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.

Hi everyone. Quick one.

In a Match Play Grand Tournament game.

Can a first born space marine army start the game fully in drop pods. So zero models on the board.

khsofsos wrote:
Hi everyone. Quick one.

In a Match Play Grand Tournament game.

Can a first born space marine army start the game fully in drop pods. So zero models on the board.

No, they closed this loophole.

Drop Pods now only exempt you from the number of units that have to start of the battlefield, but not the points restriction. You still need 50% of your points on the battlefield.

Cheers.


Thought it had but wanted to make sure wasn’t just reading wrong

The restriction to the amount of points you can spend on units for reinforcements is still a restriction dictating the maximum number of units a player can can put into reinforcement.

"The combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units (including those embarked within TRANSPORT models that are Strategic Reserve and/or Reinforcement units) must be less than half of your army’s total points value"

Every TO I have encountered, goonhammer and battle report I have seen has played as though FB can null deploy as the above line is describes a restriction to the "maximum number of reinforcement units " a player may have.

@BCB I have yet to meet anyone until just now who has concluded that you can not null deploy a drop pod.

In fact, considering drop pods MUST be deployed in deep strike and, there is no restriction from including them at list creation, if your reading was correct the game would immediately break at the declare reinforcements stage of a match.

 Type40 wrote:
The restriction to the amount of points you can spend on units for reinforcements is still a restriction dictating the maximum number of units a player can can put into reinforcement.

"The combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units (including those embarked within TRANSPORT models that are Strategic Reserve and/or Reinforcement units) must be less than half of your army’s total points value"

Every TO I have encountered, goonhammer and battle report I have seen has played as though FB can null deploy as the above line is describes a restriction to the "maximum number of reinforcement units " a player may have.

@BCB I have yet to meet anyone until just now who has concluded that you can not null deploy a drop pod.

In fact, considering drop pods MUST be deployed in deep strike and, there is no restriction from including them at list creation, if your reading was correct the game would immediately break at the declare reinforcements stage of a match.

Of course you'd come to that conclusion when you're selectively quoting only half the rules. This is a prime example of, given the highly bespoke and slipshod nature of GW's rules writing, you must never take shortcuts or half quote rules.

This is what the rule regarding Reserves and Transports, in full, actually states.

Core Rulebook, Page 282, Eternal War Mission Pack, Section 10. Declare Reserves and Transports wrote:No more than half the total number of units in your army can be Strategic Reserve and/or Reinforcement units, and the combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units (including those embarked within TRANSPORT models that are Strategic Reserve and/or Reinforcement units) must be less than half of your army’s total points value, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.

Please note the use of the conjunctive "and" highlighted above, along with an Oxford comma, indicating that it is connecting two different clauses.

As you can see, we have two, linked but independent restrictions. The first restriction is:

No more than half the total number of units in your army can be Strategic Reserve and/ or Reinforcement units [...]

Whilst the second restriction is:

[...]the combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units (including those embarked within TRANSPORT models that are Strategic Reserve and/or Reinforcement units) must be less than half of your army’s total points value, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.

Now, let's look at the rules for Drop Pod Assault

Codex: Space Marines (2020), Page 190, Drop Pod Datasheet, Abilities section wrote:Drop Pod Assault: This transport must start the battle set up high in the skies (see Death From Above) but neither it, nor any units embarked within it, are counted towards any limits that the mission you are playing places on the maximum number of Reinforcement units you can have in your army. This transport can be set up in the Reinforcements step of your first, second or third Movement phase, regardless of any mission rules. Any units embarked within this transport must immediately disembark after it has been set up on the battlefield, and they must be set up more than 9" away from any enemy models. After this transport has been set up on the battlefield, no units can embark within it.

Please note the clause highlighted above. Drop Pod Assault means that the Drop Pod and the unit inside it are not "counted towards" the limit set by the first clause of the Section 10. Declare Reserves and Transports paragraph quoted above. There is no such provision for them to not be "counted towards" the limit set by the second clause of the Section 10. Declare Reserves and Transports paragraph quoted above.

Your assertation that Space Marines can Null Deploy if the entire army is embarked within Drop Pods was a correct assertation under the Warhammer 40,000 8th edition ruleset and the Codex: Space Marines (2019) ruleset, but it is not correct under the Warhammer 40,000 9th edition ruleset and the Codex: Space Marines (2020) ruleset.

The game would not "break" as you claim. You would be forced by the rules to place your empty Drop Pods in reserves, with no units embarked, in order to have a legal deployment where a minimum of 50% of your points value are on the board. If you somehow took 1001 points of Drop Pods in a 2000 point limit game, for example, then this would be a legitimate time to invoke TMIR as the rules do not cover what happens in this scenario.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
The restriction to the amount of points you can spend on units for reinforcements is still a restriction dictating the maximum number of units a player can can put into reinforcement.

"The combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units (including those embarked within TRANSPORT models that are Strategic Reserve and/or Reinforcement units) must be less than half of your army’s total points value"

Every TO I have encountered, goonhammer and battle report I have seen has played as though FB can null deploy as the above line is describes a restriction to the "maximum number of reinforcement units " a player may have.

@BCB I have yet to meet anyone until just now who has concluded that you can not null deploy a drop pod.

In fact, considering drop pods MUST be deployed in deep strike and, there is no restriction from including them at list creation, if your reading was correct the game would immediately break at the declare reinforcements stage of a match.

Of course you'd come to that conclusion when you're selectively quoting only half the rules. This is a prime example of, given the highly bespoke and slipshod nature of GW's rules writing, you must never take shortcuts or half quote rules.

This is what the rule regarding Reserves and Transports, in full, actually states.

Core Rulebook, Page 282, Eternal War Mission Pack, Section 10. Declare Reserves and Transports wrote:No more than half the total number of units in your army can be Strategic Reserve and/or Reinforcement units, and the combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units (including those embarked within TRANSPORT models that are Strategic Reserve and/or Reinforcement units) must be less than half of your army’s total points value, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.

Please note the use of the conjunctive "and" highlighted above, along with an Oxford comma, indicating that it is connecting two different clauses.

As you can see, we have two, linked but independent restrictions. The first restriction is:

No more than half the total number of units in your army can be Strategic Reserve and/ or Reinforcement units [...]

Whilst the second restriction is:

[...]the combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units (including those embarked within TRANSPORT models that are Strategic Reserve and/or Reinforcement units) must be less than half of your army’s total points value, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.

Now, let's look at the rules for Drop Pod Assault

Codex: Space Marines (2020), Page 190, Drop Pod Datasheet, Abilities section wrote:Drop Pod Assault: This transport must start the battle set up high in the skies (see Death From Above) but neither it, nor any units embarked within it, are counted towards any limits that the mission you are playing places on the maximum number of Reinforcement units you can have in your army. This transport can be set up in the Reinforcements step of your first, second or third Movement phase, regardless of any mission rules. Any units embarked within this transport must immediately disembark after it has been set up on the battlefield, and they must be set up more than 9" away from any enemy models. After this transport has been set up on the battlefield, no units can embark within it.

Please note the clause highlighted above. Drop Pod Assault means that the Drop Pod and the unit inside it are not "counted towards" the limit set by the first clause of the Section 10. Declare Reserves and Transports paragraph quoted above. There is no such provision for them to not be "counted towards" the limit set by the second clause of the Section 10. Declare Reserves and Transports paragraph quoted above.

Your assertation that Space Marines can Null Deploy if the entire army is embarked within Drop Pods was a correct assertation under the Warhammer 40,000 8th edition ruleset and the Codex: Space Marines (2019) ruleset, but it is not correct under the Warhammer 40,000 9th edition ruleset and the Codex: Space Marines (2020) ruleset.

Quoting the entire paragraph doesnt change that the second restriction is still a restriction to the max number of units. It is a restriction on the max number of units due to the points those units cost.

Again

"The combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units (including those embarked within TRANSPORT models that are Strategic Reserve and/or Reinforcement units) must be less than half of your army’s total points value"

Again, see the underlined word. This second line is a restriction to your max units. Nothing about the drop pod rules refer to a specific clause in section 10 or anything else you have rambled on about here. The drop pod rule is simple "neither it, nor any units embarked within it, are counted towards any limits that the mission you are playing places on the maximum number of Reinforcement units you can have in your army."
This means ANY mission rule or restriction that cause a maximum amount of units in reinforcements is ignored by the drop pod irregardless of the existence of two clauses in the section. Both clauses describe, specifically, what the max amount of units you may put in reinforcements is . The first stating no more then half of your units and the second stating no more units then an amount that equals a total point value of over half.
"All of your strategic reserve and reinforcement units ... " This isn't a restriction on points you are allowed to spend it is a restriction on the max number units you can put into reinforcements caused by a maximum amount of points you are allowed for the said units.
Again please focus on the fact that the drop pod rule specifies "any limits that the mission you are playing places on the maximum number of Reinforcement units you can have in your army" and not only the first restriction you to the max number that you came across,,, any = all the restrictions on max number of units not just one.

But thank you for quoting the entirety of both rules, the entirety of both rules however do not change the line I quoted and my original point still stands.

And, again, Drop Pod Assault does not let you ignore that part of the restriction, it only lets you ignore the first part of the restriction.

"neither it, nor any units embarked within it, are counted towards any limits that the mission you are playing places on the maximum number of Reinforcement units you can have in your army."

Show me where in that sentence it mentions points in any way, shape, or form, and I'll concede the point.

Units inside Drop Pods and Drop Pods themselves are still counted towards determining whether less than half your points are in reserves. They aren't counted towards determining whether "half the total number of units in your army can be in [Reserves]".

You are demonstrably incorrect here, and are conflating two different rules as being the one and the same.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And, again, Drop Pod Assault does not let you ignore that part of the restriction, it only lets you ignore the first part of the restriction.

"neither it, nor any units embarked within it, are counted towards any limits that the mission you are playing places on the maximum number of Reinforcement units you can have in your army."

Units inside Drop Pods and Drop Pods themselves are still counted towards determining whether less than half your points are in reserves. They aren't counted towards determining whether "half the total number of units in your army can be in [Reserves]".

You are demonstrably incorrect here, and are conflating two different rules as being the one and the same.

Now you are only quoting half a rule.

"The combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units (including those embarked within TRANSPORT models that are Strategic Reserve and/or Reinforcement units) must be less than half of your army’s total points value"

Is this not a statement defining a max number of units you may place into reinforcements ?

The pod rule says I can ignore ANY limits that the mission I am playing places on the maximum number of reinforcement units I can have in my army.
I intend to do that by ignoring this statement which is telling me that the max number of units I can put into reinforcements is determined by the value of those units. Another max number is the previous clause , but that, AGAIN, does not stop this clause from also being a statement that describes a max number of units allowed to be in reinforcements.

I am not conflating two different rules as being one and the same , I am stating that the drop pod rule ignores ANY and therefor ALL rules that set a max number of units allowed to be reinforcements not just the first one. There are 100% two rules here, but they are BOTH ignored by the drop pod rule because they both specifically set a max number to how many units can be put into reinforcements. The line specifically describes that the total value of the units (and therefor a max number of units based on their total value) cant be more then half.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
FYI, at list creation, if I use your reading of the rules and decide the pod rule only applies to clause 1 of section 10, then the game would break at section 10 of GT 2020 if I made a list with more 50% of the points in my list being made entirely of drop pods. No restriction on spending points on DPs at list creation and you MUST deploy them in reinforcements.

The Drop Pod rule says it ignores any limits that are placed on the number of units, it doesn't specifically call out any one restriction.
I would argue that the restriction on the number of points you can have in reserve IS still a restriction on the number of units, just a slightly indirect one.

PS. Yellow is a horrible colour to read against the pale blue of a quote (at least on the light theme I'm using).

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The Drop Pod rule says it ignores any limits that are placed on the number of units, it doesn't specifically call out any one restriction.
I would argue that the restriction on the number of points you can have in reserve IS still a restriction on the number of units, just a slightly indirect one.

PS. Yellow is a horrible colour to read against the pale blue of a quote (at least on the light theme I'm using).

By that logic, the points limit of a battle is also an "indirect" limit on the number of units you can have in reserves, therefore I can include 40,000 points of Drop Pods in reserve in a 2k game.

I use the dark theme, and have always used yellow to emphasise text in quotes. Sorry.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The Drop Pod rule says it ignores any limits that are placed on the number of units, it doesn't specifically call out any one restriction.
I would argue that the restriction on the number of points you can have in reserve IS still a restriction on the number of units, just a slightly indirect one.

PS. Yellow is a horrible colour to read against the pale blue of a quote (at least on the light theme I'm using).

By that logic, the points limit of a battle is also an "indirect" limit on the number of units you can have in reserves, therefore I can include 40,000 points of Drop Pods in reserve in a 2k game.

I use the dark theme, and have always used yellow to emphasise text in quotes. Sorry.

Wrong, I will quote and highlight the word UNIT in the rule for the Nth time.

"The combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units (including those embarked within TRANSPORT models that are Strategic Reserve and/or Reinforcement units) must be less than half of your army’s total points value"

Unlike the max point size limit from section 2 mustering armies , this rule particular rule specifies a UNIT amount limitation and not an army wide points limitation, it says

"The combined points value of all your Reinforcement UNITS"

This is a limitation given to the units. Versus the GT and matched play rule for mustering armies which states

"The points limit of each player's army, and the number of Command points each player starts with when they begin mustering their army, are shown in the table below:"

The rule for reinforcements from GT 2020 specifically states it is a limitation given to how many UNITS you my choose for reinforcements based on the total combined point value of those units VERSUS the GT 2020 rule on mustering an army which clearly states it is a point limit on the entire ARMY.

This is what is written, there is no strange logic here it is simply following the permissions and restrictions as they are written.

The rule you quote isn't restricting the amount of units you can have in reserve, it restricts the amount of points those units can cost.

I am sorry, but you're flat out wrong here.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The rule you quote isn't restricting the amount of units you can have in reserve, it restricts the amount of points those units can cost.

I am sorry, but you're flat out wrong here.

"The combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units "

Do you really not see that this specifically says that the total number of units is limited by their combined point value ? like, this is literally the rule as written ?

Are you denying that this is a statement giving you a limitation on the amount of units you may have for doing something with?

You do understand that a limitation on how many points those units can cost is a rule that directly sets a max number of units that can be used for reinforcements ?

this is a restriction on how many reinforcement untis you may have, there is no other way to interpret this ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unless this doesn't actually limit how many units you may put into reinforcements .... but then I don't know what this rule is trying to say to me ? am I not limited to how many units I may put into reinforcements based on their point value ? can every thing null deploy then ? either it sets a max amount of units you can deploy in reinforcements or it doesn't and if it doesn't then whats the point in the rule.

And again, this isnt a stretch in logic as the rule for mustering armies gives a specific point limitation on the entire armies point values not specifically on the combined total used for an amount units. The two rules have distinctly different wording and the DP rule is quite specific on stating that mission rules limiting max amounts of units for reinforcements are ignored. not to mention you havn't addressed the very real issue of easily breaking the game with your interpretation if somebody takes more then 50% in points worth of DPs

You're constantly bringing up the word "units" as if that is what the drop pod rule references.

The drop pod rule references "the number of units" not just "units" as a whole. The total points cost of units is not related to the number of units.

I've laid out the facts, if you choose to not read them, that's on you. That's my last word on this.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You're constantly bringing up the word "units" as if that is what the drop pod rule references.

The drop pod rule references "the number of units" not just "units" as a whole. The total points cost of units is not related to the number of units.

I've laid out the facts, if you choose to not read them, that's on you. That's my last word on this.

Excuse me ?

You arn't stating RAW here all of a sudden and this rule as written has a direct relationship between the cost and amount of units.
it doesn't say the "point cost of units"
It directly says "the combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units"
ALL OF MY REINFORCEMENT UNITS = a number of units. You can't just ignore the RAW and decide it is purely a statement about point cost and that it has no relation to something the sentence directly references.

You are saying that "the combined points value of all your reinforcement units" is not related to the number of units ? This statement is a direct statement defining a limitation on an amount of units.

Ok ,,, so I will null deploy anyways because now you are telling me this statement isn't actually setting a limit on the total number units I include in reinforcements ? is that what you are saying ?

Either the amount of units you put into reinforcements are limited or they are not ?

Lol , you arn't laying out facts you are trying to state there is no correlation between two things that are directly being correlated in the statement in question...
It is literally a statement that says the amount of units you can put into reinforcements is limited by its total point value.

"The total combined point value of all your reinforcement units" ... ALL MY REINFORCEMENT UNITS = a max number of units. the total combined point value = the limitation on them.

Are you seriously trying to say " all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units " is not a reference to a total number of units ? I thought you were the one who has answers that are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say but all of a sudden you are trying to say a statement that directly says "all your reinforcement units" is not referring to a number of units LOL XD . Come on read the RAW and stop trying to claim nonsense.

It seems like this is one of those fundamental differences of perspective that just seems incomprehensible to the other side.
It seems so obvious to me that a limit on the total points of units is a restriction on the number of units.
But I gather it's equally obvious to BaconCatBug that it's a restriction of the same.

"Let's agree to disagree" is never a satisfying conclusion on a subforum explicitly for making a call, but I don't think we're ever going to reach a concensus here.

Ok, let's try an analogy.

I have 10 Red Apples. A Red Apple costs £1 each. I also have 5 Bananas. These also cost £1 each. I have a box that says "You may only put half of the individual fruit you own into this box." as well as "You may only put half of the total monetary value of fruit you own into this box."

Red Apples have a special rule saying "Ignore any rules that state how many individual fruit you can put into the box."

Red Apples get to ignore the first rule, but not the second. If I put 10 Red Apples into the box, I have broken the second rule, because I have put £10 out of £15 into the box.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Ok, let's try an analogy.

I have 10 Red Apples. A Red Apple costs £1 each. I also have 5 Bananas. These also cost £1 each. I have a box that says "You may only put half of the individual fruit you own into this box." as well as "You may only put half of the total monetary value of fruit you own into this box."
.

A closer analogy would be if the apple's special rule read "red apples do not count towards any limits on the maximum number of fruit you can have in your box."
In that analogy I would argue the same - limits on the monetary value of apples I can have is a limit on the number of apples I can have, and therefore apples are exempt.

Fair,

I guess for anyone who stumbles upon this thread

So you either read that the RAW statement

all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units

is referring to the total number of units you put into reserve and reinforcements and therefore any restrictions on "all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units" is a restriction that determines a max total number of units for reinforcements.

Or you believe that "all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units" does not reference a "number of units" you have in reinforcements and does not create a correlation between the total cost of the all your units in reinforcements and all your units in reinforcements. The statement "all your units in reinforcements" was just included for ,,,, reasons .

but I don't think its hard to understand that "all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units" = the max number of units you have in reinforcements. if we breakdown the sentence all = the total and any restrictions on that total will define the max number... but hey, what do I know.
Talk with your opponent before list creation or your TO before list creation,,,

keep in mind their is no restriction on how many DPs you include at list creation so if you include more then 50% of your list as DPs and someone argues that a restriction defining what the total number of "all of your reinforcement units" can be does not equate to a "max number of reinforcement units" you can have then you just broke the game... DPs have no other way to deploy and they "must" deploy from reinforcements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Ok, let's try an analogy.

I have 10 Red Apples. A Red Apple costs £1 each. I also have 5 Bananas. These also cost £1 each. I have a box that says "You may only put half of the individual fruit you own into this box." as well as "You may only put half of the total monetary value of fruit you own into this box."

Red Apples have a special rule saying "Ignore any rules that state how many individual fruit you can put into the box."

Red Apples get to ignore the first rule, but not the second. If I put 10 Red Apples into the box, I have broken the second rule, because I have put £10 out of £15 into the box.

but the rule doesn't say that. this metaphor you are using doesn't use the same syntax as the actual rule.

it is actually

"You may only put half of the individual fruit you own into this box." as well as "The total combined monetary value of all the individual fruit put into the box must be less then half."

red apples have a special rule that states "Red apples are not counted towards any limits that are placed on the maximum number of individual apples you can put in the box."

By using the actual RAW syntax and not the syntax you just made up the special rule clearly excuses both limitations.

Limit 1 is a limitation directly on the number of apples you may put into the box.
Limit 2 is a variable limitation on the number of apples you may put into the box based on their total monetary value.

this is obvious because the syntax says that all of the individual fruit (and therefore the total number) must be a number that when combined does not have a monetary value that is over half.

The statement determines what "all of the individual fruit" can be and therefor what the max number of individual fruit can be.
This is a statement that tells you how to calculate the limit of individual fruit you are able to put into your basket. If it didn't directly say "the total combined value of all the individual fruit you have in the box" but rather said "the total point value that resides in the box" I would agree with you,,, but alas we have a syntax that does directly reference and correlate the total combined cost as a definition of what ALL (or the max number) of fruit their will be.

Using the correct syntax its obvious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

" the combined points value of all your Reinforcement units must be less than half of your army’s total points value"

and it is not

"the point value of all the Reinforcements in your army must be less than half of your army’s total point value"

The later would be what you are suggesting. A rule purely concerned with how many points you are spending on reinforcements. However the former (and what the rule actually is) is specifically describing how a player can calculate what number of units makes up "all of their reinforcement units" and therefor defines what the max number units one can put into the reinforcements which DPs state they ignore.

Its just the way the syntax is. You really can't claim there isn't a co-relation, its right there, its literally the sentence that is written.

Just wanted to jump in and back up BCB on this one. He laid out his argument effectively enough already, but to reiterate:

There are two restrictions on units placed in strategic reserves:
1. A restriction on the number of units, in which no more than half of the number of units in your army may be placed in strategic reserves, and
2. A restriction on the point costs of units, in which no more than 50% of the point value of your army may be placed in strategic reserves.

Next, the Drop Pod Assault rule, as quoted by BCB states that drop pods and embarked units ignore restrictions placed on the number of units that can be placed in strategic reserves.

The point cost restriction is a separate restriction from the number of units restriction.

The drop pod assault rule does not ignore the point cost restriction.

Therefore, you may not have more than 50% of the points total of your army in strategic reserve, even if they are in drop pods.

I understand that, but my counterpoints are thus;

1.both clearly restrict the number of units you can have in reserve.

2. Drop Pods ignore all limits on the number of units you can have in reserve.

3. Therefore Drop Pods ignore both rules.

 Nate668 wrote:
Just wanted to jump in and back up BCB on this one. He laid out his argument effectively enough already, but to reiterate:

There are two restrictions on units placed in strategic reserves:
1. A restriction on the number of units, in which no more than half of the number of units in your army may be placed in strategic reserves, and
2. A restriction on the point costs of units, in which no more than 50% of the point value of your army may be placed in strategic reserves.

Next, the Drop Pod Assault rule, as quoted by BCB states that drop pods and embarked units ignore restrictions placed on the number of units that can be placed in strategic reserves.

The point cost restriction is a separate restriction from the number of units restriction.

The drop pod assault rule does not ignore the point cost restriction.

Therefore, you may not have more than 50% of the points total of your army in strategic reserve, even if they are in drop pods.

please read the responses carefully. No one is debating on whether or not there are two restrictions. The drop pod ignores both restrictions.
However, your interpretation of restriction number two is missing vital syntax and is not correct.

"2. A restriction on the point costs of units, in which no more than 50% of the point value of your army may be placed in strategic reserves."
This is not the correct reading of the second restriction.
The second restriction, when reading the syntax correctly, is as follows
2. A restriction on the max number of units allowed to be in reinforcements as a result of the total combined point cost of those units.

As this is a limitation on max number of units (as a result of their combined point cost) the DP rule does in fact ignore it.

the combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units (including those embarked within TRANSPORT models that are Strategic Reserve and/or Reinforcement units) must be less than half of your army’s total points value

This is a statement dictating a variable way to determine what "all your reinforcement units" amounts to. This is not a restriction on how many points you may spend rather it is a way of calculating the maximum number of reinforcement units you can have (i.e. all of your reinforcement units) based on point cost. This syntax clearly states that all your reinforcement units must equal half your armies total points value when combined and is thus a clear limitation on max number of units.

You would be correct if the statement was "the point value of all the Reinforcements in your army must be less than half of your army’s total point value" but alas, it is not, and instead is " the combined points value of all your Reinforcement units must be less than half of your army’s total points value." which refers directly to a way of determining how many units you may have in reinforcements.

I love watching these. It's like listening to Bill Clinton talk about the definition of "is". Don't stop!

The issue with your argument is that it requires a leap of logic to label the restriction on the point costs of units as a restriction on the number of units.

If you allow for a leap of logic like that, you could equivalently argue that the point total limits of the game being played are also a limit on the number of units you can place in reserves, so therefore in a 2000 point game, you could have an infinite number of drop pods and embarked units.

 Nate668 wrote:
The issue with your argument is that it requires a leap of logic to label the restriction on the point costs of units as a restriction on the number of units.

If you allow for a leap of logic like that, you could equivalently argue that the point total limits of the game being played are also a limit on the number of units you can place in reserves, so therefore in a 2000 point game, you could have an infinite number of drop pods and embarked units.

Absolutely not. That statement is clear.

as I have pointed out earlier.

the combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units (including those embarked within TRANSPORT models that are Strategic Reserve and/or Reinforcement units) must be less than half of your army’s total points value

Clearly refers to a maximum number of units via "all reinforcement units".
versus the mustering armies rule which
is

The points limit of each player’s army, and the number of Command points each player starts with when they begin mustering their army, are shown in the table below:

Which is clearly a limitation given on the entire army and not a limitation that determines how many units may do something.

The syntax is clearly different.

One attempts to tell you a limitation on determining how many units you may include as reinforcements > "the combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units "

the other tells you a limitation specifically on points you can spend within an entire army > "The points limit of each player’s army."
One rule describes what makes up "all the reinforcement units" and the other rule describes "the point limit for each players [entire] army." They are very different rules. One which the DP can clearly ignore and the other which it can't... just based on what is actually written.

No leaps of logic, just plane and simple reading of the RAW and acknowledging entire syntax instead of a quick infernal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I love watching these. It's like listening to Bill Clinton talk about the definition of "is". Don't stop!

This isn't related to the topic, and a useless statement in this discussion... don't clutter the thread with unrelated unproductive antagonistic comments please.

No it's not. BCB is correct.

 Type40 wrote:

"The combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units (including those embarked within TRANSPORT models that are Strategic Reserve and/or Reinforcement units) must be less than half of your army’s total points value"

Is this not a statement defining a max number of units you may place into reinforcements ?

The answer to your question here is that it is not a statement defining the max number of units you may place into reinforcements.

 skchsan wrote:
No it's not. BCB is correct.

Do you have any logic, proof, citation, interpretations you would like to share with your post or do you just want to say "no it's not"
I can also say.

Yes it is, BCB is incorrect lol XD.

and again, are you saying that
"the combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units must be less than half of your army’s total points value" is not a statement describing a number of units that may be used something ? because if its not saying that then why does it specifically describe restrictions on determining how many units is "all of my reinforcement units"(AKA the max number of units I can take) ?

There's no more proof that could possibly be given to you. You've got all the information, and you're coming to the wrong conclusion. Not sure what else to say.

 Nate668 wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

"The combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units (including those embarked within TRANSPORT models that are Strategic Reserve and/or Reinforcement units) must be less than half of your army’s total points value"

Is this not a statement defining a max number of units you may place into reinforcements ?

The answer to your question here is that it is not a statement defining the max number of units you may place into reinforcements.

Ok so in that case you are saying that this statement has no bearing on the number of units I can put into reinforcements ?

The statement clearly has a bearing on "all my reinforcement units" as that is directly stated ... so can you explain to me the difference between "all my reinforcement units" and the "max number of reinforcement units"

Because I find it hard to believe that a statement directly applying a restriction to the total number of reinforcement units I may have AKA a restriction on what "all of them" may or may not have, in fact does not actually have a bearing on what the statement says it does.