. Bob is shirtless and exempt, so is allowed in. Still fine. Now you try to walk in with a shirt on. By your argument, you're not allowed In? That's not what happens.

The other massive flaw is the rule states a condition that must be true. You are arguing that the rule adds a logic step on deployment of each model. Reread the rule. It does nothing of the sort.

Are you claiming terminators are not a part of your army now ?

When setting up your army during deployment

If you have terminators in your army,,, they are included in the TR rules. Emphasis, the words "YOUR ARMY."

When I deploy my army,, i.e. my terminators ,,, I must follow the following rules .... i.e. 50/50 rule.

This isn't walking into the bar one at a time. This is walking in as a group. You gain entrance as a group or you don't gain entrance.
Each person walking in one at a time implies "when deploying your army" refers to each time you place a model on the table instead of the ENTIRE deployment phase.

. Now you try to walk in with a shirt on.

You are telling me that you should ignore the requirement,,, so no, what you are saying is I should be able to walk in with no-shirt on and no exemption.

Either your entire deployment is legal, or it is not. Either your entire group can enter the bar, or it can not.
The rule doesn't say "each time you deploy a model you must check for 50/50" it says "during your deployment", as in the entire thing.

is everyone who is trying to enter the bar together allowed to enter ? YES/NO . simple. Sure, if the game allowed you to you could choose not to deploy your termies. Just like I could wait outside. But the entire group does not get entrance as a group.

Even if we did walk in one at a time. You have an entire list that needs to be deployed. So imagine you had a guest list you HAD to fulfill. Out of the 10 people on the list 3 are exempt from needing to wear a shirt. They go in no problem. Now a fourth member refuses to put a shirt on, they are not exempt. Can you fulfil your guest list ? No you have failed your guest list is impossible to fulfill. So either you make a guest list comprised of 10 people who are exempt, 10 people who are willing to follow the restriction or are exempt, or simply 10 people who are exempt, otherwise, you can't fulfil the guest list.

To mirror this in 40k, you either bring only drop pods (every one on the guest list is exempt and can come with no shirt), you bring some DPs and some other units and thus the DPs are exempt and exclude you from needing the 50/50 requirement but because you have included units that do not ignore the restriction you must adhere to the 50/50 requirement (get a mix of people who are willing to follow the restriction and ones that are exempt) or you don't bring any DPs.

Not having the rule doesn't change the fact that other things DO have the rule. "during your deployment" you must abide by ALL restrictions imposed by any model you have chosen to bring. Anything other then a DP has a restriction of 50/50.

Either you are claiming DPs are no longer part of your army (which is not something they are exempt from being as that is not a rule covered in TR) or you are saying that a DP being exempt from TR magically changes how the rule reads for other models that are not exempt ?

DP can either be on/off the table
DP is part of your army
DP ignores a restriction of 50% of army must be on the table
Termies can either be on/off the table
Termies are part of your army
Termies DO NOT ignore a restriction of 50% of your army must be on the table.

In order to use a Terminator then, you must have 50% of your army on the table.
That is it, they arn't exempt, you MUST follow the rule. A DP is on or off the table and a DP is part of your army. That status doesn't disappear because they are exempt to a restriction.

You have gained the restriction of 50% NOT FROM THE DROP POD, the drop pod is exempt ! you gain the restriction because of the termies ! do you really not get this ? the rules are written , "50% of the army must be on the table". The termies bring that rule with them.

let me write it in a different way.
DP rules restrictions that are given to you during deployment = none (they are exempt)
Termie rules restrictions that are given to you during deployment = 50% of your army must be on the table.

Being exempt does not change the rule for any other model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
- Pick your army
- Set Drop Pods and the units in them to one side in your head - They don’t count for the 50/50 on/off table.
- Everything else must adhere to the 50/50 units/points
- So if you have 500pts of Pods/units in Pods, and 1500pts / 10 units not Pod-y, you have to have at least 750pts / 5 units on the board.

That’s how it’s done.

How do you come to this conclusion ?

How does DPs being exempt from a "you must have 50% of your units on the battlefield" restriction mean that my Termies RAW is changed to "you must have <50% of your units on the battlefield"
What part of being exempt from the above restriction makes it so a DP is not considered part of your army or on/off the battlefield ? The TR rule does not cover whether or not something is part of your army or on/off the battlefield.
My Termies must follow the rule in its entirety, they are not exempt. If i include a termie in my army I must now adhere to "50% of my unitys must be on the battlefield". even if the drop pods were exempt from the rule. Why would my DPs change the rule being given to me by my termies ? DPs are exempt from the rule

Restriction given to player = "50% of the army must be on the battlefield"
DPs = "ignore that restriction, they are exempt"
Non-DPs = "50% of the army must be on the battlefield"
how can the DPs ability to be exempt from the rule change the percent the non-DPs bring with them ?

inclusion of a non-dp is also an inclusion of the restriction.