Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So Sam and Bob can enter without you, because they are exempt? But if they try to enter with you, they Can't?
Why would entering with an otherwise-legal entrant suddenly make exempt people not exempt?

Bharring wrote:
So Sam and Bob can enter without you, because they are exempt? But if they try to enter with you, they Can't?
Why would entering with an otherwise-legal entrant suddenly make exempt people not exempt?

They are still exempt, but they DO need to enter as a group. And if people in there group are not exempt and refuse to follow the restriction then the group can not enter. This doesn't mean Sam and Bob aren't exempt. It means someone in their group isn't. Imagine a guest list (I. E. Your army list) you need everyone to be allowed in to complete the guest list. If one person is not allowed in, you have failed. Even though all the exempt people were allowed in.

Just like you DO intend on deploying your entire list don't you? You do understand that your army is a group right? Are you just trolling now or do you think each unit gets its own mini deployment phase? (I. E. Entering the bar individually)

Everyone enters together, or no one enters. You only have one deployment phase, the entire army is placed on the table in this phase, if you bring a model that is not exempt from TR rule then YOU get a restriction of 50/50.

You understand that the restriction of 50/50 is on you and not on the DP. If you bring only DPs you do not get the restriction. If you bring something with out an exemption you DO get the restriction. Your army can no longer deploy with out 50/50, this doesn't mean the DPs are not exempt, they aren't the units that gave you the restriction. The other units give you the restriction. Do you get this? DPs are exempt, they don't give you a 50/50 restriction. The unit or units with out the exemption give you the restriction. Then, your group/army can not legally be deployed until You follow the restriction given to you by the non-exempt units.

Just because DPs are exempt from applying a restriction on you doesn't mean your termies don't apply the entire restriction on you.

 Type40 wrote:

 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 ?

Yes, of course they are. The drop pods being exempt has an effect on your whole army.

Type40, I think you’re significantly over complicating this. It’s worth people writing to GW if they believe a null deployment is an unfun outcome, but nothing seems to preclude it without some backbreaking linguistic gymnastics, and the 40K rules simply don’t hold up to that level of linguistic scrutiny (as has come up in many a YMDC thread, they’re just too colloquially written).

There’s be no point exempting stuff and simultaneously not exempting stuff, and I genuinely can’t make that logic stick I’m afraid. If null deploy is unintentional maybe they can issue errata. Otherwise it’s unlikely to come up as it’s a largely uncompetitive option and one you can minimise impact of by placing terrain/objectives cannily, using Scout moves/deployments, holding counter—drop units of your own in reserve, and just relying on a Pod-Heavy army having lack of teeth. You might see a few pods or some wag giving it a whirl in a tournament and praying for luck, but I’d not worry too much. Deal with it if it becomes endemic.

I am not saying a DP null deploy is impossible.
I am saying a DP + other units over 50/50 rule is impossible.

if anything I am reducing the complexity. Instead of trying to figure out how many points are in a DP and how many points are in them, then trying to figure out how many points are left and dividing that in half I am saying, if you include a unit that is not a DP you still get a restriction to 50/50.

I understand that if your entire army is exempt from the restriction you can null deploy. My postulation is, that as soon as you bring something that isnt exempt, you are required to abide by the 50/50 restriction in its entirety.

I can't seem to see any good reason you wouldnt.

But I am gonna back off on this if this IS how the majority of people play it. I just think it's silly to change a rule something else brings to the table just because the first unit doesn't have it.

 Type40 wrote:
I am not saying a DP null deploy is impossible.
I am saying a DP + other units over 50/50 rule is impossible.

if anything I am reducing the complexity.

And you have failed on both counts. Either to present a valid rules based argument, or to reduce complexity with multiple overly long and complicated analogies.

 Stux wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
I am not saying a DP null deploy is impossible.
I am saying a DP + other units over 50/50 rule is impossible.

if anything I am reducing the complexity.

And you have failed on both counts. Either to present a valid rules based argument, or to reduce complexity with multiple overly long and complicated analogies.

Can you explain how I have ?

Have you actually read my previous points and would like to point out where my logic and citations fail ? or do you just wana throw a "you failed" my way on no grounds ?

DPs = no restrictions on deployment

Non-DPs have a restriction that comes with them that says

When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the
combined points value of all the units you set up on the battlefield during deployment must be at least
half your army's total point value

If you bring a non-DP you must follow the rule.
Nothing about being exempt from TR means you arn't a part of the army or arn't on or off the battlefield.
Being exempt from the restriction simply means you don't have to abide by it for that unit.
Nothing says other units do not have to abide by it. Nothing about other units giving you the restriction suggests that the DPs are not exempt (as DPs didnt give you the restriction the other units did)

Have you read my arguments are you just telling me I have failed because it is "fun" ?
I am presenting an interpretation of the rules which does not require you to add a bunch of units together, subtract them from your army point total, then devide by two in order to figure out how many points you have left for reinforcements. Are you saying that skipping all that math is more complicated somehow ?

Cornishman's Simple Sales Law (ammended) wrote:

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

Widgets are exempt from this.

Type40, let's simplify the discussion. Fall back to this simple analogy.

If I buy $100 of Widgets and $100 of Thingamagigs, how much tax do I pay?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
I am not saying a DP null deploy is impossible.
I am saying a DP + other units over 50/50 rule is impossible.

if anything I am reducing the complexity.

And you have failed on both counts. Either to present a valid rules based argument, or to reduce complexity with multiple overly long and complicated analogies.

Can you explain how I have ?

Have you actually read my previous points and would like to point out where my logic and citations fail ? or do you just wana throw a "you failed" my way on no grounds ?

DPs = no restrictions on deployment

It doesn't say "No restrictions". Or "Ignore TR when deploying pods Pods". Or any variant thereof. It says "Exempt".

"Exempt" doesn't mean "Ignore the #rule when directly acting upon $thing". It means "Do not consider $thing when applying $rule". Either by obligation *or liability*, $thing is freed of it.

Note the passive textbook definition. It's not proscribing specific actions. It's altering conceptual state. What actions need to be taken to satisfy the condition is up to the user.

Non-DPs have a restriction that comes with them that says

When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the
combined points value of all the units you set up on the battlefield during deployment must be at least
half your army's total point value

No they don't. They have no such rule.

There exist a restriction, which applies to non-DPs, that requires 50% of units to be set up. As DPs are exempt, they are not considered under TR - regardless of whether you're activating a Pod or Terminator.

There's no "But the Pod isn't active, therefore it's rules don't matter" rule. You're not exempt from exempting Pods just because you're not currently deploying them. We see this all the time in the current game: I can still take an Uthwe 6+++ on a Guardian even if I include Asurmen - because Asurmen has a rule that permits me to exclude him when considering if I get <Craftworld> CTs. If things worked the way you were arguing, any Phoenix Lord, for instance, would entirely negate any Chapter tactic - and their rule stating otherwise would be meaningless.

Being exempt from the restriction simply means you don't have to abide by it for that unit.

*This* is the core of where you're wrong. Exempt doesn't mean to ignore the rule for that unit. It means to ignore the unit for that rule. Please look up the definition and use of Exempt, because you're way off here. That one mistaken definition is the root of 4 pages of back-and-forth.

As the above poster explains, your core error is that you keep applying the TR rule without actually exempting the drop pods.

No number of pages of analogies you could present gets around that issue.

Ok,

So you are saying that being exempt from the rule means you still interact with it ?
How can something that is exempt from a rule still interact with the rule ?
being exempt from
"when setting up your army during deployment for matched play game ... etc"

Means the unit is free from being obliged or being liable to the rule.
AKA the rule doesn't exist for them. They do not interact with it.

If a model does have the rule, the rule DOES exist for them.
You can't pretend the rule changes for them. The rule is the rule.

Again, this isn't tax law.
Being exempt from a some TAX is not the same thing as being exempt from TAX entirely.
For example, Native canadians are sales tax exempt.
If a Native in Canada asks there non-native friend to purchase something still have to pay tax because there non-native friend can not produce a Native ID to show they are tax exempt. This doesn't mean the Native canadian isn't tax exempt. It means that a non-native who isn't tax exempt has to pay tax for an entire purchase. Sure they can just pay separately, but that would be like splitting your list and army in half for two separate games.

Are you really saying they do not have such a rule... I literally just quoted the rule right out of CA18 ?

I do not know what you are getting at with the "but the pod isn't active, therefore it's rules don't mater" statement, that is not what I am saying what so ever.

The pod is exempt from imposing the restriction... they are exempt from the rule. Whether you have deployed them or not, it's that simple. When you deploy them, no restriction comes with them. When you deploy something else a restriction does come with it.

Are you trying to say that by being EXEMPT you are required to interact with the rule in some way ? are you sure it is me who doesn't understand the definition ?

Again:

[Total points for the purpose of TR] =! [Total points of army roster]

You must discount the point costs for pods and their contents from the [Total points of army roster] because they are exempt from TR rule.

 Stux wrote:
As the above poster explains, your core error is that you keep applying the TR rule without actually exempting the drop pods.

No number of pages of analogies you could present gets around that issue.

Can you show me which part of the TR rule says models "units count as being on the battlefield" and which part says "units are considered to be in your army". Nothing about being exempt from TR exempts you from those two statuses.
Can you show me how playing a terminator alongside a DP gives you permision to change the RAW to "<50%" ? Nothing about the terminator allows you to change the TR rule for that unit.
Can you show me how being exempt from imposing a restriction means other models do not impose a restriction ?

If I have a -1 to leadership aura on two units, and somehow you remove that aura from unit A but not unit B does this change unit Bs rule what so ever ?

You guys are treating this as though the non-DPs don't have to follow the rule RAW.

You have two units
they both have the TR rule.

One unit is exempt.
Now one must follow it
and the other is free from obligation to follow it (if we wana use the definition correctly)

Ok, let's see what it says for the unit that must follow it

When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the
combined points value of all the units you set up on the battlefield during deployment must be at least
half your army's total point value

Even though the DP doesn't have to follow it, the fact that you have a unit that does have to follow it means you are bound to a 50/50 deployment. This doesn't mean the DP isn't exempt, it means A DIFFERENT UNIT GAVE YOU THE RESTRICTION.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Again:

[Total points for the purpose of TR] =! [Total points of army roster]

You must discount the point costs for pods and their contents from the [Total points of army roster] because they are exempt from TR rule.

Then the DP is interacting with a rule that you it is exempt from.
Why would you discount anything ?
It is exempt from this statement

When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the
combined points value of all the units you set up on the battlefield during deployment must be at least
half your army's total point value

Great, that simply means it doesn't care whether or not you have a 50/50 deployment...
But do you know what does care
A terminator cares, it is not exempt from the rule.
This statement MUST be followed

When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the
combined points value of all the units you set up on the battlefield during deployment must be at least
half your army's total point value

Why would being exempt from that EXACT statement mean you add or subtract anything. This rule has nothing to do with what is on/off the table or total point costs of your army. It is a one line restriction that is CONCERNED with what is on/off the the table. Being exempt from it doesn't magically affect what is on/off the table, that status isn't dictated by the TR rule.

The drop pod is not exempt from being set up. They are exempt from a rule which applies a condition when the army is being set up.

The Termie units do not have the rule. They are impacted by the rule. That difference can be important in some readings. You are right that the rule is the rule for them. You're wrong on how you're applying the rule.

"Being exempt from a some TAX is not the same thing as being exempt from TAX entirely."
Of course not. hence why I pay $10 on the $100 non-exempt goods I bought. But not $20 despite the total being $200.

In the same vein, if I take 100 points of Pods and 100 points of Termies, I'm obliged to deploy 50 points of Termies - not 100 points of Termies. Pods being exempt from TR does not change the rule for Termies at all - it's still 50% of the total. Pods are exempt from TR, whether I'm actively deploying Termies or Pods. So the total under TR is 100 points.

"Are you really saying they do not have such a rule... I literally just quoted the rule right out of CA18 ?"
I can quote "Change the Damage characteristic to read ‘2’". Termies don't have that rule either. The rule impacts Termies, but it's a rule on the player, not a rule on Termies. Academic, anyways, unless you're claiming that only rules on units you're activating are valid (which has other problems, see the Phoenix Lord example).

"When you deploy them, no restriction comes with them. When you deploy something else a restriction does come with it."
You do realize that TR says nothing about "When deploying each model"? It doesn't matter whether you meet the condition or not at the specific point where you deploy a specific model, as the rule makes no mention of specific deployments. You must meet the condition "while deploying your army" - which includes the moments outside of individual unit placement. So even if the rule did say "when deploying Pods, ignore TR" it would do nothing - as any use of the rule would cause you to break TR after you're done deploying the Pod.

Further, reread the Pod rule. You keep rewriting it to say "Ignore TR while activating this unit". That's not what it says either.

"Are you trying to say that by being EXEMPT you are required to interact with the rule in some way ? are you sure it is me who doesn't understand the definition ?"
Close enough to the opposite. The unit being exempt means it does not interact with the rule. Counting the unit as being in your army is interacting with the rule. You may be overvaluing the ephemeral concept of total points or number of units, but they're nothing more than the sum of your units. You're arguing you *count* the Pods for TR, thus interacting with the rule they are exempt from.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Discount" is a cognative shortcut, but not a proscribed action. The required course of action is to not count them. Simplest logical form is to simply not count them. It's often faster to just know what your totals are and subtract the pods, but that's only done for convenience.

Bharring has explained my position basically. Drop pods simply don't factor into the calculation for how much of your army you must deploy, because they are exempt. If you factor them in at all, they wouldn't be exempt. There doesn't need to be a direct quote, as it follows from basic logic.

 Stux wrote:
As the above poster explains, your core error is that you keep applying the TR rule without actually exempting the drop pods.

No number of pages of analogies you could present gets around that issue.

I agree there is no need for analogy.

It really is simple - DP are exempt from the TR rule but your army isn't. The portion of the TR rule which talks about total army points does not state "total armies points when applying to TR" it states "total army points".

So check this out. Is a unit exempt from tactical reserve...still considered to be a unit in tactical reserve? OFC it is. It is just exempt from any restrictions that would be put on it. Every other model of your army that isn't exempt has to follow these restrictions though and the trigger for this restriction is breaking 50% of your "total army" in tactical reserve. It matters not if the units are exempt - they would still be defined as a unit in tactical reserve and it has a point cost. Null deploy gets around this though. Because if your entire army is in tactical reserve there is never a unit to be punished for breaking the 50% rule. You can never say that a unit is deployed illegally because every unit in your army is exempt from the restriction. I consider that to be kind of dicey but it is at least a reasonable RAW interpretation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You guys are literally mistaking exempt to mean..."does not exist"...or "does not count" and you are broadly applying the exemption of one unit that is exempt to another unit that is not.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Stux wrote:
As the above poster explains, your core error is that you keep applying the TR rule without actually exempting the drop pods.

No number of pages of analogies you could present gets around that issue.

I agree there is no need for analogy.

It really is simple - DP are exempt from the TR rule but your army isn't. The portion of the TR rule which talks about total army points does not state "total armies points when applying to TR" it states "total army points".

Could you imagine a rule that states:

Tactical Reserves Rule: Deploy at least 50% of the total army points when applying TR while deploying your army

That's either redundant or circular. So either pointless or nonsensical.

If you have "Bob's Rule", and it references "Total Army Points", when applying that rule, it's explicitly "Total Army Points when applying Bob's Rule". That's what "applying" a rule means.

So check this out. Is a unit exempt from tactical reserve...still considered to be a unit in tactical reserve? OFC it is. It is just exempt from any restrictions that would be put on it. Every other model of your army that isn't exempt has to follow these restrictions though and the trigger for this restriction is breaking 50% of your "total army" in tactical reserve. It matters not if the units are exempt - they would still be defined as a unit in tactical reserve. Null deploy gets around this though. Because if your entire army is in tactical reserve there is never a unit to be punished for breaking the 50% rule. You can never say that a unit is deployed illegally BECAUSE every unit in your army is exempt from the restriction.

That would be a convoluted argument *IF* Tactical Reserves said "When deploying a unit...". It does not. It says "While deploying an *army*". As such, even if you had permission to ignore the rule while deplyoing a unit, you'd still be in violation after having deployed the unit. Which would make the rule pointless.

Deploying an army is an act of deploying multiple units. Regardless - after an army is deployed - you check to see if it is legally deployed.

For example - check to make sure all units are in your deployment zone if they can't infiltrate. If one unit is deployed illegally the whole army is at fault.

 Xenomancers wrote:

You guys are literally mistaking exempt to mean..."does not exist"...or "does not count" and you are broadly applying the exemption of one unit that is exempt to another unit that is not.

Exempt is a superset of "does not count". It's explicitly, literally defined as "free[ing] from obligation or liability". Freedom from liability is literally not counting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Deploying an army is an act of deploying multiple units. Regardless - after an army is deployed - you check to see if it is legally deployed.

For example - check to make sure all units are in your deployment zone if they can't infiltrate. If one unit is deployed illegally the whole army is at fault.

Which means that, if the Drop Pod rule only exempted it from TR while deploying it - and not exempting it at any other time - it would mean nothing. Because you must satisfy Tactical Reserves even when not deploying Drop Pods. So, under that reading, you're exempt from a rule but cannot deploy in violation of that rule. Making it a pointless rule.

Incorrect - nothing forces you to deploy your army in any particular way until you start deploying it. In fact. Nothing forces you to deploy a drop pod in reserve and nothing forces you to put units inside it. It is a game time decision.

How exactly is the rule pointless if it allows you to deploy turn 1 from deep strike? Something that no other deep strike reserve units can do? It can do this legally. It is in fact why they made the rule. These other interactions are clearly a result of a rushed FAQ. I have no doubt about it. These guys can't be bothered to actually think something through with everything it entails.

Bharring wrote:
The drop pod is not exempt from being set up. They are exempt from a rule which applies a condition when the army is being set up.

Who is saying the DP is exempt from being set up ? Agreed they are exempt from a rule which applies a condition when the army is being set up.

The Termie units do not have the rule. They are impacted by the rule. That difference can be important in some readings. You are right that the rule is the rule for them. You're wrong on how you're applying the rule.

We are not supposed to follow the RAW for them ? that 50% must be on the battlefield ? Why not ?

"Being exempt from a some TAX is not the same thing as being exempt from TAX entirely."
Of course not. hence why I pay $10 on the $100 non-exempt goods I bought. But not $20 despite the total being $200.

Being exempt from ALL tax entirely is not the same as being exempt from a portion of tax.
There is a single purchase being made by a sales tax exempt person. In that case, all conditions are met, no tax.
If someone else is making a purchase which includes products for the sales tax exempt person. The entire tax is levied. The other person does not meet the conditions.
i.e. a native canadian may be sales tax exempt, but if their non-native friend buys something for them, they must pay the entire tax, the restriction is not lifted because the requirements of having a native ID for the purchase are not met.

Again, this isn't tax law, this is an exemption from the entire rule. Either you are exempt from the entire rule and do not interact with it, or you are NOT exempt because something imposes a condition on you. DPs do not interact with the TR rule, they are exempt. Termies DO interact with the rule and bring the condition on YOU (not the DPs, the restriction is placed on YOU), The DPs may be exempt, but they are not the unit applying the restriction. The termies are applying the condition.

In the same vein, if I take 100 points of Pods and 100 points of Termies, I'm obliged to deploy 50 points of Termies - not 100 points of Termies. Pods being exempt from TR does not change the rule for Termies at all - it's still 50% of the total. Pods are exempt from TR, whether I'm actively deploying Termies or Pods. So the total under TR is 100 points.

This would mean the DPs are interacting with a rule they are exempt from. This would also mean that termies are not following the rule as written. You are also not following a restriction that has been imposed on you by the Termies. You have made an illegal deployment.

"Are you really saying they do not have such a rule... I literally just quoted the rule right out of CA18 ?"
I can quote "Change the Damage characteristic to read ‘2’". Termies don't have that rule either. The rule impacts Termies, but it's a rule on the player, not a rule on Termies. Academic, anyways, unless you're claiming that only rules on units you're activating are valid (which has other problems, see the Phoenix Lord example).

No termies do not have a rule that says "change the dammage characteristic to read 2" but the TR rule does apply to them, entirely, hence my quote. Not sure what activating anything has do with anything, we are talking about deploying your entire army. Does a termie have to follow the rule or not ? Do DPs count as being part of your army ? do DPs count as being on/off the battlefield ? what part of a DP not being obliged to follow this statement means they get to also be exempt from being considered part of your army or on/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 must be at least
half your army's total point value"
What part of DPs being exempt means bringing termies doesn't make them follow the above statement entirely and impose the entire condition? what part about DPs being exempt from the above statement means a DP should not be counted as on/off the table or as part of your army. We know that by bringing the termies you MUST follow the above statement. DPs are exempt from the statement, they are not exempt from being on/off the table.

"When you deploy them, no restriction comes with them. When you deploy something else a restriction does come with it."
You do realize that TR says nothing about "When deploying each model"? It doesn't matter whether you meet the condition or not at the specific point where you deploy a specific model, as the rule makes no mention of specific deployments. You must meet the condition "while deploying your army" - which includes the moments outside of individual unit placement. So even if the rule did say "when deploying Pods, ignore TR" it would do nothing - as any use of the rule would cause you to break TR after you're done deploying the Pod.

Fine, instead of "when you deploy them" read it as "when you include them in your army." the semantics in this case do not change my point.

Further, reread the Pod rule. You keep rewriting it to say "Ignore TR while activating this unit". That's not what it says either.

Fine, re-read everything I wrote to say "not obliged to interact with the TR rule" again the semantics do not change my point.

"Are you trying to say that by being EXEMPT you are required to interact with the rule in some way ? are you sure it is me who doesn't understand the definition ?"
Close enough to the opposite. The unit being exempt means it does not interact with the rule. Counting the unit as being in your army is interacting with the rule. You may be overvaluing the ephemeral concept of total points or number of units, but they're nothing more than the sum of your units. You're arguing you *count* the Pods for TR, thus interacting with the rule they are exempt from.

Counting what units are in your army is NOT a part of the TR rule. This is incorrect. The TR rule is a restriction BASED on the count of your army. No part of the TR rule says "count the points and number of units is in your army", this is done during list creation (and changed when you use reinforcement points to add a unit to your army) and DPs are not exempt from being a part of your army count. If you start saying your army count is changed because of this exemption you are then saying "by being exempt this rule interacts with my army count" witch is not, by definition, exempt. DPs are exempt from applying the restriction on you. Nothing about being exempt from the TR rule allows them to be exempt from your army count or on/off table status. Your DPs would have to be exempt from other rules in order for that to be true (i.e. GSC are exempt from model count in relation to the TR rule, as that is directly specified).

Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Discount" is a cognative shortcut, but not a proscribed action. The required course of action is to not count them. Simplest logical form is to simply not count them. It's often faster to just know what your totals are and subtract the pods, but that's only done for convenience.

What does the TR rule have to do with your army count ? the TR rule isn't what dictates your army count.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:
Bharring has explained my position basically. Drop pods simply don't factor into the calculation for how much of your army you must deploy, because they are exempt. If you factor them in at all, they wouldn't be exempt. There doesn't need to be a direct quote, as it follows from basic logic.

I dont find it logical to assume being exempt from imposing a restriction makes a unit exempt from completely different rules like army count and on/off battlefield status.
Those two things are not included in the TR rule and, logically, do not change just because a particular unit is exempt from imposing a restriction related to those statuses.
Just because a unit has +1 to there moral test roll doesn't mean their leadership atribute becomes +1. Yes they are related, but no the ability does not change the leadership attribute, that would need a different rule.

 Type40 wrote:
Ok,

So you are saying that being exempt from the rule means you still interact with it ?

Actually, you have been the one saying that by counting the drop pods and their contents in the 50/50 rule when the drop pod rule specifically tells you they are exempt from the entire rule. If they are exempt they don't count as units or points for the purposes of figuring out what 50% of your army is for having to be on the board.That applies whether or not you have non-exempt units in the army.

Again, another irrelevant analogy.

A better analogy would be if a rule said add +1 to leadership characteristic during the morale phase. Then whenever you checked the leadership in the morale phase, regardless for what purpose, it would be +1. Just as drop pods are exempt from the TR rule regardless of what part or for what unit you are checking it.

When you check the army cost total FOR THE RULE then you count units that are exempt FROM THE RULE. It's very simple.

non-DP's obligations to follow the rule does not override DP's exemption from following the rule.

If you are counting DP's in following the rules for non-DP's, then the DP's are not being exempt from the rule because they're being counted for the rule.

DP's don't count towards the 50/50 as far as TR rule goes due to the exemption.

 doctortom wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Ok,

So you are saying that being exempt from the rule means you still interact with it ?

Actually, you have been the one saying that by counting the drop pods and their contents in the 50/50 rule when the drop pod rule specifically tells you they are exempt from the entire rule. If they are exempt they don't count as units or points for the purposes of figuring out what 50% of your army is for having to be on the board.That applies whether or not you have non-exempt units in the army.

Again, this is incorrect.
TR rule doesn't dictate your army count. It asks yous to CHECK your army count. It is a rule BASED on your army count. It is a single line of restriction that is based on your army count. Your DPs are exempt from that line, they not exempt from being counted in your army. That would be an exemption from a different rule. (i.e. GSC being specifically exempt from unit count for the purposes of TR rule, something DPs do not have)
So if you claim being exempt from TR interacts with your army count you are claiming that a DP being exempt from TR adds an additional stipulation of changing your army count. This would not be, by definition, exempt.

Not sure why people keep thinking being exempt from a restriction that checks army count means your are exempt from army count,,, TR doesnt say "count your armies units and points" it tells you to do something in relation to that number. If you are exempt from a rule that requires you to check your army count, that doesn't mean you are required to change your army count.

Again, getting +1 to hit rolls doesn't mean your BS attribute is +1.

 Type40 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The drop pod is not exempt from being set up. They are exempt from a rule which applies a condition when the army is being set up.

Who is saying the DP is exempt from being set up ?

Nobody. Being set up is not part of Tactical Reserves

Agreed they are exempt from a rule which applies a condition when the army is being set up.

Which is why we exempt the Pods when determining liability under that rule.

We are not supposed to follow the RAW for them ? that 50% must be on the battlefield ? Why not ?

Because RAW, Pods are exempt from the 50% rule. Thus they do not count.

This would mean the DPs are interacting with a rule they are exempt from. This would also mean that termies are not following the rule as written. You are also not following a restriction that has been imposed on you by the Termies. You have made an illegal deployment.

This is where you have it backwards. If you count DPs when applying TR, then DPs are interacting with TR. So if you count your Pods under TR while deploying your Termies, you're not exempting Pods from TR. Counting them is thus illegal RAW.

You're not applying DPs to the TR rule while deploying Termies. You're applying TR without applying DPs to it. By not counting them.

You have no legal reason to count DPs while counting units/points under TR, as they're exempt.

what part of a DP not being obliged to follow this statement means they get to also be exempt from being considered part of your army or on/off the table ?

The DPs being "exempt" from "TR" means they get to be exempt from TR. For the purposes of TR, they are not part of your army.

DPs don't have a rule that says "Not obliged to follow this statement". The have a rule calling them out as "exempt". Literally free of obligation *or liability*. You keep ignoring the liability part.

Fine, instead of "when you deploy them" read it as "when you include them in your army." the semantics in this case do not change my point.

For the purposes of TR, they are not counted as included in your army.

Further, reread the Pod rule. You keep rewriting it to say "Ignore TR while activating this unit". That's not what it says either.

Fine, re-read everything I wrote to say "not obliged to interact with the TR rule" again the semantics do not change my point.

Then where are you finding permission for the Pods to interact with TR by adding liability to Termies under TR?

"Are you trying to say that by being EXEMPT you are required to interact with the rule in some way ? are you sure it is me who doesn't understand the definition ?"
Close enough to the opposite. The unit being exempt means it does not interact with the rule. Counting the unit as being in your army is interacting with the rule. You may be overvaluing the ephemeral concept of total points or number of units, but they're nothing more than the sum of your units. You're arguing you *count* the Pods for TR, thus interacting with the rule they are exempt from.

Counting what units are in your army is NOT a part of the TR rule. This is incorrect.

The totals *are* part of the TR rule. Evaluating the totals under the TR rule is part of the TR rule. Exemption from the TR rule is exemption from totals under the TR rule.

The TR rule is a restriction BASED on the count of your army. No part of the TR rule says "count the points and number of units is in your army", this is done during list creation and DPs are not exempt from being a part of your army count. If you start saying your army count is changed because of this exemption you are then saying "by being exempt this rule interacts with my army count" witch is not, by definition, exempt. DPs are exempt from applying the restriction on you. Nothing about being exempt from the TR rule allows you to be exempt from your army count or on/off table status. Your DPs would have to be exempt from other rules in order for that to be true (i.e. GSC are exempt from model count in relation to the TR rule, as that is directly specified).

Where are you finding a rule that says "Count up your army points and units once, use this one value for all instances that reference army points and unit counts, and ignore any exceptions to rules when counting army points and unit counts"?

Army Points and Unit count are done for the purposes of TR. You probably already know them for other reasons (wasn't always the case, as you used to have to count PL even in Points game, and it was only used for TR). But there's no exemption to exemptions for the purposes of army points.

"Discount" is a cognative shortcut, but not a proscribed action. The required course of action is to not count them. Simplest logical form is to simply not count them. It's often faster to just know what your totals are and subtract the pods, but that's only done for convenience.

What does the TR rule have to do with your army count ? the TR rule isn't what dictates your army count.

Because he, and you, were reading "exempt from Army Points under TR" as "Discount Pods". The actual rule is "Do not count Pods (under TR)". Counting Pods means not exempting them from TR.

 Stux wrote:
Again, another irrelevant analogy.

A better analogy would be if a rule said add +1 to leadership characteristic during the morale phase. Then whenever you checked the leadership in the morale phase, regardless for what purpose, it would be +1. Just as drop pods are exempt from the TR rule regardless of what part or for what unit you are checking it.

When you check the army cost total FOR THE RULE then you count units that are exempt FROM THE RULE. It's very simple.

Why is this a better analogy ?

What precedence ?

DPs are exempt from the statement as a whole. They arn't exempt from the total count of your army, that's a different rule. They are exempt from imposing the restriction. That is ALL.
Nothing says "they are exempt from unit/point count in relation to the rule". it says they are exempt from the entire rule. So they are exempt from imposing the restriction. The rule imposes a restriction on the player, DPs are exempt from imposing that rule. They arn't exempt from parts of the rule, they arn't exempt from how things are counted for the rule, they arn't exempt from what happens to YOU in relation to the rule, they arn't exempt from whether or not other units impose the rule. They are only exempt from imposing the restriction because they are "exempt from the TR rule"
They are exempt from needing to apply the statement. You really need to add a lot to figure they are exempt from specific clauses and counts related to the rule, that's not what it says to do. A unit can be exempt from giving out a restriction even though another unit gives the same restriction. This doesn't stop the first unit from being exempt. You are not getting the restriction from the DPs your getting it from something else.

The count of the army is PART of the rule. It is stated in the rule, you calculate it for the rule. Therefore they are exempt from the count, but only for purposes of the rule.

Yet again, if they were not exempt from this then they would not be exempt from the rule. QED.

Very...Simple...Questions...

Is a drop pod in deep strike reserve - a unit in deep strike reserve? Is it a unit in your army. Does it have a point value?
The answer to all these questions is yes.

Therefore when determining army count for the purposes of deploying an army's total points. They are applied. Period. End of discussion.

Imagine you had a family that was exempt from paying taxes. You had a family where the husband was exempt from paying taxes and the wife was not but the rules states that if you dont pay taxes your whole family goes to jail.

In this analogy you are literally saying that the husband is no longer part of the family because he doesn't have to pay taxes...

If you're not exempting them, then you're not exempting them.

The rule doesn't say "this unit does not have to follow the TR rule" - it says they are "exempt from the TR rule".

 Xenomancers wrote:
Very...Simple...Questions...

Is a drop pod in deep strike reserve - a unit in deep strike reserve? Is it a unit in your army. Does it have a point value?
The answer to all these questions is yes.

Therefore when determining army count for the purposes of deploying an army's total points. They are applied. Period. End of discussion.

Imagine you had a family that was exempt from paying taxes. You had a family where the husband was exempt from paying taxes and the wife was not but the rules states that if you dont pay taxes your whole family goes to jail.

In this analogy you are literally saying that the husband is no longer part of the family because he doesn't have to pay taxes...

This analogy doesn't work, because being exempt from paying taxes is not the same as being exempt from the process entirely, which is what happens with the Drop Pods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
If you're not exempting them, then you're not exempting them.

The rule doesn't say "this unit does not have to follow the TR rule" - it says they are "exempt from the TR rule".

Exactly. It's very clear.