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.

 Type40 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
"wrong, I have a rule that states
" 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.""

The rules does not state anything about ignoring the limit on point costs, only on units. You can have have any number of units in reserves. You can't have any number of points in reserves.

please read my entire post. Again, you are right the drop pod rule doesn't say anything about the limit of point costs. no one is arguing with you on whether or not it does.
please stop with this circular argumentation, you can keep repeating this but it doesn't make it any more relevant to this conversation

ok, please read the following carefully.

The DP is allowed to ignore " the maximum number of Reinforcement units you can have in your army."

Now read the following "the combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units must be less than half of your army’s total points value"

This statement defines a limitation on the maximum units I can put into reinforcements DUE to the combined total point value. The DP rule specifically we says we can ignore limits that are placed on a maximum number of reinforcements.

The rule statement "the combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units must be less than half of your army’s total points value" gives a specific way of determining a limit on "all your reinforcement units"(i.e. our total allowed number of reinforcement units). Do you understand ?

the DP doesn't have to say it ignores anything about point costs what it says is that it ignores an limits put on the max number of reinforcement units,,, not how those limits are implemented (like 50% of combined point cost) just that any and therefor ALL rules that specifically limit on the number of units we can put into reinforcements is ignored... ok ,,,, so nothing to do with this circular argument about whether or not the drop pod mention points costs,,


, it doesn't have to to ignore the statement "the combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units must be less than half of your army’s total points value" as this is a specific limitation on all of you reinforcement units that limits how many you may have.

Your argument leads to saying that the limit on points you can use to create your army puts a limit on the the maximum number of units (as well as an actual limit on the number of units) that you can put in strategic reserve can be ignored, so that you can make an army of any size as long as you are putting them in drop pods. I can have a 50,000 point army, all of drop pods and units to be contained in the drop pods. Or, it can be a 50,000 point army consisting almost entirely of drop pods, plus the minimum number of units for that type of detachment, putting everything into the drop pods. 50,000 points - (say) 500 points for minimum units required leaves 45,500 points for drop pods. You could take up a lot of space on the board with that.

Just because a sentence CAN mean something else, doesn't mean it IS.

Take the parable of the 'I never said he stole her money'. Depending on where you put the emphasis, the meaning of the sentence changes completely.

The meaning of the rules may have internalized so deeply that no matter how many times you re-read the rule, it may not appear as is but always biased towards your understanding of the rule.

As per strict application of the rules of English, BCB's interpretation is the correct one here.

 doctortom wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
"wrong, I have a rule that states
" 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.""

The rules does not state anything about ignoring the limit on point costs, only on units. You can have have any number of units in reserves. You can't have any number of points in reserves.

please read my entire post. Again, you are right the drop pod rule doesn't say anything about the limit of point costs. no one is arguing with you on whether or not it does.
please stop with this circular argumentation, you can keep repeating this but it doesn't make it any more relevant to this conversation

ok, please read the following carefully.

The DP is allowed to ignore " the maximum number of Reinforcement units you can have in your army."

Now read the following "the combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units must be less than half of your army’s total points value"

This statement defines a limitation on the maximum units I can put into reinforcements DUE to the combined total point value. The DP rule specifically we says we can ignore limits that are placed on a maximum number of reinforcements.

The rule statement "the combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units must be less than half of your army’s total points value" gives a specific way of determining a limit on "all your reinforcement units"(i.e. our total allowed number of reinforcement units). Do you understand ?

the DP doesn't have to say it ignores anything about point costs what it says is that it ignores an limits put on the max number of reinforcement units,,, not how those limits are implemented (like 50% of combined point cost) just that any and therefor ALL rules that specifically limit on the number of units we can put into reinforcements is ignored... ok ,,,, so nothing to do with this circular argument about whether or not the drop pod mention points costs,,


, it doesn't have to to ignore the statement "the combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units must be less than half of your army’s total points value" as this is a specific limitation on all of you reinforcement units that limits how many you may have.

Your argument leads to saying that the limit on points you can use to create your army puts a limit on the the maximum number of units (as well as an actual limit on the number of units) that you can put in strategic reserve can be ignored, so that you can make an army of any size as long as you are putting them in drop pods. I can have a 50,000 point army, all of drop pods and units to be contained in the drop pods. Or, it can be a 50,000 point army consisting almost entirely of drop pods, plus the minimum number of units for that type of detachment, putting everything into the drop pods. 50,000 points - (say) 500 points for minimum units required leaves 45,500 points for drop pods. You could take up a lot of space on the board with that.

again, for the Nth time, my argument does not suggest this. Please read the previous posts because i am tired of people repeatedly stating this.

The rule for mustering armies 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:

This is a direct limitation on the players armies and has nothing to do with the number of units or a max number of units.

The rule for DECLARE RESERVES (the one we are disusing)

he combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units must be less than half of your army’s total points value

This is a direct limitation towards all of your reinforcement units.

Do you see how the mustering army rule specifically puts a limitation on points spent for your "army" (and is therefor not ignored by the drop pod rule) but the rule fore declaring reserves specifically puts a limitation on "all your reinforcement units" and is therefor covered by the DP rule ?

The syntax is purposefully different and very specific wording is used for these different rules. Their syntax is different, their wording is different and they exist on the exact same page.

Its really not that hard to see ... that one of these rules is a limitation on the army and the other is a limitation specifically on reinforcement units. It is literally just the rules as they are written.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Just because a sentence CAN mean something else, doesn't mean it IS.

Take the parable of the 'I never said he stole her money'. Depending on where you put the emphasis, the meaning of the sentence changes completely.

The meaning of the rules may have internalized so deeply that no matter how many times you re-read the rule, it may not appear as is but always biased towards your understanding of the rule.

As per strict application of the rules of English, BCB's interpretation is the correct one here.

A stict application of the rules of English show BCB's interpretation to be incorrect though, as I have pointed out over and over again.

This isn't a mater of whether or not it CAN mean something. I AM puting a strict application of English on this... the problem is, you, BCB, doctortom and a few others are not. The rule is very clearly referring to "all reinforcement units" there is just no way around that. Not only CAN it refer to "all reinforcement units" it CAN NOT not refer to "all reinforcement units" as it factually DOES refer to "all reinforcement units." unlike the mustering army rule which factually does not refer specifically to any units but rather a point limit to their entire army. These are just the facts and are just what is actually written on paper here.

Your parable can only mean ONE thing when written out due to punctuation. This parable only applies when said out loud with no written punctuation, you do understand that , right ?

And again, goonhammer, GW themselves on their stream, several online reviewers and TOs from around the world have all had a reading of this RAW that gave them the impression that null deployment with DPs was possible... Don't you think the fact that that is true might possibly suggest that the fact that if it "can be read this way" and in fact "IS" being read this way by the people who design, promote, play, make the game and the people who run tournaments for this game means that maybe that the correct way to parse this piece of english is the way that they are doing it ? especially considering the way they are doing it is in fact grammatically and linguistically sound?

There's really no point in discussing this further. It really boils down to whether or not you allow for inference when deciding the meaning of RAW:

Either you read the rules as written literally and come to the conclusion that lifting any restriction on the maximum number of units does not necessarily lift a restriction on the maximum point cost of units, as BCB argues.

Or, you read the rules as written and infer that a restriction on the maximum point cost of units is also a restriction on the maximum number of units, and so lifting any restriction on the maximum number of units necessarily lifts the point cost restriction as well, as Type40 argues.

Your argument hinges on the assumption "dp special rule ignores the first part of the rules pertaining to reserves and reinforcements, therefore it ignores ALL parts of the rules pertaining to reserves and reinforcements."

But it doesn't.

All you are given is the special exemption from counting drop pod and its contents from max allowed no. of units that can be placed in reserves/reinforcement. Nothing more. You still need to have half the points of your army on the board.

This makes sense because not all units are costed the same. Say you have 19 units, three of which are LR's, 8 of which are drop pods and 8 of which are units embarked on the drop pod. Assuming the 3 LR's cost more than half of your army, you can now put all of your units in the drop pod because as far as the reinforcement/reserves rules go, you have 3 units on board and 0 in reserves/reinforcement and half your total point starting on board.

 Type40 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Your argument leads to saying that the limit on points you can use to create your army puts a limit on the the maximum number of units (as well as an actual limit on the number of units) that you can put in strategic reserve can be ignored, so that you can make an army of any size as long as you are putting them in drop pods. I can have a 50,000 point army, all of drop pods and units to be contained in the drop pods. Or, it can be a 50,000 point army consisting almost entirely of drop pods, plus the minimum number of units for that type of detachment, putting everything into the drop pods. 50,000 points - (say) 500 points for minimum units required leaves 45,500 points for drop pods. You could take up a lot of space on the board with that.

again, for the Nth time, my argument does not suggest this. Please read the previous posts because i am tired of people repeatedly stating this.

Again, for the Nth +1 time, your argument does indeed suggest this. I did read the previous posts, and you were not convincing denying it then.

 Type40 wrote:
The rule for mustering armies 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:

This is a direct limitation on the players armies and has nothing to do with the number of units or a max number of units.

The rule for DECLARE RESERVES (the one we are disusing)

he combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units must be less than half of your army’s total points value
This is a direct limitation towards all of your reinforcement units.

But you have said with the quote you made that there is no limits related to the maximum number of reinforcement units. Surely that would include limit on the number of reinforcement units (or their point cost) that you can have in the army. Drop pods are required to go into reserve, so there would be no limit on those. You can have 50,000 points of drop pods + however many points you spend on non-drop pods.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Your argument hinges on the assumption "dp special rule ignores the first part of the rules pertaining to reserves and reinforcements, therefore it ignores ALL parts of the rules pertaining to reserves and reinforcements."

But it doesn't.

All you are given is the special exemption from counting drop pod and its contents from max allowed no. of units that can be placed in reserves/reinforcement. Nothing more. You still need to have half the points of your army on the board.

This makes sense because not all units are costed the same. Say you have 19 units, three of which are LR's, 8 of which are drop pods and 8 of which are units embarked on the drop pod. Assuming the 3 LR's cost more than half of your army, you can now put all of your units in the drop pod because as far as the reinforcement/reserves rules go, you have 3 units on board and 0 in reserves/reinforcement and half your total point starting on board.

Exactly.

 Nate668 wrote:
There's really no point in discussing this further. It really boils down to whether or not you allow for inference when deciding the meaning of RAW:

Either you read the rules as written literally and come to the conclusion that lifting any restriction on the maximum number of units does not necessarily lift a restriction on the maximum point cost of units, as BCB argues.

No inference on my part what so ever, just refusing to ignore a part of a sentence in the RAW rules.

Or, you read the rules as written and infer that a restriction on the maximum point cost of units is also a restriction on the maximum number of units, and so lifting any restriction on the maximum number of units necessarily lifts the point cost restriction as well, as Type40 argues.

No, this wasn't my position.
My position is that you ignore rules that specifically set limitations that apply to units in reinforcements. i.e. rules that specifically saying they affect ALL reinforcement units.

Again, your interpretation requires a blatant ignoring of an entire part of a sentence. Not a single inference from my part. Just reading the exact words and apply the rules exactly as they are written.

what it allows you to do is to have one big model worth 1k pts on the board. And have as many units in drops for the remaining 1k pts as you like..

 Type40 wrote:

My position is that you ignore rules that specifically set limitations that apply to units in reinforcements. i.e. rules that specifically saying they affect ALL reinforcement units.

Again, your interpretation requires a blatant ignoring of an entire part of a sentence. Not a single inference from my part. Just reading the exact words and apply the rules exactly as they are written.

Ok kid, except that's not what you've been saying the entire fething time. Here's literally the first thing you said in the thread:

 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.

^ That is the inference that forms the crux of your argument, right there.

 skchsan wrote:
Your argument hinges on the assumption "dp special rule ignores the first part of the rules pertaining to reserves and reinforcements, therefore it ignores ALL parts of the rules pertaining to reserves and reinforcements."

But it doesn't.

your right it doesn't luckily this isn't my argument.
My argument is that the
The DP special rule pertains to any mission rule which specifically limits reinforcement units (i.e. with a references statement like "all reinforcement units) in a way that causes a maximum amount of reinforcement units. I hold on to this argument due to the DP special rule specifically telling me to ignore these such limitations. I am really tired of you answering some other argument .

All you are given is the special exemption from counting drop pod and its contents from max allowed no. of units that can be placed in reserves/reinforcement. Nothing more.

wrong. the rule is " 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. "
I will ignore ANY and therefor ALL rules that specifically limit the maximum number of reinforcement units I can have in my army. This includes a rule that specifically defines and sets limitation to the max number of units, based on points, that is specifically and directly being applied to my reinforcement units ("of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units"). I will do this because the DP special rule specifically tells me to.

You still need to have half the points of your army on the board.

not if I take a drop pod I don't. I am ignoring a rule that has set a specific limitation, which was based on the number of points in my army, on my reinforcement units that caused a max number of reinforcement units. I get to ignore ANY and there for ALL rules that specifically limit reinforcement units in this way

This makes sense because not all units are costed the same. Say you have 19 units, three of which are LR's, 8 of which are drop pods and 8 of which are units embarked on the drop pod. Assuming the 3 LR's cost more than half of your army, you can now put all of your units in the drop pod because as far as the reinforcement/reserves rules go, you have 3 units on board and 0 in reserves/reinforcement and half your total point starting on board.

Not sure what this has to do with anything, we are talking about an army list comprised completely of drop pods and things that can be transported in them ? There are no limitations to how many points worth of drop pods you can have at list creation.

@ type40 Outside of quoted texts, everything you claimed are inferences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Your argument hinges on the assumption "dp special rule ignores the first part of the rules pertaining to reserves and reinforcements, therefore it ignores ALL parts of the rules pertaining to reserves and reinforcements."

But it doesn't.

your right it doesn't luckily this isn't my argument.
My argument is that the The DP special rule pertains to any mission rule which specifically limits reinforcement units (i.e. with a references statement like "all reinforcement units) in a way that causes a maximum amount of reinforcement units. I hold on to this argument due to the DP special rule specifically telling me to ignore these such limitations. I am really tired of you answering some other argument... wrong. the rule is " 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. "
I will ignore ANY and therefor ALL rules that specifically limit the maximum number of reinforcement units I can have in my army. This includes a rule that specifically defines and sets limitation to the max number of units, based on points, that is specifically and directly being applied to my reinforcement units ("of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units"). I will do this because the DP special rule specifically tells me to.

Emphasis mine. This is THE inference we're all talking about. You are choosing to 'ignore the whole rule because a special fine print said so', which is without a shadow of a doubt an unsubstantiated assumption. We are told to ignore a PART of the rule. Nothing more.

 Nate668 wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

My position is that you ignore rules that specifically set limitations that apply to units in reinforcements. i.e. rules that specifically saying they affect ALL reinforcement units.

Again, your interpretation requires a blatant ignoring of an entire part of a sentence. Not a single inference from my part. Just reading the exact words and apply the rules exactly as they are written.

Ok kid, except that's not what you've been saying the entire fething time. Here's literally the first thing you said in the thread:

 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.

^ That is the inference, right there.

this isn't an inference AT ALL.

Its literally RAW. It is is written right here. What I wrote above describes exactly the sentence below .

he 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

You have a limitation here specifically on "ALL YOUR STRATEGIC RESERVE AND REINFORCEMENT UNITS" are limited by their combined points value. This limitation gives them a max number of units for reinforcements which is specifically ignored by the DP rule !? what part am I inferencing, its literally what is written.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
@ type40 Outside of quoted texts, everything you claimed are inferences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Your argument hinges on the assumption "dp special rule ignores the first part of the rules pertaining to reserves and reinforcements, therefore it ignores ALL parts of the rules pertaining to reserves and reinforcements."

But it doesn't.

your right it doesn't luckily this isn't my argument.
My argument is that the The DP special rule pertains to any mission rule which specifically limits reinforcement units (i.e. with a references statement like "all reinforcement units) in a way that causes a maximum amount of reinforcement units. I hold on to this argument due to the DP special rule specifically telling me to ignore these such limitations. I am really tired of you answering some other argument... wrong. the rule is " 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. "
I will ignore ANY and therefor ALL rules that specifically limit the maximum number of reinforcement units I can have in my army. This includes a rule that specifically defines and sets limitation to the max number of units, based on points, that is specifically and directly being applied to my reinforcement units ("of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units"). I will do this because the DP special rule specifically tells me to.

Emphasis mine. This is THE inference we're all talking about.

Wait your telling me that the DP rule doesnt say to "ignore ANY and therefor ALL rules that limit the maximimum number of reinforcement units ? did I infer that ? "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."
Or are you telling me that a rule that defines a limitation on the combined point cost of any reinforcement unit does not cause some kind of max number of units that can be in reinforcements ?
what exactly is being inferred here ?

Are you saying the RAW doesn't limit how many units you can put into reinforcement or are you saying that the RAW does say that ? what am I inferring from this that isn't outright being described ? Explain how the underlined section is in anyway an inference. The text DOES in fact mean that. I am not inferring that. If the rule isn't setting a limit to how many units you can put into reinforcements what exactly is that rule doing ? What exactly is it saying ? Because if I am only inferring that it sets limitations to all my units in reinforcements, then that text is very deceptive considering it outright says what it means.

please, go ahead ans answer my questions one at time ? because telling me that doing exactly what the rules say, word for word, is an inferences is very confusing to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Your argument leads to saying that the limit on points you can use to create your army puts a limit on the the maximum number of units (as well as an actual limit on the number of units) that you can put in strategic reserve can be ignored, so that you can make an army of any size as long as you are putting them in drop pods. I can have a 50,000 point army, all of drop pods and units to be contained in the drop pods. Or, it can be a 50,000 point army consisting almost entirely of drop pods, plus the minimum number of units for that type of detachment, putting everything into the drop pods. 50,000 points - (say) 500 points for minimum units required leaves 45,500 points for drop pods. You could take up a lot of space on the board with that.

again, for the Nth time, my argument does not suggest this. Please read the previous posts because i am tired of people repeatedly stating this.

Again, for the Nth +1 time, your argument does indeed suggest this. I did read the previous posts, and you were not convincing denying it then.

you clearly did not if you can't see the obvious difference in wording and syntax

 Type40 wrote:
The rule for mustering armies 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:

This is a direct limitation on the players armies and has nothing to do with the number of units or a max number of units.

The rule for DECLARE RESERVES (the one we are disusing)

he combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units must be less than half of your army’s total points value
This is a direct limitation towards all of your reinforcement units.

But you have said with the quote you made that there is no limits related to the maximum number of reinforcement units. Surely that would include limit on the number of reinforcement units (or their point cost) that you can have in the army. Drop pods are required to go into reserve, so there would be no limit on those. You can have 50,000 points of drop pods + however many points you spend on non-drop pods.

No because the army mustering rule isn't a limitation specifically put on reinforcement units, it is specifically put in the entire army. Again notice the difference in syntax and wording.

"combined point value of ALL REINFORCEMENT UNITS" v.s. "points limit of each player's ARMY"

the DP rules tell us to ignore limitations placed on reinforcement units specifically (i.e. the rule i keep quoting about half the total amount of points combined for reinforcement units) and not to ignore limitations on armies... again,,, its right there both on the same page, different syntax, different wording, for a reason. Just do what it says as it is written.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Argive wrote:
what it allows you to do is to have one big model worth 1k pts on the board. And have as many units in drops for the remaining 1k pts as you like..

Thats not what it says though. It tells me to ignore all rules that set limitations on reinforcement units that cause a max number of those units . So I will just do that instead thank you. I'd rather follow the RAW.

Also, there are zero limitations at list creation... still no one has answered what to do when someone shows up to the 2000pt game with 1200 pts worth of DPs ? No mater how we read the RAW there is nothing stopping someone from doing this . DPs can not be deployed anywhere but reinforcements. its part of their rules.

 Type40 wrote:

he 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

You have a limitation here specifically on "ALL YOUR STRATEGIC RESERVE AND REINFORCEMENT UNITS" are limited by their combined points value. This limitation gives them a max number of units for reinforcements which is specifically ignored by the DP rule !? what part am I inferencing, its literally what is written.

No, the subject of the limitation is not the "units," as multiple people have explained to you. As written, the subjects of the three statements in question are:

"the total number of units in your army" - this is the subject of the first restriction

"the combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units" - this is the subject of the second restriction

"the maximum number of Reinforcement units" - this is the target of the restriction lifted by the drop pod rule.

Two of these things literally apply to the number of units, while the other applies to the point value of the units. It doesn't matter whether or not the "units" being discussed are the same - the key point is that these rules apply to different properties of those units (number vs points value). In order for your interpretation to make sense, you either have to misunderstand english grammar and believe that the subject of all of these rules is the "units" themselves rather than specifically the "number of units" or "points value of... units" or you have to infer that a restriction on the combined points value of the units is also a restriction on the number of units.

I have to agree with those who state you still have to keep 1/2 the points value of your army on the table. The "combined points value of all your Strategic Reserve and Reinforcement units" is not a limitation on the number of units you can have in Strategic Reserves and Reinforcement. It is a limitation on the composition of the units you can have in Strategic Reserves and Reinforcements.

For example, if your army consisted of 2 500-point units and 500 2-point units, you are limited to 251 units in Strategic Reserves and Reinforcements. However, you cannot put both 500-point units along with 1 other unit because while the quantity of units is legal, the composition of the units in reserves is illegal.

All Drop Pods do is exempt some units from the quantity limitation, as it explicitly states. It is silent on the subject of the composition of those units (other than then being Drop Pods and units embarked in said Drop Pods). Therefore, you are required to meet the value requirement on units in Strategic Reserves and Reinforcements.

Who is trying to do that anyway?

Its enough they get to ignore T1 DS rule, they should also disregard point limits for DS as well ? Please... as if SM need it..

BCB is right. The leap to decide that because points does limit how many drop pod units you can have it is therefore a rule that restricts the number of units is indeed a leap. It requires an assumption with no textual or contextual basis in raw.

Our current marine codex is careful to note what parts of the rule you are exempt from, by listing them. The prior marine codex, ALSO a revision in late eigthth, was careful to note a complete exemption for drop pods to the reserve deployment rules.

First of all, can we agree that any rule that generates three pages of disagreements between people that are debating in good faith might be worded a bit too ambiguously? And can we also agree that GW's writers are mortal and therefor capable of failing to clearly communicate a rule from time to time? Reasonable people can come to either conclusion on this one. Disagreeing isn't a sin.

That said, I'm in the BCB camp on this one. Based on the wording, the drop pod rule seems to specifically target the number of units clause.

The number of units clause directly addresses the number of units. The "half your points" clause *indirectly* limits your total number of. By itself, the points limit clause does not impact how many units you can have in reserve. If GW decided to introduce a troop unit that cost 0 points and didn't take up any detachment slots, you could theoretically have an infinite number of such units *because the points limit clause doesn't actually impact the number of units you can put in reserve.*

Given that there aren't free, slotless, infinite units in the game, the points limit clause is *functionally* a second limit on how many units can be in your army, but again, only indirectly. It's only a short leap of logic to think of the points limit clause as a limit on how many units can be in reserve, but it is a leap of logic all the same.

To say that you could have an infinite number of points in drop pods because the size of the army is a limit on the number of units in reserve is a more extreme and obviously incorrect interpretation, but it's still a leap of logic in the same way calling the points limit clause a limit on the number of units is. The size of your army is *indirectly* a limit on how many units can be put in reserve. It's just slightly more indirect than the points limit clause.

So yeah. The points limit clause is a separate slider. It keeps you from putting a 1,000 point super heavy into reserves in a 1,500 point game. It doesn't have a more direct bearing on how many units can be put in reserve any more than the number of detachment slots or the game size do.

All that said, I suspect that the intention is for drop pods to also ignore the points limit. If you asked the writer responsible for that rule, I'm guessing he'd tell you he meant for all drop pod armies to be a viable thing. But obviously this isn't the place to guess at RAI.