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.
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.
Exactly, so why are my other 3 tests being marked differently ? see my auto-fail question example. This is akin to having an ENTRIE restriction applied to you for including it.
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.
again, please explain how being free from the liability of an imposed restriction changes how that restriction is imposed when it is given to me by other units ?
Again, you are repeating the same thing.
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?
Your arguments on semantics about liabilties v.s. obligations v.s. exempt and repeating multiple synonyms claiming they mean different things is not helping.
It doesn't change the points you need to pass... this is my point exactly. you still need a 50% to pass. Being exempt does not change any other rules except for what you are exempt from. In this case you are exempt from an imposed restriction. You are not exempt from how that restriction is calculated. If that restriction is applied in some other way, you still must meet it.
lets say you had a course with 4 tests.
Each test has 200 questions.
The top of each tests says:
"In order to go on the field trip you must have answered 40 questions altogether from all 4 tests."
Then the teacher gives you an exemption from the 40 questions rule on your 4th test.
does that some how mean you now only need to answer 30 questions ?
Why would being exempt from the 4th tests rule change whether or not you need to answer 40 questions ? The other 3 tests gave you that restriction, not the 4th one. The 4th one may still be exempt from it, but it doesn't change the fact that you go the restriction from the other tests.
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.
Again symantics. whether or not you actually physically CHECK to see whether you have 50/50 doesn't make a difference in satisfying the rules and requirements.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cornishman wrote: 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
Sorry I disagreed with you back there. I didn't realize it was as divisive as this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
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.
BUT THATS NOT WHAT IT IS .
you have 4 tests. All together the tests have 80 questions
Each test has a rule at the top that says "in order to pass the course you need to answer 40 questions all together"
Just because the 4th test is given an exemption from the rule that says "in order to pass the course you need to answer 40 questions"
does not mean the penalty isn't applied to you or that the 4th test wasn't exempt. You still get the restriction because of the other tests. It doesn't magically change to 30 questions. You still have a 40 question restriction because of the other tests.
The exemption isn't violated. The 4th test didn't have the rule, the other tests did. Does that mean anything for you... nope, you still got the restriction. Does the Rule as Written change for the other tests magically. Nope it still says 40 questions.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/10/31 17:45:14
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
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"
Very simple. The restriction you have quoted is from the tactical restraint rule. The drop pod rule states that drop pods and units which are contained within drop pods are exempt from the rule. If you are trying to count the army as a whole including the drop pods and the units embarked in them, you are not following the drop pod rule as it clearly states they are exempt from the Tactical Restraint rule. This means that you can not count them as part of the army for purposes of the tactical restraint rule since they are specifically exempt from the rule. Since they are exempt, you have only what's left over after ignoring the points for the crop pods and the units contained in them.
Your problem is that you're trying to apply a rule to the drop pods and their passengers that you are told does not affect them, Counting them as part of the army for purposes of determining the 50% that must be placed on the board is a tactical restraint rule is not following the drop pod rule, as you're suddenly making them not exempt from a portion of a rule which they are stated to be specifically exempt from. All your arguments still boil down to you doing something you are specifically told not to do.
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"
Very simple. The restriction you have quoted is from the tactical restraint rule. The drop pod rule states that drop pods and units which are contained within drop pods are exempt from the rule. If you are trying to count the army as a whole including the drop pods and the units embarked in them, you are not following the drop pod rule as it clearly states they are exempt from the Tactical Restraint rule. This means that you can not count them as part of the army for purposes of the tactical restraint rule since they are specifically exempt from the rule. Since they are exempt, you have only what's left over after ignoring the points for the crop pods and the units contained in them.
Your problem is that you're trying to apply a rule to the drop pods and their passengers that you are told does not affect them, Counting them as part of the army for purposes of determining the 50% that must be placed on the board is a tactical restraint rule is not following the drop pod rule, as you're suddenly making them not exempt from a portion of a rule which they are stated to be specifically exempt from. All your arguments still boil down to you doing something you are specifically told not to do.
please re-read my posts, so I do not have to circle back to this again.
No, I am not trying to apply any rule to the drop pod. The TR rule is applied to the player and not to the drop pod.
The drop pod, for the last time, has nothing to do with the TR rule being imposed on the player.
The drop pod is exempt, it does not impose the rule on the player. Another unit imposes the restriction the player.
Nothing about the DP gives it permission to not be counted in terms of the TR rule. IT SIMPLY DOES NOT IMPOSE IT.
here is list number 1
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
my list has 5 drop pods all exempt from the TR rule.
ok, here is list number 2
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
termies - TR RULE
dp - no restriction
Each DP does not apply the 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
however, the termies DO impose the restriction.
Now YOU as the player WHO IS NOT A DROP POD has a restriction that you gained from termies WHO ARE NOT A DROP POD that you must follow.
Nothing about the DPs being exempt from imposing the restriction allows them to not be counted. they simply DO NOT IMPOSE THE RESTRICTION and thus are exempt.
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
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.
Exactly, so why are my other 3 tests being marked differently ? see my auto-fail question example. This is akin to having an ENTRIE restriction applied to you for including it.
The auto-fail question doesn't scale with test count similiar to the rule in question. See the "MegaQuestion" scenario outlined above for a variant of your auto-fail question that is in line with the requirement.
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.
again, please explain how being free from the liability of an imposed restriction changes how that restriction is imposed when it is given to me by other units ?
Again, you are repeating the same thing.
If Bob is paying for one of your liabilites for you, and you're freed of the liability, Bob is not required to pay that liability for you. Bob's liabilities are unchanged. So again, if 50% or more of total number of your group must... have a valid driver's license, then between you and Bob, one of you must. If you're in a group of 4, two of you must. If people who bicycled here are exempt from that rule, and two of your four bicycled here, then two are exempt. Only one of the two non-exempt members need to have a driver's license. The total number of people in your group remains 4. But the total number of people in the group *for the purposes of the Drivers License rule* is 2. It remains two, whether the bouncer is talking to you or one of your hipster friends who rode a bicycle.
The exemption to the license rule didn't change change the number of people in the group. When you grabbed a table, you wanted a table with four chairs. When you got a round of sodas, you ordered four, not two. But you only need one licensed driver for the two non-hipsters in the group.
The restriction doesn't change whether you're evaluating an exempt or non-exempt unit. The restriction remains the same value. That value does not factor in the exempt units, though.
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?
Your arguments on semantics about liabilties v.s. obligations v.s. exempt and repeating multiple synonyms claiming they mean different things is not helping.
Only because you still think "liabilities" and "obligations" are synonyms. They are related, and often come up in similar places. I've been trying to differentiate them, because you aren't recognizing the liabilities incurred by the Drop Pods as obligations (which would be arguable). Regardless, you continue to discount liabilites, whereas "exempt" clearly does not.
It doesn't change the points you need to pass... this is my point exactly. you still need a 50% to pass.
Being exempt does not change any other rules except for what you are exempt from. In this case you are exempt from an imposed restriction. You are not exempt from how that restriction is calculated. If that restriction is applied in some other way, you still must meet it.
In your orignal 4-tests, lets say each was 100 points. Lets say you need 50% of all points to pass. You therefore, typically, need 200 points. You are exempted from one test. You manage a 51% on each of the first three tests. That's 153 points. You pass - because you got 153 of 300 points, which is 51%, which is greater than 50%. I still need 200 points to pass. I score a 49% on all 4 tests. I got 196 points. Even though I got more points than you, I fail. Because you are exempt from liability on the third test.
lets say you had a course with 4 tests.
Each test has 200 questions.
The top of each tests says:
"In order to go on the field trip you must have answered 40 questions altogether from all 4 tests."
Then the teacher gives you an exemption from the 40 questions rule on your 4th test.
does that some how mean you now only need to answer 30 questions ?
Why would being exempt from the 4th tests rule change whether or not you need to answer 40 questions ? The other 3 tests gave you that restriction, not the 4th one. The 4th one may still be exempt from it, but it doesn't change the fact that you go the restriction from the other tests.
Nonsensical. He could exempt the 4th test from that rule, but he can't exempt that rule from your test. Exempting that 40-question rule from that test would be messy, though, as "40" is not pro-rated. If the 40-question rule were written as "Must answer at least 5% of all questions", however, the outcome is clear: you must now only answer 30 questions on the first 3 tests.
There is an alternate reading where each test imposes that "5% of all tests combined" limitation. In that case, there are four seperate rules that require you to get 5% of all questions. In that case, exempting from the 4th still leaves the other 3 instances. Regardless, the rule is either the flat 40 (in which case it'd usually get prorated for fairness) or 5%. So the above applies.
Note that the case we're discussing is prorated. 50% of $value. So this is more like "5% of all questions" - where an exemption of the fourth test would cut down the total number of questions for your grade's purpose.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/31 19:15:04
skchsan wrote: It's not that DP are not liable for the restrictions. They are simply exempt.
OMG these semantic back and forths.
I only said liable because @bharring keeps saying it and making symantic differences between obligated, liable and exempt.
Exempt definition :
free from an obligation or liability imposed on others.
Ok so can we just agree that these are all synonyms. When I say they are exempt, someone says "oh you are forgeting they arn't obliged" when I say obliged someone says "oh your forgeting that they arn;t liable" now that I said liable "oohhhh they are just exempt"
So lets stop with this symantic merry go round.
The fact of the mater is you are simply exempt from the rule in its entirety. This doesn't mean you are exempt from a percentage of the rule for other things, just that you are exempt from the restriction being imposed at all.
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
skchsan wrote: It's not that DP are not liable for the restrictions. They are simply exempt.
OMG these semantic back and forths.
I only said liable because @bharring keeps saying it and making symantic differences between obligated, liable and exempt.
The problem isn't semantics. The problem is that you're using 'liability' as a synonym for 'obligate', but using a definition of 'obligate' that does not capture the meaning of 'liability'.
DPs are not "obligated" via the rule. They also are free from any *liability* due to the rule. While obligations are things the DP needn't meet - what you're referring to when you say "restrictions" - liabilities include obligations placed on others.
If you take 2 Termies and 2 Pods, the obligation to deploy one Termie is a liability of the 2 Termies. The obligation to deploy the second Termie is a liablity of the two Pods. Thus, if Pods are free of all *liabilities* from Tactial Reserves, they're free of obligating the second Termie to deploy.
Note how 'Liability' and 'Obligation' can be used very differently here.
Exempt definition :
free from an obligation or liability imposed on others.
Ok so can we just agree that these are all synonyms. When I say they are exempt, someone says "oh you are forgeting they arn't obliged" when I say obliged someone says "oh your forgeting that they arn;t liable" now that I said liable "oohhhh they are just exempt"
When you're saying they aren't "liable" to abide by the restriction, you're talking about obligations. They aren't synonyms. When you're saying that DPs being exempt from the rule does not free the obligation DPs impose on Termies under the rule, you're saying DPs *are liable* under the TR rule. This isn't semantic circles. This is misunderstanding of terms.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/31 19:27:34
back to the 3 schools of thoughts, and thier logic:
School A TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR.
TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units).
DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size.
Thus, DPs and Embarked units must be excluded from the size of the Army when considering TR, as otherwise they are indirectly or through the emergent property causing the obligation.
The obvious counter point that is requently used is 'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated. I would agree it may take parallels from some counties Tax Laws, but tax laws have a great deal of clarifying information which we don't have. This is countered by pointing out this is how tax works....
School B TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR.
TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units).
DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size, however as the Army Size is not determined by TR, hence the Army Size for TR (or any other affect) remains unchanged.
DPs and Embarked units are however exempt for TR. Thus if all the army consists of such units it may null deploy, however any units are not exempt that the usual stipulations of TR applies.
The frequent counter-arguement is that this isn't exempting the PDs and thier Embarked Units from TR and/or how does one thing attract a liability to a whole? Well in the UK council tax is leevied on properties, if all the occupants are exempt then the property is exempt, a single non-exempt occupant is sufficient for council tax to be levied against the property.
School C TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR.
TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units).
DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size, however as the Army Size is not determined by TR, the Army Size for TR (or any other affect) remains unchanged.
Furthermore, the obligation is imposed upon the army not the any or all specific units on them. Consequently, even in the entire army is made up of units that are exempt from the TR, as the obligation is imposed upon the army, not on any specific units in that it army TR still must apply to the Army.
For example if an army is composed of 5 drop pods and 10 units which could be embarked on them then TR doesn’t place an obligation specifically on any of those 15 units to be deployed. As in based on this description you can’t say TR is requiring any specific Drop Pod (and Embarked unit to be deployed). It is creating the liability that the army must deploy at least ½ it’s size (in terms of both number of units, and points value of the units deployed).
In the case where an army is composed in it’s entirety of units that have a rule, or are conferred a rule ‘this unit is exempt from TR’, this doesn’t give the Army the rule ‘this Army is immune to TR’.
The frequent counter-arguement is that this isn't exempting the PDs and thier Embarked Units from TR. Which as counted it'sself by pointing out the key point here that based on these assumptions the 1st Paragraph of TR doesn't create a liabilty nor levy a restriction against specific units, hence units being exempt doesn't matter...
In short: All three schools are internally consistent, but have each had to make assumptions on how to get to a result where there is a big grey area.
Without any clarification or clear RAI there isn't any way to figure out which is actually correct.
As for adding back the 3rd clause (destroyed if not arrived on T3 or before)... Well GW errata-ed Obliterator's Fleshmetal Guns to something that would appear to mean something different to the original wording, but then FAQ-ed it to mean the original text (without changing the errata-ed wording), and then there is the matter of the wording for the aura effects (e.g. Wulfen Stone/ Fire Blade Cadre) where GW has produced clearer wording for ALL aura affects in the latest C:SM, but hasn't amended any remaining previous instances of the old wording (so Rites of Battle is worded differenting for C:BA/ CA etc... depending on if it's a unit in the codex or an new primaris unit with the new C:SM wording).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/31 19:45:11
The obvious counter point that is requently used is 'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated. I would agree it may take parallels from some counties Tax Laws, but tax laws have a great deal of clarifying information which we don't have. This is countered by pointing out this is how tax works....
To nitpick: It's a cognitive shortcut to exclude them from army size. The exemption means the Pods are freed of liability under TR. Excluding the pods results in the liability of the pods being freed. However, the implementation is academic. The rules (for "School A" interpretation) are merely that the liability under TR for Pods is freed. So whatever liability they incurred is not in force. You can do that by excluding the pods. You can do that by discounting the pods. You can do that by identifying the liability the Pods assign, beyond the rest of the army, and not applying it.
How you apply the freedom from the liability can be done in a number of ways. No particular way is proscribed. Only that they are freed from liability.
So "'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated" should not be a surprise. Freeing from liability is mandated. Doing the aforementioned results in freeing from liability in a clean, side-effect-free manner. You're free to use any implementation that meets the condition. Regardless of method used, you get the same result as not counting the Pods in Army Size in the TR rule.
The obvious counter point that is requently used is 'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated. I would agree it may take parallels from some counties Tax Laws, but tax laws have a great deal of clarifying information which we don't have. This is countered by pointing out this is how tax works....
To nitpick: It's a cognitive shortcut to exclude them from army size. The exemption means the Pods are freed of liability under TR. Excluding the pods results in the liability of the pods being freed. However, the implementation is academic. The rules (for "School A" interpretation) are merely that the liability under TR for Pods is freed. So whatever liability they incurred is not in force. You can do that by excluding the pods. You can do that by discounting the pods. You can do that by identifying the liability the Pods assign, beyond the rest of the army, and not applying it.
How you apply the freedom from the liability can be done in a number of ways. No particular way is proscribed. Only that they are freed from liability.
So "'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated" should not be a surprise. Freeing from liability is mandated. Doing the aforementioned results in freeing from liability in a clean, side-effect-free manner. You're free to use any implementation that meets the condition. Regardless of method used, you get the same result as not counting the Pods in Army Size in the TR rule.
It is the existance of School's B and C '[that make it] neither required nor mandated'.
As clearly stated at the bottom all 3 schools are internally consistent.
Type40 wrote: I am saying a DP + other units over 50/50 rule is impossible.
You can never have "DP + other units over 50/50" because the drop pods are exempt.
Do not ignore what exempt means.
For example, you have 7 drop pods with a unit embarked on each, and two characters not in drop pods. Lets say one character was a librarian on a bike that cost 144 points, and the other is a librarian in terminator armor that cost 110 points. You now have 2 units for the TR rule, and 254 points for the TR rule.
So we determined that you can put one unit, and up to 127 points into reserve, so we put the librarian in terminator armor that cost 110 points into reserve and we have followed all the rules because the 7 drop pods with a unit embarked on each are exempt.
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
back to the 3 schools of thoughts, and thier logic:
School A TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR. TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units). DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size. Thus, DPs and Embarked units must be excluded from the size of the Army when considering TR, as otherwise they are indirectly or through the emergent property causing the obligation.
The obvious counter point that is requently used is 'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated. I would agree it may take parallels from some counties Tax Laws, but tax laws have a great deal of clarifying information which we don't have. This is countered by pointing out this is how tax works....
School B TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR. TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units). DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size, however as the Army Size is not determined by TR, hence the Army Size for TR (or any other affect) remains unchanged. DPs and Embarked units are however exempt for TR. Thus if all the army consists of such units it may null deploy, however any units are not exempt that the usual stipulations of TR applies.
The frequent counter-arguement is that this isn't exempting the PDs and thier Embarked Units from TR and/or how does one thing attract a liability to a whole? Well in the UK council tax is leevied on properties, if all the occupants are exempt then the property is exempt, a single non-exempt occupant is sufficient for council tax to be levied against the property.
School C TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR. TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units). DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size, however as the Army Size is not determined by TR, the Army Size for TR (or any other affect) remains unchanged. Furthermore, the obligation is imposed upon the army not the any or all specific units on them. Consequently, even in the entire army is made up of units that are exempt from the TR, as the obligation is imposed upon the army, not on any specific units in that it army TR still must apply to the Army. For example if an army is composed of 5 drop pods and 10 units which could be embarked on them then TR doesn’t place an obligation specifically on any of those 15 units to be deployed. As in based on this description you can’t say TR is requiring any specific Drop Pod (and Embarked unit to be deployed). It is creating the liability that the army must deploy at least ½ it’s size (in terms of both number of units, and points value of the units deployed). In the case where an army is composed in it’s entirety of units that have a rule, or are conferred a rule ‘this unit is exempt from TR’, this doesn’t give the Army the rule ‘this Army is immune to TR’.
The frequent counter-arguement is that this isn't exempting the PDs and thier Embarked Units from TR. Which as counted it'sself by pointing out the key point here that based on these assumptions the 1st Paragraph of TR doesn't create a liabilty nor levy a restriction against specific units, hence units being exempt doesn't matter...
In short: All three schools are internally consistent, but have each had to make assumptions on how to get to a result where there is a big grey area.
Without any clarification or clear RAI there isn't any way to figure out which is actually correct.
As for adding back the 3rd clause (destroyed if not arrived on T3 or before)... Well GW errata-ed Obliterator's Fleshmetal Guns to something that would appear to mean something different to the original wording, but then FAQ-ed it to mean the original text (without changing the errata-ed wording), and then there is the matter of the wording for the aura effects (e.g. Wulfen Stone/ Fire Blade Cadre) where GW has produced clearer wording for ALL aura affects in the latest C:SM, but hasn't amended any remaining previous instances of the old wording (so Rites of Battle is worded differenting for C:BA/ CA etc... depending on if it's a unit in the codex or an new primaris unit with the new C:SM wording).
Except the issue in this summary is that Tactical Reserves is being treated as if it was a binding rule during roster creation when it only serves as a balancing check condition for matched play during deployment.
The thoughts of schools B & C hinge upon the idea that "Army Size" is a determined, definitive term. But there is no such thing as an official definition of "Army Size." We play up to agreed point values in matched play. Period. Until now, it was easy to assume as the conditions were more or less binary (deployed on battlefield, set aside as reinforcement). With the inclusion of third "category", so to say, (set aside as reinforcement, with special exemption), we now arrive at the question of "what is an army, and how is it (and it's points and number of units) defined when this third category is introduced?".
With lack of information, we must take the rules at its face value - 'so and so are exempt from this rule'. The moment we say, "Well so and so are exempt so that's that, but technically no one said this, so from this perspective, they are still included here', we are no longer objectively exempting them but selectively exempting them when there are no appreant conflicts.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/31 20:07:06
The obvious counter point that is requently used is 'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated. I would agree it may take parallels from some counties Tax Laws, but tax laws have a great deal of clarifying information which we don't have. This is countered by pointing out this is how tax works....
To nitpick: It's a cognitive shortcut to exclude them from army size. The exemption means the Pods are freed of liability under TR. Excluding the pods results in the liability of the pods being freed. However, the implementation is academic. The rules (for "School A" interpretation) are merely that the liability under TR for Pods is freed. So whatever liability they incurred is not in force. You can do that by excluding the pods. You can do that by discounting the pods. You can do that by identifying the liability the Pods assign, beyond the rest of the army, and not applying it.
How you apply the freedom from the liability can be done in a number of ways. No particular way is proscribed. Only that they are freed from liability.
So "'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated" should not be a surprise. Freeing from liability is mandated. Doing the aforementioned results in freeing from liability in a clean, side-effect-free manner. You're free to use any implementation that meets the condition. Regardless of method used, you get the same result as not counting the Pods in Army Size in the TR rule.
It is the existance of School's B and C '[that make it] neither required nor mandated'.
As clearly stated at the bottom all 3 schools are internally consistent.
It might be the cornerstone of "School B" or "School C", but that "complaint" is not consistent with "School A". It's a misunderstanding of "School A".
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"
Very simple. The restriction you have quoted is from the tactical restraint rule. The drop pod rule states that drop pods and units which are contained within drop pods are exempt from the rule. If you are trying to count the army as a whole including the drop pods and the units embarked in them, you are not following the drop pod rule as it clearly states they are exempt from the Tactical Restraint rule. This means that you can not count them as part of the army for purposes of the tactical restraint rule since they are specifically exempt from the rule. Since they are exempt, you have only what's left over after ignoring the points for the crop pods and the units contained in them.
Your problem is that you're trying to apply a rule to the drop pods and their passengers that you are told does not affect them, Counting them as part of the army for purposes of determining the 50% that must be placed on the board is a tactical restraint rule is not following the drop pod rule, as you're suddenly making them not exempt from a portion of a rule which they are stated to be specifically exempt from. All your arguments still boil down to you doing something you are specifically told not to do.
please re-read my posts, so I do not have to circle back to this again.
No, I am not trying to apply any rule to the drop pod. The TR rule is applied to the player and not to the drop pod.
The drop pod, for the last time, has nothing to do with the TR rule being imposed on the player.
The drop pod is exempt, it does not impose the rule on the player. Another unit imposes the restriction the player.
Nothing about the DP gives it permission to not be counted in terms of the TR rule. IT SIMPLY DOES NOT IMPOSE IT.
here is list number 1
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
my list has 5 drop pods all exempt from the TR rule.
ok, here is list number 2
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
DP - no restriction
termies - TR RULE
dp - no restriction
Each DP does not apply the 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
however, the termies DO impose the restriction.
Now YOU as the player WHO IS NOT A DROP POD has a restriction that you gained from termies WHO ARE NOT A DROP POD that you must follow.
Nothing about the DPs being exempt from imposing the restriction allows them to not be counted. they simply DO NOT IMPOSE THE RESTRICTION and thus are exempt.
As others pointed out, the drop pod rule says "exempt", not "no restriction"
So, with your lists, all the drop pods and their contents are exempt. That's more than a semantics thing as you claim. For your list #2 you have a bunch of drop pods and contents that are exempt, and you have termies that aren't exempt. As the drop pods and their contents are exempt count. The only restriction I have on me the player is the termies themselves, everything in the drop pods and the drop pods themselves are exempt. That's where you are wrong, you are still counting the drop pods as part of the army when making the caculation for what's 50% of the army, a calculation for the tactical reserves rule. If you are counting the exempt things for your 50% rule, you are counting them toward a rule that they are specifically stated they are exempt from. Everything about the DPs being exempt keeps them from being counted as part of the army when making the calculation for purposes of the Tactical Restraint rule. That's what being exempt from the rule is. You counting them is treating them as not being exempt, and you have not shown any rules statement that makes them not exempt (in this case, something overriding the statment that they are exempt). Everything you have shown so far is ignoring that they are exempt from the entire rule.
back to the 3 schools of thoughts, and thier logic:
School A TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR.
TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units).
DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size.
Thus, DPs and Embarked units must be excluded from the size of the Army when considering TR, as otherwise they are indirectly or through the emergent property causing the obligation.
The obvious counter point that is requently used is 'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated. I would agree it may take parallels from some counties Tax Laws, but tax laws have a great deal of clarifying information which we don't have. This is countered by pointing out this is how tax works....
School B TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR.
TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units).
DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size, however as the Army Size is not determined by TR, hence the Army Size for TR (or any other affect) remains unchanged.
DPs and Embarked units are however exempt for TR. Thus if all the army consists of such units it may null deploy, however any units are not exempt that the usual stipulations of TR applies.
The frequent counter-arguement is that this isn't exempting the PDs and thier Embarked Units from TR and/or how does one thing attract a liability to a whole? Well in the UK council tax is leevied on properties, if all the occupants are exempt then the property is exempt, a single non-exempt occupant is sufficient for council tax to be levied against the property.
School C TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR.
TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units).
DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size, however as the Army Size is not determined by TR, the Army Size for TR (or any other affect) remains unchanged.
Furthermore, the obligation is imposed upon the army not the any or all specific units on them. Consequently, even in the entire army is made up of units that are exempt from the TR, as the obligation is imposed upon the army, not on any specific units in that it army TR still must apply to the Army.
For example if an army is composed of 5 drop pods and 10 units which could be embarked on them then TR doesn’t place an obligation specifically on any of those 15 units to be deployed. As in based on this description you can’t say TR is requiring any specific Drop Pod (and Embarked unit to be deployed). It is creating the liability that the army must deploy at least ½ it’s size (in terms of both number of units, and points value of the units deployed).
In the case where an army is composed in it’s entirety of units that have a rule, or are conferred a rule ‘this unit is exempt from TR’, this doesn’t give the Army the rule ‘this Army is immune to TR’.
The frequent counter-arguement is that this isn't exempting the PDs and thier Embarked Units from TR. Which as counted it'sself by pointing out the key point here that based on these assumptions the 1st Paragraph of TR doesn't create a liabilty nor levy a restriction against specific units, hence units being exempt doesn't matter...
In short: All three schools are internally consistent, but have each had to make assumptions on how to get to a result where there is a big grey area.
Without any clarification or clear RAI there isn't any way to figure out which is actually correct.
As for adding back the 3rd clause (destroyed if not arrived on T3 or before)... Well GW errata-ed Obliterator's Fleshmetal Guns to something that would appear to mean something different to the original wording, but then FAQ-ed it to mean the original text (without changing the errata-ed wording), and then there is the matter of the wording for the aura effects (e.g. Wulfen Stone/ Fire Blade Cadre) where GW has produced clearer wording for ALL aura affects in the latest C:SM, but hasn't amended any remaining previous instances of the old wording (so Rites of Battle is worded differenting for C:BA/ CA etc... depending on if it's a unit in the codex or an new primaris unit with the new C:SM wording).
Except the issue in this summary is that Tactical Reserves is being treated as if it was a binding rule during roster creation when it only serves as a balancing check condition for matched play during deployment.
How so? School 3 works fine applying it at the end of deployment. The size of the army in terms of both points and number of units is independent of TR. All TR does is check whether at least 1/2 the Army by both of these measurements is deployed on the table.
Can you see how this doesn't apply any restrictions or obligations on any given unit in the army at that point hence (why by School C principles) the units being exempt or not doesn't affect the outcome?
The obvious counter point that is requently used is 'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated. I would agree it may take parallels from some counties Tax Laws, but tax laws have a great deal of clarifying information which we don't have. This is countered by pointing out this is how tax works....
To nitpick: It's a cognitive shortcut to exclude them from army size. The exemption means the Pods are freed of liability under TR. Excluding the pods results in the liability of the pods being freed. However, the implementation is academic. The rules (for "School A" interpretation) are merely that the liability under TR for Pods is freed. So whatever liability they incurred is not in force. You can do that by excluding the pods. You can do that by discounting the pods. You can do that by identifying the liability the Pods assign, beyond the rest of the army, and not applying it.
How you apply the freedom from the liability can be done in a number of ways. No particular way is proscribed. Only that they are freed from liability.
So "'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated" should not be a surprise. Freeing from liability is mandated. Doing the aforementioned results in freeing from liability in a clean, side-effect-free manner. You're free to use any implementation that meets the condition. Regardless of method used, you get the same result as not counting the Pods in Army Size in the TR rule.
It is the existance of School's B and C '[that make it] neither required nor mandated'.
As clearly stated at the bottom all 3 schools are internally consistent.
It might be the cornerstone of "School B" or "School C", but that "complaint" is not consistent with "School A". It's a misunderstanding of "School A".
If you hadn't noticed each of the 'counter-arguement' lines starts off with something that whilst consistent with that school of thought, isn't consistent with the others... And end ups with coming full circle pointing out how the point in question is consistent with the principles of that school of thought. See the bit on bold underline below.
The obvious counter point that is requently used is 'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated. I would agree it may take parallels from some counties Tax Laws, but tax laws have a great deal of clarifying information which we don't have. This is countered by pointing out this is how tax works....
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/31 20:07:57
Tax is a counterexample, but not the counterpoint. The counterpoint is that "School A" doesn't *actually* demand exclusion. It demands that the liability be freed. The exclusion is one way to accomplish this.
The results of freeing the liability are stable regardless of implementation; in the 2-Termie/2-pod list, only one Termie is required to be deployed. How you come to that conclusion - exclude Pods from the total points/units, subtract Pods, identify and ignore their liability, explicitly identify the non-exempted liability, whatever - is academic.
"School A" claims that you are free of the liability imposed by the pods. So the counterargument to the claim that the rule doesn't demand you to not count or deduct is to point out that "School A" doesn't either. "School A" requires the freedom from liability, so complaining about a possible implementation is pointless.
back to the 3 schools of thoughts, and thier logic:
School A TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR.
TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units).
DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size.
Thus, DPs and Embarked units must be excluded from the size of the Army when considering TR, as otherwise they are indirectly or through the emergent property causing the obligation.
The obvious counter point that is requently used is 'excluding them from the Army size' is a step that is neither required nor mandated. I would agree it may take parallels from some counties Tax Laws, but tax laws have a great deal of clarifying information which we don't have. This is countered by pointing out this is how tax works....
School B TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR.
TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units).
DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size, however as the Army Size is not determined by TR, hence the Army Size for TR (or any other affect) remains unchanged.
DPs and Embarked units are however exempt for TR. Thus if all the army consists of such units it may null deploy, however any units are not exempt that the usual stipulations of TR applies.
The frequent counter-arguement is that this isn't exempting the PDs and thier Embarked Units from TR and/or how does one thing attract a liability to a whole? Well in the UK council tax is leevied on properties, if all the occupants are exempt then the property is exempt, a single non-exempt occupant is sufficient for council tax to be levied against the property.
School C TR states that DPs and any embarked units are exempt from TR.
TR imposes an obligation based on the Army Size (in terms of both pts and no. of units).
DPs and Embarked units contribute towards the Army size, however as the Army Size is not determined by TR, the Army Size for TR (or any other affect) remains unchanged.
Furthermore, the obligation is imposed upon the army not the any or all specific units on them. Consequently, even in the entire army is made up of units that are exempt from the TR, as the obligation is imposed upon the army, not on any specific units in that it army TR still must apply to the Army.
For example if an army is composed of 5 drop pods and 10 units which could be embarked on them then TR doesn’t place an obligation specifically on any of those 15 units to be deployed. As in based on this description you can’t say TR is requiring any specific Drop Pod (and Embarked unit to be deployed). It is creating the liability that the army must deploy at least ½ it’s size (in terms of both number of units, and points value of the units deployed).
In the case where an army is composed in it’s entirety of units that have a rule, or are conferred a rule ‘this unit is exempt from TR’, this doesn’t give the Army the rule ‘this Army is immune to TR’.
The frequent counter-arguement is that this isn't exempting the PDs and thier Embarked Units from TR. Which as counted it'sself by pointing out the key point here that based on these assumptions the 1st Paragraph of TR doesn't create a liabilty nor levy a restriction against specific units, hence units being exempt doesn't matter...
In short: All three schools are internally consistent, but have each had to make assumptions on how to get to a result where there is a big grey area.
Without any clarification or clear RAI there isn't any way to figure out which is actually correct.
As for adding back the 3rd clause (destroyed if not arrived on T3 or before)... Well GW errata-ed Obliterator's Fleshmetal Guns to something that would appear to mean something different to the original wording, but then FAQ-ed it to mean the original text (without changing the errata-ed wording), and then there is the matter of the wording for the aura effects (e.g. Wulfen Stone/ Fire Blade Cadre) where GW has produced clearer wording for ALL aura affects in the latest C:SM, but hasn't amended any remaining previous instances of the old wording (so Rites of Battle is worded differenting for C:BA/ CA etc... depending on if it's a unit in the codex or an new primaris unit with the new C:SM wording).
Except the issue in this summary is that Tactical Reserves is being treated as if it was a binding rule during roster creation when it only serves as a balancing check condition for matched play during deployment.
The thoughts of schools B & C hinge upon the idea that "Army Size" is a determined, definitive term. But there is no such thing as an official definition of "Army Size." We play up to agreed point values in matched play. Period. Until now, it was easy to assume as the conditions were more or less binary (deployed on battlefield, set aside as reinforcement). With the inclusion of third "category", so to say, (set aside as reinforcement, with special exemption), we now arrive at the question of "what is an army, and how is it (and it's points and number of units) defined when this third category is introduced?".
With lack of information, we must take the rules at its face value - 'so and so are exempt from this rule'. The moment we say, "Well so and so are exempt so that's that, but technically no one said this, so from this perspective, they are still included here', we are no longer objectively exempting them but selectively exempting them when there are no appreant conflicts.
The games uses many things that could be considered within the context of the game as self evident truths. That an inch could be defined as 2.54cm, that a D6 has the number 1-6 on them.
With respect to army size... TR isn't the only mention of this
Rulebook pg.214
Choose Armies When choosing an army for a matched play game, your army must be battle forged (pg 240) and it's total points value cannot exceed the limit set for the game.
Points Limit {Goes on to explain how you to calculate the total points value of the army, and to check this doesn't exceed the agreed points limit}
skchsan wrote:The tax example isn't a counter point. It's a simple analogy to help you understand what "exemption" means.
&
Bharring wrote:Tax is a counterexample, but not the counterpoint. The counterpoint is that "School A" doesn't *actually* demand exclusion. It demands that the liability be freed. The exclusion is one way to accomplish this.
The results of freeing the liability are stable regardless of implementation; in the 2-Termie/2-pod list, only one Termie is required to be deployed. How you come to that conclusion - exclude Pods from the total points/units, subtract Pods, identify and ignore their liability, explicitly identify the non-exempted liability, whatever - is academic.
"School A" claims that you are free of the liability imposed by the pods. So the counterargument to the claim that the rule doesn't demand you to not count or deduct is to point out that "School A" doesn't either. "School A" requires the freedom from liability, so complaining about a possible implementation is pointless.
If correctly labelling things with 3 different, but internally consistent points of view whilst trying to summerise the cyclic arguements that are occuring is the biggest problem then I'm happy with that. However, the Tax was being used to support School A, the counter was that excluding them from army size isn't the only way to free the units from the obligations.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/10/31 20:56:52
The "counter-argument" against "School A" comes from a factually incorrect claim - factually incorrect independent of the school of thought.
The "counter-argument" for "School B/C", on the other hand, is a factually correct statement. Whether it's a problem could be debated. A fair statement of the contention is "Does a unit being exempt from TR exempt said unit form causing any liability under TR?" A reasonable, debateable question. If it does, "School B/C" ceases to be internally consistent. If it does not, "School B/C" remains internally consistent.
As such, discussing "Does a unit being exempt from TR exempt said unit form causing any liability under TR?" is the natural extension. If that can be answered authoritatively in either direction, then one or the other sets are inconsistent.
When it comes to the UK tax, the UK is leveeing taxes on a per-property basis. As such, leveraging the tax in full on any property that contains any non-exempt people is consistent. Each exempt person on the property is causing no liability; the tax liability is the same whether that exempt person was there or not.
The 50% rule is different. First, it exists even if 0 non-Exempt units are present (it just doesn't matter, because you need to deploy 0 units). Secondly, much more importantly, the presence of units adds liability. Again, if you take 2 Termies, you've added liability to deploy one unit. If you counted the pods against what you must deploy under Tactical Reserves, adding two pods would add liability to deploy one more Termie.
To put another way, even in the UK property example, liability for Exempt people is not assigned, even in the case where they share a property with non-Exempt people. The liability assessed is independent of the Exempt peoples' existence. Likewise, liability under TR is not assigned for Exempt units. It's one more consistent example of how Exempt works.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Where the circle gets completed from here is the claim that not leveraging liability for each Pod under TR against the Terminators (not requiring both Termies to be set up) would be ignoring the Termie's obligation to set up under the liability the Drop Pods impose under TR.
The claim is that, because TR says "Total Army Points" instead of "Total Army Points, as understood by TR", it is therefore the Army Creation rules that applies the liability from the Pods, not the TR rule.
That's not internally consistent.
First, the first piece is circular.
Then, the claim that "Total Army Points" as referenced by the Tactical Reserve rule, as leveraged by the Tactical Reserve rule, is somehow not "Total Army Points as understood by TR". That's just not understanding what you're saying.
Finally, the liability stemming from Army Creation rules instead of the TR rules has no basis in the rules themselves.
Since we're in a A -> B -> A cycle, but the B -> A argument is consistent while the A -> B argument is terribly flawed in several ways, we're not in a stable state with multilpe internally consistent views with no avenue for clarification.
We're in a cyclical argument between two states, where one has been shown invalid and the other is just throwing up FUD. Saying otherwise is false equivelence.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/31 21:15:52
The "counter-argument" against "School A" comes from a factually incorrect claim - factually incorrect independent of the school of thought.
The "counter-argument" for "School B/C", on the other hand, is a factually correct statement. Whether it's a problem could be debated. A fair statement of the contention is "Does a unit being exempt from TR exempt said unit form causing any liability under TR?" A reasonable, debateable question. If it does, "School B/C" ceases to be internally consistent. If it does not, "School B/C" remains internally consistent.
As such, discussing "Does a unit being exempt from TR exempt said unit form causing any liability under TR?" is the natural extension. If that can be answered authoritatively in either direction, then one or the other sets are inconsistent.
When it comes to the UK tax, the UK is leveeing taxes on a per-property basis. As such, leveraging the tax in full on any property that contains any non-exempt people is consistent. Each exempt person on the property is causing no liability; the tax liability is the same whether that exempt person was there or not.
The 50% rule is different. First, it exists even if 0 non-Exempt units are present (it just doesn't matter, because you need to deploy 0 units). Secondly, much more importantly, the presence of units adds liability. Again, if you take 2 Termies, you've added liability to deploy one unit. If you counted the pods against what you must deploy under Tactical Reserves, adding two pods would add liability to deploy one more Termie.
To put another way, even in the UK property example, liability for Exempt people is not assigned, even in the case where they share a property with non-Exempt people. The liability assessed is independent of the Exempt peoples' existence. Likewise, liability under TR is not assigned for Exempt units. It's one more consistent example of how Exempt works.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Where the circle gets completed from here is the claim that not leveraging liability for each Pod under TR against the Terminators (not requiring both Termies to be set up) would be ignoring the Termie's obligation to set up under the liability the Drop Pods impose under TR.
The claim is that, because TR says "Total Army Points" instead of "Total Army Points, as understood by TR", it is therefore the Army Creation rules that applies the liability from the Pods, not the TR rule.
That's not internally consistent.
First, the first piece is circular.
Then, the claim that "Total Army Points" as referenced by the Tactical Reserve rule, as leveraged by the Tactical Reserve rule, is somehow not "Total Army Points as understood by TR". That's just not understanding what you're saying.
Finally, the liability stemming from Army Creation rules instead of the TR rules has no basis in the rules themselves.
Since we're in a A -> B -> A cycle, but the B -> A argument is consistent while the A -> B argument is terribly flawed in several ways, we're not in a stable state with multilpe internally consistent views with no avenue for clarification.
We're in a cyclical argument between two states, where one has been shown invalid and the other is just throwing up FUD. Saying otherwise is false equivelence.
I think that you'll find what is considered terribly flawed rather subjective and appears to depends entirely on which school of thought you subscribe to.
Which is the point I'm trying to make: no ones going to win this.
Those that think School A is correct think that thier assumptions are correct (and obvious), and thus everyone ones elses are wrong.
Those that think School B is correct think that thier assumptions are correct (and obvious), and thus everyone ones elses are wrong.
Those that think School C s correct think that thier assumptions are correct (and obvious), and thus everyone ones elses are wrong.
As far as I can see there is, based on the RAW absolutely no basis within the rules for creating an effective army size for the purposes of determing the requirements of TR.
For those that subscribe to School A this isn't a problem, for them it's an inherient part of the processs. For anyone who doesn't subscribe to that school of thought it's a crital flaw.
I can understand why this has been done as it's similar to how some countries tax laws work, but this doesn't mean that this is the only way to free the units of the obligations.
As an adherent to School C, I've read the rule and determined that based on the wording of TR that the 1st paragraph targets the army and creates an obligation based on the properties of the army, and then levies the obligation against the army. Units being exempt or not doesn't affect this part of the rules. To me this would appear to be the simplest interpretation possible.
If there was room to reach a single accepted version of the truth I would have thought 11 pages (and counting) on the matter would have reached them.
wrt
where one has been shown invalid
All have been shown to be both valid (using thier assumptions) and invalid (when any other set of assumptions are used).
The "one has been shown invalid" was the complaint about "School A" around "No direction given to subtract". As that's predicated on "School A" requiring you to subtract, yet "School A" does no such thing, that's not shown to be valid by any solid viewpoint.
I wasn't saying School B/C were shown to be invalid, I was saying the argument why B/C must be true over A.
The other way around, though, has not been reasonably refuted. The argument for "School A" over "School B/C" has *not* been shown to be invalid.
That said, the argument for "School A" over "School B/C" is also not conclusive. There is a reasonable argument that "School B/C" might be valid or invalid, based on whether exempting DPs from TR frees the liabilities DPs would otherwise incur under TR.
A etc... depending on if it's a unit in the codex or an new primaris unit with the new C:
