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.

 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".

In reality. These have the exact same meaning from a rules stand point. "free from liability" and "does not have to follow" have the exact same meaning when applying to a game rule.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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".

In reality. These have the exact same meaning from a rules stand point. "free from liability" and "does not have to follow" have the exact same meaning when applying to a game rule.

You ARE reading these in reality, are you not?

 Type40 wrote:

 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.

TR doesn't dictate how to count your army. It requires a total. That total is used under TR for the purposes of TR. What allows you to count units for the purposes of TR? The TR rule itself. So if a rule is exempt from TR, what rule allows you to count them for TR? You check your army count *for the purposes of TR* when you check it for the purposes of TR. Can you quote a rule that says Army Count for the purposes of TR counts things exempt from TR?

Nothing about TR says "Use the number of points used for arranging the match". Or any reference to using points as derived from another rule. "your army's total point value" is very simple. And your army's total point value, for the purposes of TR, does not include the points spent on Pods.

Not sure why people keep thinking being exempt from a restriction that checks army count means your are exempt from army count,,,

They're saying they're exempt from army count *for the purposes of the rule they're exempt from*. Put another way, they're freed from the liability the rule they're exempted from otherwise leverages on them. "Army Count, for the purposes of TR" is not the same as "Army count, for purposes other than TR" when dealing with units exempt from TR. Absent a rule that overrides the exemption, that's what it means.

TR doesnt say "count your armies units and points" it tells you to do something in relation to that number.

And being exempt from TR means being exempt from that number.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

For purposes other than TR, the answers are yes.

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

Until we apply an exemption. Then they're exempt. They are not applied.

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.

The familiy is not exempt from paying taxes. The husband was. If the husband was exempt, the wife pays her taxes (and any liabilty for shared assets outside the scope of the exemption), and nobody goes to jail. If anyone goes to jail because the husband didn't pay taxes, he was not exempt from taxes.

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...

In your analogy you're saying they're exempt, but the rule is exempt from exceptions. You haven't provided rational for this exemption to the exemptions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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".

In reality. These have the exact same meaning from a rules stand point. "free from liability" and "does not have to follow" have the exact same meaning when applying to a game rule.

Funny. The IRS hasn't hauled me to jail for not paying taxes on exempt items (basically deductables). When I buy food and non-food in the same purchase, I pay taxes on the total for tax purposes - which doesn't include the amount I paid for food. That's just how every store works - and they're not getting hauled off to jail.

"Does not have to follow" does not free from liability. "Exempt" literally does, by definition. What game rule can you cite that redefines "Exempt" to not free from liability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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".

In reality. These have the exact same meaning from a rules stand point. "free from liability" and "does not have to follow" have the exact same meaning when applying to a game rule.

You ARE reading these in reality, are you not?

That explains a few things.

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

No RAW says they are exempt from TR, meaning they do not impose the restriction. Nothing about TR dictates what your army count is so you are not exempt from being counted as part of your army.

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.

Wrong, if you count the DPs when applying TR (a restriction placed on you, not on the DPs) then you are interacting with your army count and you are NOT interacting with the TR rule. DPs are exempt from the TR rule so they have not applied the restriction on you. The termies did (once again not the DP) . Not counting them would be breaking the rules, nothing about being exempt from the TR rule stops your DPs from being counted as a part of your army. You are not exempt from the rule, your termies arn't exempt from giving it to you and DPs are not exempt from being counted as part of your army. They are ONLY exempt from imposing the restriction.

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.

They are exempt from TR. Can you cite where it says "YOU are exempt from counting DPs as part of your army" or can you only cite where it says "they are exempt from the TR rule" and thus exempt from imposing the restriction on YOU. The TR rule does NOT say "count your army" it does not say "check what is and isnt on the battlefield" They are exempt from the entire thing. You can't then go and say "well that means they are exempt from this other status not dictated by the TR rule because they are exempt from imposing the restriction in the first place"

Again, they remain exempt because they are not the unit imposing the rule on you. Other units are imposing that rule on YOU. They are included in your army count, because TR is not a rule that dictates how you count 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.

dude, obligation is just another tense for obliged. you literally just told me "it doesn't mean your not obliged it means you are not obliged." and liability is defined as "the state of being legally responsible for something."
so it is a legal synonym for obliged. These semantics are not contributing to your point. No mater which way you spin it, exempt means they do not use the rule.

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

On what grounds ? How is being "free from obligation" to follow a restriction giving you permission to exclude a unit from your army count when that restriction doesn't dictate how you count your army ? It only tells you to count your army. It doesn't some how make you exempt from BEING counted when YOU (not the DP) must count your army. It is not exempt from your army count. It is exempt from applying the restriction.

IT DOES NOT SAY "you are exempt from counting this model as part of your army for the purposes of TR" it DOES SAY "DPs are exempt from TR," TR is the rule that MAKES YOU COUNT, it is not the rule that dictates HOW YOU COUNT.

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

No where, only the Termies impose the TR rule on YOU and then YOU must count your army. Nothing in the process has anything to do with the DPs being exempt from imposing the rule on you. DPs are not exempt from your army count. Nothing about being Exempt from the entire rule gives you permision to do that.
GSC say "for the purposes of the TR rule they are exempt from being counted as part of your army" You see, being counted as part of your army is the rule GSC are getting an exemption from, specifically when related to the TR rule. Being simply exempt from the TR rule as a whole HAS NOTHING to do with how you calculate your army total. the TR rule is a restriction and ONLY a restriction. Counting your army is not dictated by it.

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.

Then can you sight where the TR rule says "each deployed unit contributes to your army count"
The TR rule is a restriction. Your are exempt from the restriction. The TR rule is not a rule about army count. Being exempt from imposing a restriction does not give you permission to be exempt from a completely different rule that decides a variable in that restriction.

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.

Where are you finding a rule that says "army points and model counts are recalculated for the purposes of TR "
Can you show me where in the TR rule it tells you how to calculate army points ? or where in the TR rule it tells you how to determine how many units are in your army ? how about where it dictates what is considered to be on and off the battlefield ? If you are exempt from those statuses by being exempt from the TR rule that can only suggest that those rules are actually contained within the TR rule ? if the TR rule contains 2 or 3 pages I missed, Id love to know.

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.

Wrong, the actual rule is "DPs are exempt from TR" This is not the same as being exempt from counting your pods in any way shape or form. TR imposes a restriction DPs are exempt from that. GSC are exempt from being counted for TR as it specifically says they are. The rule on GSC gives them permision to break counting rules when related to the TR restriction. being exempt from TR means you are exempt from imposing the restriction. not exempt in any way shape or form from counting the units for any purposes. that would be a different rule.

 Type40 wrote:

 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.

No, you are the one who is incorrect. Yes, it asks you to check the army count, but this is the TR rule telling you to do that, the same TR rule that the drop pod rule tells you the drop pods and their contents are exempt from. So, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TACTICAL RESTRAINT RULE, the drop pods and contents are most certainly not counted as part of the army, as the drop pod rule tells you they are exempt. So, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TACTICAL RESTRAINT RULE, you do not count the drop pods or their contents when calculating point costs or unit numbers in the army. This doesn't mean they don't count as part of the army for rules that aren't related to the tactical restraint rule, but the rule about 50% of your army having to be deployed is part of the tactical restraint rule. We have previously provided the rules quotations stating that the drop pods and their contents are exempt from the tactical restraint rule - the entire rule, not just portions of it. If you are including the cost of these units in your army total, then you are not following the drop pod rule because you are not making them exempt from that portion of the tactical restraint rule.

Your termies still count, they are not exempt from the rule and nobody is saying that they are. If you have an army consisting of all units that are drop pods or are in drop pods, except for 2 units of termies, you can only put one unit in reserves as you only get to count those two units as part of the army for purposes of anything in the tactical reserves unit, the cheaper unit of the two (unless they have the same cost, where it won't matter which one you pick). If you have 2 terminator units and 2 other units that cost more than the termies that aren't in drop pods, then you can put both termie units in reserves..

Not sure how tax works in Sweden so this may miss a mark but:

I have a taxable income of $10,000.
I can claim exemptions on the interests paid on my loans, so I claim deduction of $1,000.
My net taxable income is now $9,000.

I pay my tax based on the $9,000, after exemptions, not on my $10,000.

When applying a rule, you should avoid interpretations that yield absurd results. In this case, you should not choose an interpretation that yields the following for a army of 20 units including drop pods:

Put all 20 units including drop pods into reserves: legal deployment
Put 19 units including drop pods into reserves: illegal deployment

Therefore, the interpretation that you must count the pods and units in them as part of your army for the purposes of Tactical Reserves is suspect.

 doctortom wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 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.

No, you are the one who is incorrect. Yes, it asks you to check the army count, but this is the TR rule telling you to do that, the same TR rule that the drop pod rule tells you the drop pods and their contents are exempt from. So, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TACTICAL RESTRAINT RULE, the drop pods and contents are most certainly not counted as part of the army, as the drop pod rule tells you they are exempt. So, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TACTICAL RESTRAINT RULE, you do not count the drop pods or their contents when calculating point costs or unit numbers in the army. This doesn't mean they don't count as part of the army for rules that aren't related to the tactical restraint rule, but the rule about 50% of your army having to be deployed is part of the tactical restraint rule. We have previously provided the rules quotations stating that the drop pods and their contents are exempt from the tactical restraint rule - the entire rule, not just portions of it. If you are including the cost of these units in your army total, then you are not following the drop pod rule because you are not making them exempt from that portion of the tactical restraint rule.

please explain to me how being exempt from the following restriction

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

Magically also add extra rules like "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TACTICAL RESTRAINT RULE, you do not count the drop pods or their contents"
and "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TACTICAL RESTRAINT RULE, you do not count the drop pods or their contents"

I am pretty sure the rule is
"DPs are exempt to TR "
The TR restriction is

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

How come you think that being exempt from EXACTLY what is written there gives you permission to change how completely different rules, like determining what is on and off the battlefield and your army count is ?
Again GSC tell you to augment the way you count your army in relation to the TR rule.
Being exempt from the TR rule doesn't give you permision to do that. It only tells you that DPs do not apply the restriction on you.

How are we seriously adding so many extra rules ? it is simple. DPs don't impose this restriction on you... being exempt from the rule does not change how you count your army or what is on and off the battlefield. Your DPs are exempt from the rule, they do not interact with it, nothing about a DP can effect the rule. The rule does not change. They do not trigger the restriction. They are exempt. If you make a list with only DPs the TR rules DO NOT EXIST as the DPs are exempt. Adding something else to your lists means the TR rule DOES EXIST. DPs exemption doesn't change the rule, or change things related to the rule. They are exempt. Things either impose the rule or they do not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Not sure how tax works in Sweden so this may miss a mark but:

I have a taxable income of $10,000.
I can claim exemptions on the interests paid on my loans, so I claim deduction of $1,000.
My net taxable income is now $9,000.

I pay my tax based on the $9,000, after exemptions, not on my $10,000.

Again pretending this rule works like taxes.This is different.

Native canadians do not have to pay sales tax. They are exempt from the rule ENTIRELY (just like a DP)
If the native canadian asks their non-native friend to buy something for them. Even though the product is for their native friend, this person still must pay sales tax. He is unable to show a native ID and thus do not meet imposed restrictions.
Sales tax is then paid on the entire purchase.
They could split the bill and pay separately. But again, that would be akin splitting your list in half and playing two separate games.

We are talking a bout a complete exemption, not a proportional one. The tax example is not accurate.

Sigh... Because they aren't included in the total points value of your army. Because they are exempt.

Round and round...

Because you are insistent on reading the phrasing of exemption to say "The TR rule does not affect Drop Pod and its contents."

They are non-existent for the purpose of TR rule because they are exempt.

When applying the TR rule during your deployment, you can only consider that which are not exempt. TR triggers at deployment, not list building.

 alextroy wrote:
When applying a rule, you should avoid interpretations that yield absurd results. In this case, you should not choose an interpretation that yields the following for a army of 20 units including drop pods:

Put all 20 units including drop pods into reserves: legal deployment
Put 19 units including drop pods into reserves: illegal deployment

Therefore, the interpretation that you must count the pods and units in them as part of your army for the purposes of Tactical Reserves is suspect.

Why is that interpretation absurd. It seems fluffy (an entire legion of SM coming from DPs) it doesn't seem unbalanced. It seems like a fair restriction to give someone who wants to field a fluffy null deploy list.

 Type40 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
When applying a rule, you should avoid interpretations that yield absurd results. In this case, you should not choose an interpretation that yields the following for a army of 20 units including drop pods:

Put all 20 units including drop pods into reserves: legal deployment
Put 19 units including drop pods into reserves: illegal deployment

Therefore, the interpretation that you must count the pods and units in them as part of your army for the purposes of Tactical Reserves is suspect.

Why is that interpretation absurd. It seems fluffy (an entire legion of SM coming from DPs) it doesn't seem unbalanced. It seems like a fair restriction to give someone who wants to field a fluffy null deploy list.

And if 1 unit missed the bus, the entire legion goes haywire. That's not very fluffy.

 Stux wrote:
Sigh... Because they aren't included in the total points value of your army. Because they are exempt.

Round and round...

You keep saying that,
but you arn't showing why they are exempt from being counted and not just being exempt from imposing the restriction.

Like we do keep going round and round but thats because you keep going " Because they aren't included in the total points value of your army" and I keep going "how is that possible ?" and you keep going "Because they aren't included in the total points value of your army." Explain to me why.

so once again, how is being exempt from imposing a restriction on you as a player akin to being exempt from how you count your army ? Once again, where in the TR rule does it tell you exactly how you count your army and what counts as being on and off the battlefield? how does being exempt from the following statement and thus not applying it on the player.

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

how does being exempt from that mean you are also exempt from being counted as part of your army in relation to the rule. Nothing says that, no part of the rule is trying to tell you that. your unit is exempt from this rule, stop trying to make it interact with the rule in some way. it is exempt.

 Type40 wrote:

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.

dude, obligation is just another tense for obliged. you literally just told me "it doesn't mean your not obliged it means you are not obliged."

No, I said "Not being required to follow $statement" is not the same as "Not being required to follow, or be responsible for effects of, $statement".
You focused in on the tense change because you're completely oblivous to what I"m saying.

and liability is defined as "the state of being legally responsible for something."
so it is a legal synonym for obliged.

Not at all. An obligation is something *you* must do. A liability is a cost *you* are responsible for. You can be responsible for obligations of others. As such, they are not synonyms.

These semantics are not contributing to your point. No mater which way you spin it, exempt means they do not use the rule.

It's not just semantic. You're arguing that "exempt" just means Pods are freed from the requirement of checking that they're in compliance with TR upon deployment. I'm arguing that "exempt" from TR also means the pods are free from the liability imposed by Tactical Reserves.

Put anther way: what rule, other than TR, applies liability from the Drop Pods in terms of how many units you must deploy?


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

 skchsan wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
When applying a rule, you should avoid interpretations that yield absurd results. In this case, you should not choose an interpretation that yields the following for a army of 20 units including drop pods:

Put all 20 units including drop pods into reserves: legal deployment
Put 19 units including drop pods into reserves: illegal deployment

Therefore, the interpretation that you must count the pods and units in them as part of your army for the purposes of Tactical Reserves is suspect.

Why is that interpretation absurd. It seems fluffy (an entire legion of SM coming from DPs) it doesn't seem unbalanced. It seems like a fair restriction to give someone who wants to field a fluffy null deploy list.

And if 1 unit missed the bus, the entire legion goes haywire. That's not very fluffy.

Ya wouldn't that unit be left,,, you know, in a space ship,,, not on the ground XD ?

 Type40 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
When applying a rule, you should avoid interpretations that yield absurd results. In this case, you should not choose an interpretation that yields the following for a army of 20 units including drop pods:

Put all 20 units including drop pods into reserves: legal deployment
Put 19 units including drop pods into reserves: illegal deployment

Therefore, the interpretation that you must count the pods and units in them as part of your army for the purposes of Tactical Reserves is suspect.

Why is that interpretation absurd. It seems fluffy (an entire legion of SM coming from DPs) it doesn't seem unbalanced. It seems like a fair restriction to give someone who wants to field a fluffy null deploy list.

And if 1 unit missed the bus, the entire legion goes haywire. That's not very fluffy.

Ya wouldn't that unit be left,,, you know, in a space ship,,, not on the ground XD ?

Yeah but according to your interpretation, the drop pods can't even be loaded into the ship because 1 unit decided they're going to go there by themselves.

 skchsan wrote:
Because you are insistent on reading the phrasing of exemption to say "The TR rule does not affect Drop Pod and its contents."

They are non-existent for the purpose of TR rule because they are exempt.

When applying the TR rule during your deployment, you can only consider that which are not exempt. TR triggers at deployment, not list building.

So are you saying that Exempt doesn't mean "the TR rule does not affect the drop pod and its contents"
Strange, the next time I am exempt from taking an exam, i guess I ll still have to take it ? maybe some modified version of it tyhat takes into account how many other people have already taken it in relation to who is in the classroom at the time /

TR triggers at deployment, but how does that effect your army count ?

again, being exempt from a rule that imposes a restriction doesn't make you exempt from how that restriction would have been and can be calculated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
When applying a rule, you should avoid interpretations that yield absurd results. In this case, you should not choose an interpretation that yields the following for a army of 20 units including drop pods:

Put all 20 units including drop pods into reserves: legal deployment
Put 19 units including drop pods into reserves: illegal deployment

Therefore, the interpretation that you must count the pods and units in them as part of your army for the purposes of Tactical Reserves is suspect.

Why is that interpretation absurd. It seems fluffy (an entire legion of SM coming from DPs) it doesn't seem unbalanced. It seems like a fair restriction to give someone who wants to field a fluffy null deploy list.

And if 1 unit missed the bus, the entire legion goes haywire. That's not very fluffy.

Ya wouldn't that unit be left,,, you know, in a space ship,,, not on the ground XD ?

Yeah but according to your interpretation, the drop pods can't even be loaded into the ship because 1 unit decided they're going to go there by themselves.

Ya,,, and how did that one unit get there ? did he jump ?

did he fly down on a para glider ?

"oh hey guys, lets do this drop pod assault,,, don't worry, jeff will meet us down there, he's gonna jump on his own, I bet he ll even be faster then us"

 Type40 wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Sigh... Because they aren't included in the total points value of your army. Because they are exempt.

Round and round...

You keep saying that,
but you arn't showing why they are exempt from being counted and not just being exempt from imposing the restriction.

Like we do keep going round and round but thats because you keep going " Because they aren't included in the total points value of your army" and I keep going "how is that possible ?" and you keep going "Because they aren't included in the total points value of your army." Explain to me why.

so once again, how is being exempt from imposing a restriction on you as a player akin to being exempt from how you count your army ? Once again, where in the TR rule does it tell you exactly how you count your army and what counts as being on and off the battlefield? how does being exempt from the following statement and thus not applying it on the player.

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

how does being exempt from that mean you are also exempt from being counted as part of your army in relation to the rule. Nothing says that, no part of the rule is trying to tell you that. your unit is exempt from this rule, stop trying to make it interact with the rule in some way. it is exempt.

Let's try this another way.
You have an army that is just 2 terminators.
This applies a liability via Tactical Reserves to deploy at least 1 unit.

You have an army that is just 2 Drop Pods
This would apply a liability via Tactical Reserves to deploy at least 1 unit.
Drop Pods are freed from liability from Tactical Reserves, as they're exempt.
Tactical Reserves now applies 0 liability to deploy units, as any liabiilty it would apply was freed.

The more complicated army: 2 Termies, 2 Pods
Your Termies apply liability to deploy 1 unit.
Your Pods would apply liability to deploy 1 unit.
Total liability would be you must deploy 2 units.
But you're freed of the Pods liability. So you must only deploy 1 unit.

You're arguing that you are not freed of the Pod's liability. What is the rationale behind not freeing Pods of their liability under Tactical Reserves?

Yes, the army count is part of the TR rule, so they are exempt for it. Citation is the TR rule where it references your army count. Done and done.

 Type40 wrote:
So are you saying that Exempt doesn't mean "the TR rule does not affect the drop pod and its contents"

No. It means cannot affect/be affected. Like how 0 times anything is 0.

 Type40 wrote:
Strange, the next time I am exempt from taking an exam, i guess I ll still have to take it ? maybe some modified version of it tyhat takes into account how many other people have already taken it in relation to who is in the classroom at the time

Say your teacher tells you that you have 4 tests in a semester and if you get 100's on the first 3, you are exempt from taking the 4th one. Your teacher counted your 4th test as 0 because you didn't take the exam. Now your final grade is 75, rather than 100 it should've been.

 Type40 wrote:
TR triggers at deployment, but how does that effect your army count ?

You don't count at deployment it because they're exempt.

 Type40 wrote:
again, being exempt from a rule that imposes a restriction doesn't make you exempt from how that restriction would have been and can be calculated.

For the items that are exempt, yes they are.

 Stux wrote:
Yes, the army count is part of the TR rule, so they are exempt for it. Citation is the TR rule where it references your army count. Done and done.

IT does not matter that the army count is part of the TR rule. It literally doesn't matter. The TR rule affects your army - not particular units. A non exempt unit has to follow this rule because it is not exempt. Seriously you guys are being daft to the point it is absurd. Your army point total DOES NOT change because you have a unit exempt to TR. Army point total is affected by NOTHING but the units you include in your list.

I suppose I could just starting bringing 4000 point armies because I can put 2000 points in drop pods and they don't exist because they are exempt to TR lol.

 skchsan wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
So are you saying that Exempt doesn't mean "the TR rule does not affect the drop pod and its contents"

No. It means cannot affect/be affected. Like how 0 times anything is 0.

 Type40 wrote:
Strange, the next time I am exempt from taking an exam, i guess I ll still have to take it ? maybe some modified version of it tyhat takes into account how many other people have already taken it in relation to who is in the classroom at the time

Say your teacher tells you that you have 4 tests in a semester and if you get 100's on the first 3, you are exempt from taking the 4th one. Your teacher counted your 4th test as 0 because you didn't take the exam. Now your final grade is 75, rather than 100 it should've been.

 Type40 wrote:
TR triggers at deployment, but how does that effect your army count ?

You don't count at deployment it because they're exempt.

 Type40 wrote:
again, being exempt from a rule that imposes a restriction doesn't make you exempt from how that restriction would have been and can be calculated.

For the items that are exempt, yes they are.

ummm no, my teacher counts my final mark as 100% because that test did not apply to me. Meaning my final grade is made up from 3 tests and not 4.

Drop Pods are freed from liability from Tactical Reserves, as they're exempt.

You guys keep repeating this.
And I will ask again
How does being freed from liability or obligation to this EXACT 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

Means you make exceptions to how you count your army and how you determine what is and is not on the battlefield.

You are not obliged to impose this restriction. That is all well and good.
But how is not needing to impose this restriction possibly telling you to change how your army total is calculated ?

You are exempt from THAT statement, NOTHING ELSE. That statement doesn't tell you how to count your army, that statement doesn't tell you what's on or off the battlefield. That statement tells you that you must check these things. How is being exempt the fact that you MUST check those things changing what those things actually are ?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Yes, the army count is part of the TR rule, so they are exempt for it. Citation is the TR rule where it references your army count. Done and done.

IT does not matter that the army count is part of the TR rule. It literally doesn't matter. The TR rule affects your army - not particular units. A non exempt unit has to follow this rule because it is not exempt. Seriously you guys are being daft to the point it is absurd. Your army point total DOES NOT change because you have a unit exempt to TR. Army point total is affected by NOTHING but the units you include in your list.

So explain how Drop Pods are not freed of their liability under Tactical Restraint by being exempted by Tactical Restraint.

Army point total *for the purposes of Tactical Restraint* is affected by NOTHING but the units you include in your list *and are not freed from liability for the purposes of Tactical Restraint*.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I suppose I could just starting bringing 4000 point armies because I can put 2000 points in drop pods and they don't exist because they are exempt to TR lol.

Sure you could, but that's a 4000 point game. Because army points for purposes other than TR are not army points for the purposes of TR.

 Type40 wrote:
ummm no, my teacher counts my final mark as 100% because that test did not apply to me. Meaning my final grade is made up from 3 tests and not 4.

Exactly. That's what being exempt means.

Your teacher told you you are exempt from taking the test. S/he did not tell you you will get an automatic 100 on the 4th test.

The average then is calculated as (100+100+100)/3, and not (100+100+100+100)/4

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Yes, the army count is part of the TR rule, so they are exempt for it. Citation is the TR rule where it references your army count. Done and done.

IT does not matter that the army count is part of the TR rule. It literally doesn't matter. The TR rule affects your army - not particular units. A non exempt unit has to follow this rule because it is not exempt. Seriously you guys are being daft to the point it is absurd. Your army point total DOES NOT change because you have a unit exempt to TR. Army point total is affected by NOTHING but the units you include in your list.

I suppose I could just starting bringing 4000 point armies because I can put 2000 points in drop pods and they don't exist because they are exempt to TR lol.

lol exactly ! i love this example.

I will bring 2000 pts in DPs and the rest as other things. If we can magically make "exempt from the TR rule" to mean "exempt from army count in relation to the TR rule" then I propose it also means "when using the TR rule your DPs are exempt from model count all together"

I will bring 4000 pts to a 2000 pt game and see what people think XD. I am exempt after all lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
ummm no, my teacher counts my final mark as 100% because that test did not apply to me. Meaning my final grade is made up from 3 tests and not 4.

Exactly. That's what being exempt means.

Yes, my point exactly.

If each test also had a question that said "if you fail this question you fail the course"
Even though I am exempt from the 4th test. If I fail that question, the 4th test is inconsequential. I the penalty is still applied.

Being exempt from the 4th test that includes the auto fail question doesn't mean I am exempt from the auto fail question on every other test.

What you guys don't seem to understand is that being exempt from one thing doesn't mean you get to be exempt from the restrictions that are applied from OTHER THINGS.

This isn't a mater of percents or calculations.
It is a mater of EXACTLY what you are exempt from
and that is ONLY the application of this restriction

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

It is not an exemption on HOW that restriction is calculated, or HOW that restriction interacts with things. Your DPs are exempt from applying the restriction as a whole.
When something does apply the restriction, that doesn't change.

Just because I am exempt from test number 4 doesn't mean that I now get 25% because when I failed the auto fail question.
That is a separate restriction, unrelated to my exemption. Sure it is related. but being exempt from the test itself does not exempt me from how EACH other test is marked, or any other possible penalties those tests can give me, even if the 4th test that I am exempt from have the same questions, the same marking scheme and the same penalties.

 Type40 wrote:
If each test also had a question that said "if you fail this question you fail the course"
Even though I am exempt from the 4th test. If I fail that question, the 4th test is inconsequential. I the penalty is still applied.

Being exempt from the 4th test that includes the auto fail question doesn't mean I am exempt from the auto fail question on every other test.

Yes but you're exempt from the auto-fail question on the 4th test nonetheless, despite not having answered it correctly because you've been exempt.

 Type40 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
So are you saying that Exempt doesn't mean "the TR rule does not affect the drop pod and its contents"

No. It means cannot affect/be affected. Like how 0 times anything is 0.

 Type40 wrote:
Strange, the next time I am exempt from taking an exam, i guess I ll still have to take it ? maybe some modified version of it tyhat takes into account how many other people have already taken it in relation to who is in the classroom at the time

Say your teacher tells you that you have 4 tests in a semester and if you get 100's on the first 3, you are exempt from taking the 4th one. Your teacher counted your 4th test as 0 because you didn't take the exam. Now your final grade is 75, rather than 100 it should've been.

 Type40 wrote:
TR triggers at deployment, but how does that effect your army count ?

You don't count at deployment it because they're exempt.

 Type40 wrote:
again, being exempt from a rule that imposes a restriction doesn't make you exempt from how that restriction would have been and can be calculated.

For the items that are exempt, yes they are.

ummm no, my teacher counts my final mark as 100% because that test did not apply to me. Meaning my final grade is made up from 3 tests and not 4.

Exactly. The exempt test's liabilty did not count against you - only the liability from the first three tests. You got 100/100 on 3 of 3 tests. Likewise, if you have deployed 1 of 2 Terminator units and 0 of 2 Pods, you've deployed 1 of 2 units in your army *for the purposes of Tactical Reserves*.

There was still a fourth test. And it doesn't matter whether the exempt test was the first test or the last test. There are four tests in that class. But one of your tests is exempt from your grade, so does not count. It's the same as there being 3 tests as far as your grade is concerned. That doesn't mean the fourth test never happened.

Drop Pods are freed from liability from Tactical Reserves, as they're exempt.

You guys keep repeating this.
And I will ask again
How does being freed from liability or obligation to this EXACT 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

Means you make exceptions to how you count your army and how you determine what is and is not on the battlefield.

It means you make an exception in "how you count your army" for the purposes of that rule. It means that, for the purposes of the rule quoted, the Drop Pods impose no liability. Thus, the clause establishing liabliity - "at least half the total number of units in your army" - does not count Drop Pods.

You are not obliged to impose this restriction. That is all well and good.
But how is not needing to impose this restriction possibly telling you to change how your army total is calculated ?

Once agian, you're ignoring the freedom from liabilities. How does not being obliged to take one test change the total number of points you need to pass the course?

You are exempt from THAT statement, NOTHING ELSE. That statement doesn't tell you how to count your army, that statement doesn't tell you what's on or off the battlefield. That statement tells you that you must check these things. How is being exempt the fact that you MUST check those things changing what those things actually are ?

You actually never need check these things. You must satisfy them. Hypothetically, if a player didn't even know about the rule (and thus never checked it), but didn't violate it, they did nothing wrong. Checking is just a way to ensure you satisfy them. It's not a requirement in itself.

 skchsan wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
If each test also had a question that said "if you fail this question you fail the course"
Even though I am exempt from the 4th test. If I fail that question, the 4th test is inconsequential. I the penalty is still applied.

Being exempt from the 4th test that includes the auto fail question doesn't mean I am exempt from the auto fail question on every other test.

Yes but you're exempt from the auto-fail question on the 4th test nonetheless, despite not having answered it correctly because you've been exempt.

But what your saying is that I am exempt from the auto fail question on the other 3 tests because it is included in the 4th.

 Type40 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
If each test also had a question that said "if you fail this question you fail the course"
Even though I am exempt from the 4th test. If I fail that question, the 4th test is inconsequential. I the penalty is still applied.

Being exempt from the 4th test that includes the auto fail question doesn't mean I am exempt from the auto fail question on every other test.

Yes but you're exempt from the auto-fail question on the 4th test nonetheless, despite not having answered it correctly because you've been exempt.

But what your saying is that I am exempt from the auto fail question on the other 3 tests because it is included in the 4th.

No.
We're saying that if the rule was "You must get at least 50% of the MegaQuestions right, and there's one on each test", and you take two tests and are exempted from two tests, you're required to get 1 MegaQuestion right.
If the rule were "You must get at least 2 of the MegaQuestions right", that'd be a different story. Becuase 2 isn't defined by "how many tests you take". 50% is defined by "how many tests you take".

50% of units is defined by how many units you take. So units exempted from the 50% rule do not affect how many units the 50% rule requires.

So it's 6 pages in and we seem to be going around in the same circles we did last time....

There still seem to be three schools of thought...

School A
Drop pods and Embarked units are Exempt from TR, thus any such units are excluded from the army size when determing the deployment requirements. Hence you may deploy and much (or as little) of your army as you like in drop pods and set them up all up in reserve, (this includes Null Deployment). As the drop pods and embarked units are excluded from the army size for the purposes of TR you may also set up up to 50% of the remaining forces in reserves to..

School B
Drop pods and Embarked units are Exempt from TR, however they still form part of the army and thus are included when determing the deployment requirements. Hence you may only deploy in such a manner to violoate the critera of TR is all your army consists of drop pods and embarked units. If there are any non-exempt units then the criteria of TR must be adhered to as normal.

School C
Drop pods and Embarked units are Exempt from TR, however they still form part of the army and thus are included when determing the deployment requirements. Moreover as the requirement is levied upon, and determined on the basis of the armies properties (namely the size in terms of points value and number of units which isn't determined by TR) that the exemption to TR doesn't affect army deployment as this the obligation is levied up and meet by the Army.

And no clear evidence to prove which is correct.

All have a logical basis.

However all are based on slightly different assumptions that need to be made to try to figure out how the rules work. It speaks volumes that whilst two schools of though allow Null Deployment they can not agree on allowing 50%< x <100%

Which brings me back to my original post here of

Actually the earlier discussion was inconclusive in reaching a concensuss on the matter