Starting with no units on the board

[Gentlemanloser]

Yup.

[Kristoff]

Kristof, the problem is the writing of those two sentences.

When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy up to half

of their units (rounding up) keeping them as Reserves to arrive later.

Units that must start the game in reserve are ignored for the purposes of

working out how many other units may do so.

Noether of these two senteces tell you to ignore units that must start in reserves *for the purpose of determining the half of your army figure*.

 

 

Nor do they tell to not ignore the number for the total, either. It just tells you, "Units that must start the game in reserve are ignored for the purposes of working out how many other units may do so." To my training in math, it's telling me to not consider them at any point of the calculation, either base or allowed number, because it is inclusive statement regarding the previous one.

 

If someone asked me to give them half of the apples, but ignore the rotten ones, I'd be a total prick if half the initial number of apples were rotten, so kept the good half for myself and didn't give the other person any because his half were all rotten. The proper way would be to remove the rotten apples first, and THEN divide in half.

 

First you work out the Half the army.

 

Then you can allocate half into reserves.  Of which those those must start in reserves don't count *for this total*.

 

And that total only.

"Only" is not used in the rules, and the actual phrasing really doesn't support this summation very well. They are ignored for working out "how many" are available to those who may do so, as in all the numbers, not ignored for the limit, not ignored for those who can't go in to Reserve, but for the whole tally on both sides.

 

Then what about:

 

I have 10 units (2 characters, 3 squads w/drop pods, 3 predators)

 

I can place 5 in Reserves, and anything in the pods aren't counted against that.

 

I choose to place the characters and squads in the pods. 0 units in Reserves so far.

 

I choose to place the predators in Reserves. 3 units in Reserves now, which is under the limit of 5.

 

Full Reserves army, yes?

No, only 3 would qualify at that point for Reserves in the first place, as the rest are "ignored for working out the number of units that may start in Reserves." The Drop Pod units are ignored before you even begin to account for the numbers.

 

I should also note that your numbers above are off. You only listed 8 units. The squads in the Drop Pods would count for one each.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

Nor do they tell to not ignore the number for the total, either. It just
tells you, "Units that must start the game in reserve are ignored for
the purposes of working out how many other units may do so." To my
training in math, it's telling me to not consider them at any point of
the calculation, either base or allowed number, because it is inclusive
statement regarding the previous one.

 

That's reading too much into it.  And hence the stated ambiguity.

 

We are told they are only ignored for the specific purpose of "working out how many other units may do so".

 

'Other units may' implies you're at the section of deployment where you are playing other units *into* reserves.

 

As such, you've already worked out the total.

If someone asked me to give
them half of the apples, but ignore the rotten ones, I'd be a total
prick if half the initial number of apples were rotten, so kept the good
half for myself and didn't give the other person any because his half
were all rotten. The proper way would be to remove the rotten apples
first, and THEN divide in half.

 

Good for you?  This has no bearing on the clarity of the written Reserves rules though.

 

 

They are ignored for working out "how many" are available to those who
may do so, as in all the numbers, not ignored for the limit, not ignored
for those who can't go in to Reserve, but for the whole tally on both
sides.

 

That's your opinion of the rule.

 

Sadly, it's too ambiguous.

[Seahawk]

 

 

 

>Then what about:

 

I have 10 units (2 characters, 3 squads w/drop pods, 3 predators)

 

I can place 5 in Reserves, and anything in the pods aren't counted against that.

 

I choose to place the characters and squads in the pods. 0 units in Reserves so far.

 

I choose to place the predators in Reserves. 3 units in Reserves now, which is under the limit of 5.

 

Full Reserves army, yes?

No, only 3 would qualify at that point for Reserves in the first place, as the rest are "ignored for working out the number of units that may start in Reserves." The Drop Pod units are ignored before you even begin to account for the numbers.

 

I should also note that your numbers above are off. You only listed 8 units. The squads in the Drop Pods would count for one each.

 

No they don't; every unit is separate. I was off still; should be 11 total units, not 10.

 

You just repeated how I described it anyway; 3 are eligible for Reserves, so in they go. 

[Fibonacci]

No they don't; every unit is separate. I was off still; should be 11 total units, not 10.

"A unit and its Dedicated Transport are counted as a single unit for these purposes."

 

Not that it matters here since both are ignored for calculating reserves. 

[Seahawk]

I'm so used to saying "No, all units are separate and worth 1 VP each." Apologies!

[Fibonacci]

This is one of those places that could use a little work in 7th Ed. 

[Raeven]

 

No they don't; every unit is separate. I was off still; should be 11 total units, not 10.

"A unit and its Dedicated Transport are counted as a single unit for these purposes."

 

Not that it matters here since both are ignored for calculating reserves. 

 

 

That doesn't mean what you are interpreting it to mean.  It only means that a unit and it's dedicated transport are not counted twice.  It means I don't count a Tactical Squad and its Dedicated Rhino as +2.  Just +1.

 

What you are saying is that the Dedicate Transport takes precedent over the Unit itself.  This is not the case.  Otherwise, you would not be allowed to deploy a unit on the board and deploy it's dedicated transport seperately, ever.  A Tactical squad can always be deployed during deployment, or if you have enough reserve limit left, from reserves, separate from it's Drop Pod.  The only time the Tactical Squad doesn't count towards the RESERVE LIMIT, is when it is deployed in its Drop Pod.  It is still counted towards the unit total.

 

When determining who applies towards the total reserve limit, you only have one question to answer.  Is it a unit that MUST deploy via reserves?

 

Is a Tactical Squad a unit that must deploy via reserves?   NO.

If the answer is NO, count this unit towards the reserve total.  +1

 

Taking Seahawks example...I have 10 units (2 characters, 3 squads w/drop pods, 3 predators) (You only have 8 units here, btw)

 

Are the 2 characters units that MUST deploy via reserves?  NO

+2

Are the 3 Squads units that MUST deploy via reserves?  NO

+3

Are the Predators units that MUST deploy via reserves?  NO

+3

UNIT TOTAL

8

 

RESERVE LIMIT

4

[Raeven]

Actually, you count *every* unit.

 

Then, when figuring out how many you can place in reserves, you ignore those that must start in reserves.

 

It should be;

 

HQ IC +1

Elite - Sternguard w/ Drop Pod  +1

Elite - Dreadnaught w/ Drop Pod  +1

Troop - Tactical w/ Rhino +1

Troop - Tactical w/ Drop Pod +1

Troop - Scout +1

Fast - StormTalon +1

Fast - Assault Squad w/ Drop Pod +1

Heavy Support - Storm Raven +1

 

Total units that count towards unit total - 9

Total units that can be held in reserves or "reserve limit" - 9/2 = 4.5 = 5

 

 

Oh which, the Drop pods any any units embarked don't count towards the 5 limit.

 

Also, as per the linked thread above, while the Stormraven doesn't count, any unit embarked upon it will.  Go figure... (unless this has recently been FAQed, but I'm unaware of any)

Honestly, I'm inclined to agree with you.  It tells you to count every unit before it starts stipulating which units do not count towards the reserve limit.

 

But, this sentence can be interpreted either way, "Units that must start the game in reserve are ignored for the purpose of working out how many other units may do so."  Because it could mean unit total or it could mean Reserve Limit, I take the safe route and interpret it as simply Unit Total.

[Kristoff]

 

 

Nor do they tell to not ignore the number for the total, either. It just tells you, "Units that must start the game in reserve are ignored for the purposes of working out how many other units may do so." To my training in math, it's telling me to not consider them at any point of the calculation, either base or allowed number, because it is inclusive statement regarding the previous one.

 

That's reading too much into it.  And hence the stated ambiguity.

 

We are told they are only ignored for the specific purpose of "working out how many other units may do so".

 

'Other units may' implies you're at the section of deployment where you are playing other units *into* reserves.

 

As such, you've already worked out the total.

 

 

It's more the "working out" part I don't think you're applying properly. And I think you're reading WAY too far in to it to find an actual separation of qualifications here. The second sentence isn't a third step, it's a qualifier for what applies in the first sentence. There is nothing in that sentence that would be properly interpreted as applying to one half of "the list", unless you deliberately choose to see it as such or have been trained to see it as such.

 

 

 

If someone asked me to give

them half of the apples, but ignore the rotten ones, I'd be a total prick if half the initial number of apples were rotten, so kept the good half for myself and didn't give the other person any because his half were all rotten. The proper way would be to remove the rotten apples first, and THEN divide in half.

 

Good for you?  This has no bearing on the clarity of the written Reserves rules though.

 

 

It's called a "real world example" using the same phraseology to provide an example. 

 

 

 

They are ignored for working out "how many" are available to those who may do so, as in all the numbers, not ignored for the limit, not ignored for those who can't go in to Reserve, but for the whole tally on both sides.

 

That's your opinion of the rule.

 

Sadly, it's too ambiguous.

 

 

It's only ambiguous if you choose it to be, or are trying to work out an Easter Egg from the rules.

That doesn't mean what you are interpreting it to mean.  It only means that a unit and it's dedicated transport are not counted twice.  It means I don't count a Tactical Squad and its Dedicated Rhino as +2.  Just +1.

 

What you are saying is that the Dedicate Transport takes precedent over the Unit itself.  This is not the case.  Otherwise, you would not be allowed to deploy a unit on the board and deploy it's dedicated transport seperately, ever.  A Tactical squad can always be deployed during deployment, or if you have enough reserve limit left, from reserves, separate from it's Drop Pod.  The only time the Tactical Squad doesn't count towards the RESERVE LIMIT, is when it is deployed in its Drop Pod.  It is still counted towards the unit total.

Actually, I think he thought the Tactical Squad was IN the Drop Pod in question, therefore applying the "ignore this unit for working out", part. And you can't ignore it in one part and apply it in another. The rules do not state that. Ever.

 

When determining who applies towards the total reserve limit, you only have one question to answer.  Is it a unit that MUST deploy via reserves?

Incorrect, as previously stated from the FAQ, it can be IN a unit that MUST deploy from Reserves to qualify as well. ANY unit in a Drop Pod is disqualified just as much as the Drop Pod itself.

 

Is a Tactical Squad a unit that must deploy via reserves?   NO.

If the answer is NO, count this unit towards the reserve total.  +1

 

Taking Seahawks example...I have 10 units (2 characters, 3 squads w/drop pods, 3 predators) (You only have 8 units here, btw)

 

Are the 2 characters units that MUST deploy via reserves?  NO

+2

Are the 3 Squads units that MUST deploy via reserves?  NO

+3

Are the Predators units that MUST deploy via reserves?  NO

+3

UNIT TOTAL

8

 

RESERVE LIMIT

4

A poor example, if you do not ignore the FAQ. To properly go back over the list and applying the FAQ:

Are the 2 Characters units that MUST deploy via Reserves? NO

- Are they in a Transport that MUST deploy via Reserves? YES +0

Are the 3 Squads units that MUST deploy via Reserves? NO

- Are they in a Transport that MUST deploy via Reserves? YES +0

Are the Predators units that MUST be deployed via Reserves? NO +3

 

Unit Total that MUST not deploy via Reserves: 3

Reserve Limit: 2

[Gentlemanloser]

 

But, this sentence can be interpreted either way, "Units that must start
the game in reserve are ignored for the purpose of working out how many
other units may do so."  Because it could mean unit total or it could
mean Reserve Limit, I take the safe route and interpret it as simply
Unit Total.

 

Exactly! :D

 

Hence my OP in this thread.

 

I'm not going to bother disecting the side I've been discussing further.  It was done far better in the old thread I'm thinking about.  Hopefully my google-fu will be up to the task.

 

Either way, I stand by my original point that these rules are ambiguous, and badly written, like a lot of the 6th edition rulebook.

 

 

This is one of those places that could use a little work in 7th Ed.

 

Preaching to the choir! :D

[Raeven]

 

Q: Do units that are transported in a vehicle that MUST start in

reserve count towards the number of units that can be placed in

Reserves? For example, must I count the units in a Drop Pod or

Valkyrie towards the 50% of units I can place in Reserves?

(p124)

A: No.

 

Kristoff, there are two sentences here.  Both of them mean the same thing.  "Number of units that can be placed in Reserves" and "50% of units I can place in Reserves?" is the same thing.  Neither of which address unit total, just reserve limit.

 

You need to reread the rules regarding Independent Characters.

[Gentlemanloser]

That FAQ answer is interesting.

 

It's also wrong.  Go figure.

 

If you look at the linked thread, then only the units in transports that must deploy (from reserves) by Deep Strike are exempted.

 

The Valk can now no longer deploy by Deep Strike, so the units embarked are still counted...

[Raeven]

You aren't making sense.

[Fibonacci]

You aren't making sense.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

 

 

Sorry.  That sums up this whole thread -- and issue -- very well.

[Gentlemanloser]

Post 16

 

http://www.bolterand...ted-transports/

 

 

None of this changes for flying dedicated
transports (ie Night Scythes) because in order to bestow the ability to
ignore reserve requirements the flying dedicated transport must have the
requirement of arriving by deep strike, and the Night Scythe, at least,
does not have that requirement. So, units that purchase the Night
Scythe, even if they are embarked upon the Night Scythe, count towards
reserve requirements.

 

Valks (and Storm Raven) used to be able to deploy by Deep Strike.

 

GW removed that from fliers a while ago.

 

All units embarked upon Fliers count towards the reserves limits, in opposition to the FAQ answer.

 

Deep Strike, Page 36;

 

Some units that must arrive by Deep Strike. They always begin the game in reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike. X7hen working out how rnany units can be placed in reserve, units that must be deployed by Deep Strike (along with any models embarked upon them) are ignored.

 

The Depp Strike rules are the *only* place where embarked units are ignored for Reserves calculations.

 

While the Valk is ignored (as it always has to start in Reserves), it *cannot* Deep Strike, so cannot use the Deep Strike rules.

 

Therefore all embarked units on it *are* counted.

 

Counter to the FAQ answer.

 

I hope this makes sense now.

[Morollan]

Sorry but the FAQ very clearly says "vehicles that must start in reserve". It is not limited to "vehicles that arrive via deep strike". All flyers must start in reserve and therefore any units on board a flyer do not count.

[Gentlemanloser]

As said, that FAQ answer flies in the face of the rules.

 

There is no rule in the reserve section that allows embarked units to not count.

 

The only rule is found under Deep Strike, 60 odd pages earlier, and applies only to Vehicles that can Deep Strike.

 

The FAQ answer is wrong.  Or the rulebook requires an Errata to correct a missing rule.  As it stands, there is no way to replicate that FAQ answer within the rules.

 

Can anyone point to any rule that allows Embarked units to not count (that isn't the rule for Deep Strike...)?  I can't.

[Raeven]

That's where the FAQ comes in. It gives you permission not to count a transport towards the reserve limit.

 

Like many FAQ questions, it goes completely against the RAW.

[Kristoff]

That's where the FAQ comes in. It gives you permission not to count a transport towards the reserve limit.

 

Like many FAQ questions, it goes completely against the RAW.

Too true, but as they say on their own site: "FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation."

[Gentlemanloser]

This isn't going against a grey area, or different interpretation.

 

The relevant rule simply does not exist.

 

If we are supposed to play that way, then the missing rule needs to be Errat'd in, not answered by a FAQ.

 

Either that, or the FAQ answer is wrong.

 

Why do we hold FAQ answers as 100% correct and infalible?

[Morollan]

Why do we hold FAQ answers as 100% correct and infalible?

 

We don't but when they are completely clear, as in this case, I don't see an issue. Yes, they should errata the reserve rules but that doesn't mean you simply ignore the clear direction given by the FAQ.

[Gentlemanloser]

Heh, I just want a robust ruleset (and the whole point of highlighting this FAQ is to show in detail why this section needs to be rewritten, as I said in my OP).

 

Devils advocate - Now we have the Skyshield Landing Pad with Ready for Takeoff, no Flier *must* start in reserves.  It *can* start on board, if you so wish.

 

/whistle

 

;)

[Raeven]

Honestly, I don't see the issue.  Both rules have nearly the exact same wording.  The Deep Strike rule is more detailed and clearer, but the pertinent portions of the two rules are the same.  

[Morollan]

Heh, I just want a robust ruleset (and the whole point of highlighting this FAQ is to show in detail why this section needs to be rewritten, as I said in my OP).

Devils advocate - Now we have the Skyshield Landing Pad with Ready for Takeoff, no Flier *must* start in reserves. It *can* start on board, if you so wish.

/whistle

Only works for one flyer, IF you have a Skyshield and IF you pay for the upgrade. Absent those 2 conditions, you still have to start flyers in reserve, as specifically pointed out in the Ready for Takeoff rule.