Drop Pods vs. Tactical Reserves

[casb1965]

I do believe that is what he's saying.

 

The rule says "drop pods and units embarked" are exempt from the "tactical reserves" rule.

 

The question I guess depends upon at what point the troops count as embarked and cease to be part of the 1/2 the army must be deployed on table. I would argue that the troops count as part of the "drop pod " rule when the drop pod is deployed off table and not when you draw up your list so once you get to a point whereby troops on table + troops left to be deployed that are not drop pods  = 1/2 army value you can no longer embark upon a drop pod.

[Dam13n]

... and this is what happens when you make a rule (tactical reserves) needlessly complex.

 

Regardless of that, let's try to keep this civil going forwards please.

[Tyriks]

Since it does not say that drop pods and units embarked are not considered for tactical preserves purposes, at best you'd be able to put the 1300 points in drop pods and have 700 on the board (in the above example). You could not put 1300 in drop pods and 350 in some other form of reserves because those units are still considered part of your army, they're just personally exempt.

 

Maybe putting the 1300 in pods is allowed. The units are exempt but the rule only explicitly applies to specific units with regards to when they can and cannot come into play, so I can see both sides of that part of the argument. My assumption would be that you would still need half your army on the board but if someone in my group felt otherwise I guess I'd roll for it.

[Brother Casman]

[snip]

The question I guess depends upon at what point the troops count as embarked and cease to be part of the 1/2 the army must be deployed on table. I would argue that the troops count as part of the "drop pod " rule when the drop pod is deployed off table and not when you draw up your list so once you get to a point whereby troops on table + troops left to be deployed that are not drop pods  = 1/2 army value you can no longer embark upon a drop pod.

Per the core rules and FAQs, when you choose to deploy a transport, you can also pick a unit that is deployed in the transport, and the unit + transport is a single deployment choice. So, the moment you choose to deploy a drop pod, it can simultaneously have a unit embarked in it - there doesn't appear to be an order of operations in the transport deployment rules.

 

When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately...

Q: In missions where players alternate deploying units, do units that are set up somewhere other than the battlefield still count as a player’s deployment choice? What about units that begin the battle embarked within a transport?

 

A: Units with abilities on their datasheets that allow them to be set up somewhere other than the battlefield must still be ‘set up’ in that locale, and so still count as a deployment choice. When you choose to set up a transport, declare what units (if any) are embarked inside – these are not separate deployment choices.

To me, this implies that every drop pod is exempt (not obligated to deploy on the board) and every unit embarked on a drop pod is simultaneously exempt from Tactical Reserves.

 

If you're worried about timing, I see this as being analogous to Advancing and shooting Assault weapons - if your unit Advances as part of their movement, they are forbidden from shooting in the Shooting phase. This applies first, no question about that. When you get to the Shooting phase, any models equipped with Assault weapons become exempt from the prohibition on shooting, because of the rule associated with Assault weapons that lets them be fired even if the model was part of a unit that Advanced earlier.

 

 

----

As an aside and to be entirely clear - this isn't how I'd play a tournament/matched play game - I'd only do a full drop assault in a narrative setting with my opponent's consent.

[Cornishman]

So, lets say I'm wrong... If I understand the logic of the counter proposal correctly then if there is the situation there is 700 pts on the table, 1000 pts of drop pods and embarked units already in reserves then you are allowed to embark the remaining 200 and a bit pts of units on the remaining drop pod and place the 300 points of drop pods and now embarked units in reserve (as the pod and units now embarked on them are now exempt)

 

The same would be true if irrespective of how much or how little is already deployed or how it is deployed. So would hold true in the situation where there were 800 pts on the table, 900 already in reserve. In this specific case you could choose not embark the unit to meet the Tactical Reserves requirement, but based on the initial assertion there is no requirement that the decision not to embark may be enforced (as as soon the the unit(s) is embarked they become exempt).

 

If you are allowed to do that, what’s to stop you placing 800 pts of terminators, jump packs, termite assault drills etc… into reserves first and to then use the above  precedent on the remaining 1200 pts of drop pods and units to be embarked on them into reserve too?

 

Both seem to be reliant on, and use the same mechanism of consciously deciding to convert units the Tactical Reserves rules apply to, to units that are exempt during deployment, and relying on that exemption to avoid the requirement to place them on the table.

[casb1965]

@Cornishman - I don't think you're wrong, my take on it is that "tactical reserves" requires 1/2 of your army to deploy on table.

The drop pod rule says those units are exempt from the rule it doesn't say your army is exempt, so 1/2 on table please.

[Waking Dreamer]

If you are allowed to do that, what’s to stop you placing 800 pts of terminators, jump packs, termite assault drills etc… into reserves first and to then use the above  precedent on the remaining 1200 pts of drop pods and units to be embarked on them into reserve too?

 

Both seem to be reliant on, and use the same mechanism of consciously deciding to convert units the Tactical Reserves rules apply to, to units that are exempt during deployment, and relying on that exemption to avoid the requirement to place them on the table.

 

Oh wow, good point....seems really dicey to use that "entirely exempt from the rule" logic with that scenario. 

[Waking Dreamer]

@Cornishman - I don't think you're wrong, my take on it is that "tactical reserves" requires 1/2 of your army to deploy on table.

The drop pod rule says those units are exempt from the rule it doesn't say your army is exempt, so 1/2 on table please.

 

The exception to allow some units to come in for turn 1 deepatriking is one thing GW has chosen to allow.

 

But I don't think GW is going to say / is now saying: btw, null deployment is ALSO a thing again.  If players come to insist on that scenario or logic that would allow such a case as a basis of their arguments (particularly for matched / competitive play), guaranteed it's not going to last...

[Brother Casman]

[snip]

If you are allowed to do that, what’s to stop you placing 800 pts of terminators, jump packs, termite assault drills etc… into reserves first and to then use the above  precedent on the remaining 1200 pts of drop pods and units to be embarked on them into reserve too?

 

Both seem to be reliant on, and use the same mechanism of consciously deciding to convert units the Tactical Reserves rules apply to, to units that are exempt during deployment, and relying on that exemption to avoid the requirement to place them on the table.

Personal integrity?

 

Recognizing that the Tactical Reserves rule and the now-exempt Drop Pods introduce a grey area that ideally we would want to avoid if at all possible, I think it's safe to say that we want to end Deployment in as legal a state as possible. So I would contend that in the scenario you describe, while your 1200 points of drop pods (and units embarked therein) can all go in reserve, the remaining 800 points of units (that ordinarily would have the option to be placed in reserve) would have to start on the table.

 

We have a 2000 point army - we want to deploy as much as we can in reserve, and adhere as best we can to the Tactical Reserves rule. If we put everything in reserve, then we're in an illegal game state, since 800 points of units can start on the table, and are not exempt from the Tactical Reserves rule, so these units must deploy on the table. This is still an illegal games state, by reading just the Tactical Reserves rules, but anything in drop pods are exempt, so it's quasi-legal, let's call it.

 

At the end of the day, I don't think this is an argument that we'll be able to resolve here - so let's all email GW and hopefully we'll get a ruling sooner. (Their email address is: 40kFAQ@gwplc.com)

[Cornishman]

.... so let's all email GW and hopefully we'll get a ruling sooner. (Their email address is: 40kFAQ@gwplc.com)

 

 Already have, and too would suggest people would do likewise.

 

 

 

[snip]

If you are allowed to do that, what’s to stop you placing 800 pts of terminators, jump packs, termite assault drills etc… into reserves first and to then use the above  precedent on the remaining 1200 pts of drop pods and units to be embarked on them into reserve too?

 

Both seem to be reliant on, and use the same mechanism of consciously deciding to convert units the Tactical Reserves rules apply to, to units that are exempt during deployment, and relying on that exemption to avoid the requirement to place them on the table.

We have a 2000 point army - we want to deploy as much as we can in reserve, and adhere as best we can to the Tactical Reserves rule. If we put everything in reserve, then we're in an illegal game state, since 800 points of units can start on the table, and are not exempt from the Tactical Reserves rule, so these units must deploy on the table. This is still an illegal games state, by reading just the Tactical Reserves rules, but anything in drop pods are exempt, so it's quasi-legal, let's call it.

 

 

Actually if your army consists of just drop pods and units to embark on them you there is nothing forcing you to embark those units on the drop pods, and nothing forcing you to deploy those drop pods and now embark units in reserve.

Thus is the best way to adhere to the rules, and to be legal is to simply choose to place 1/2 your army on the table as instructed?

 

 

So lets look at this quasi-legality.

Unfortunately as far as I can if you are allowed place as many drop pods and their embarked units in reserve, and for this to be considered okay, then you must be be allow to do what I am suggesting, and for that to be okay too.

 

In the Drop Pod only situation:

• Some of the army has been placed on the tables (say 6 units and 800pts)
• Some of the army consists of number units embarked on drop pods which have already been place in reserves (say 7 units and 900 pts)
• The units remaining to deploy consist of a drop pod and a number of units which could be embarked on it (say 3 units: 1 drop pod of 65pts + and 2 units of 110 and 115 pts totalling 235)
• To adhere to minimum deployment required of Tactical Reserves all the non-drop pod units which have yet to be deployed would need to be deployed on the table (bring it up to 1035pts and 8 units on the table)

We are allowed to both

1) when the drop pod is deployed embark the remaining units on it,

and then,

2) choose not to deploy the drop pods and now embarked units on the table, as would be required to meet Tactical Reserves but to deploy the units in reserve. So resulting in only 6 units worth 800 pts and 10 units worth 1200 in reserve.

 

Having established that we can do this with the last remaining unit(s) to deploy it seems reasonable to deduce that such a decision can whenever the deployment of that drop pod and/or it’s embarked units would make you unable to meet the requirements of tactical reserve, and that this decision may continue to made even though deployment of those units on the table would get you closer to meeting the requirements of Tactical Reserves.

 

This giving us the basis of the as many drop pods as you like in reserve (including all drop pod/ null deployment) situation

• Some of the army consists of number units embarked on drop pods which have already been placed in reserves
• The units remaining to deploy consist of a number of drop pods and a number of units, all of which could be embarked upon them
• To adhere to minimum deployment required of Tactical Reserves all the non-drop pod units which have yet to be deployed would need to be deployed on the table

We are allowed to

1) when the next drop pod is deployed embark some of the remaining units on it,

and then,

2) choose not to deploy the drop pods and now embarked units on the table (as would be required to get as close as possible to meeting the restrictions of Tactical Reserves) but to deploy the units in reserve

3) Repeat the above untill all the army consists of units embarked on drop pods which have been deployed into reserves.

In all the cases it’s not what has previously been deployed which allows this but the rules of the units(s) which are being deployed (including any abilities gained through embarking)

 

As such if Null Deployment is allowed in an all drop pod army, then null deployment is also possible so long as at least ½ the army is drop pods, the remainder can also be held in reserve and this 'remainder' are deployed before the drop pods and units to be embarked upon them.

Yes if there are 800 pts of Terms/ Jump Packs these could have been deployed on the table (i.e. the decision could have been made to deploy them on the table).

Yes this means the order in which these are deployed matters

 

However by the same merit as saying the Terms and Jump units are not excempt and could have been deployed on the table, the same could be said of the units embarked on the drop pods:

• The decision could have been made not to embark the now embarked on the drop pods to start with, and thus deploy those on the table to meet the requirement
• Additionally there is nothing mechanically preventing the decions to deploy drop pods and thier embarked units meet the required.

If you are allowed to restrict or even retrospectively render ‘illegal’ deployment choice and decisions on the basis that there were alternate choices to those decisions in the deployment phase that would result in closer adherence to Tactical Reserve (including actually meeting the requirement), why doesn’t this prevent you from being able to embark units in drop pods as soon as all the non-deployed (non-drop pod) units would be required to be deployed on the table to meet the requirements: These units only become exempt from Tactical Reserves once embarked?

 

 

Personal integrity?

Or perhaps this could mean that allowing null deployment or more than 50% of the army pods/units in pods and in reserve is not how the mechanics work....

[Brother Casman]

[snip]

However by the same merit as saying the Terms and Jump units are not excempt and could have been deployed on the table, the same could be said of the units embarked on the drop pods:

• The decision could have been made not to embark the now embarked on the drop pods to start with, and thus deploy those on the table to meet the requirement
• Additionally there is nothing mechanically preventing the decions to deploy drop pods and thier embarked units meet the required.

If you are allowed to restrict or even retrospectively render ‘illegal’ deployment choice and decisions on the basis that there were alternate choices to those decisions in the deployment phase that would result in closer adherence to Tactical Reserve (including actually meeting the requirement), why doesn’t this prevent you from being able to embark units in drop pods as soon as all the non-deployed (non-drop pod) units would be required to be deployed on the table to meet the requirements: These units only become exempt from Tactical Reserves once embarked?

 

The trouble I have with this argument is that the Transport Deployment rules don't have an "embarkation step" - when you choose to deploy a drop pod, it's in one of two states: "empty" or "full". The drop pod doesn't start empty and then transition to full when we deploy it; one could think of the unit being embarked in the drop pod before deployment starts, if the order of operations matters.

 

I honestly don't think either of us are going to convince the other, and circular arguments tend to get OR threads locked (right, Dam13n? ), so I'm going to leave it here. Let's hope GW issues a ruling soon - at the end of the day, I don't think anyone here wants to be the cause of a negative play experience for someone.

[Dam13n]

I honestly don't think either of us are going to convince the other, and circular arguments tend to get OR threads locked (right, Dam13n?

Indeed they do, and as GW has been emailed about this (as was mentioned above), I see no reason for this to continue to circle.

As such, I'm going to lock this for now. Should a reply from GW appear or a future clarification come via a FAQ, then I'm happy to reopen this to allow the discussion to resume.