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.

So I came upon this in the book the other day.

Most people agree that terminator sergeants are not allowed to take the cyclone missile launcher or even a chain fist since they are not terminators. ("one terminator can replace...")

However, in the same vein, everyone agrees that any model in terminator armor can't sweeping advance including ICs and Sergeants. ("Terminators cannot perform a sweeping advance")

Does this seem disjointed to anyone else?
Going by this we either need to assume sergeants can take the special weapons or that they are allowed to sweeping advance if they are on their own (or ICs wearing terminator armor).

Is there something I am missing here?

The Sweeping Advance restriction isn't on Terminators, it's on anyone wearing terminator armor.

Yeah, see the wargear section in the Terminator Squad entry?

See how the whole squad has Terminator Armor?

See how SA is denied by the Terminator Armour entry in the wargear section, not in the terminator "beastiary" entry?

A terminator Sgt is not a "Terminator"; but he is still in terminator armour; which is what denies SA.

Actually a "Terminator Sergeant" is a Terminator, just like the "Squad Leader" of a pack of long fangs IS a Long Fang.

The Long fangs entry even specifically excludes the "Squad Leader" from replacing his bolt pistol with a heavy weapon, something that would not be needed if he was not a long fang, and simply "Squad Leader".

P.92 SW codex "Each Long Fang, apart from the Squad leader, must replace his bolt pistol with one of the following:"

But the Terminator Sarge has a different name and profile line and as such can not take the upgrades of the unit...

Massaen wrote:But the Terminator Sarge has a different name and profile line and as such can not take the upgrades of the unit...

The Terminator Sargent has the exact same profile line, just a different name.

Iranna.

While its the same stats its still a different profile line...

Yeah, in a nutshell, the Sergeant cant take a Cyclone Missile Launcher.

Much like an Apothecary cant take the upgrades a Veteran could take in a Command Squad.

Massaen wrote:While its the same stats its still a different profile line...

Any model with no clear differentiating stats, abilities or wargear is considered "Identical in gaming terms", name makes no difference.

As the sergeant in a regular terminator squad has a power weapon and not a power fist however, he is different and does not class as a "Terminator".

Iranna.

The name does make a difference, in several special rules cases. Like the Sanguinor's random upgrade ability. And now Trazyn's Empathic Obliterator.

Mannahnin wrote:The name does make a difference, in several special rules cases. Like the Sanguinor's random upgrade ability. And now Trazyn's Empathic Obliterator.

The Sanguinor's rule specifically asks you to pick a model with the word "Sergeant" in it. As for the Empathic Obliterator... I have no clue what that does.

For the purposes of including weapons or allocating wounds the name does not make a difference if the model has the same Stats, Rules and Wargear; it's considered "identical in gaming terms".

Although, I see what you're getting at.

Iranna.

We had a huge thread about this, and in fairness several people agreed with the position you're putting forward.

I disagree, in large part because there are several special rules out there (I referenced two) which DO hinge on the name on the profile, regardless of any difference in statline. Since those rules exist, those models are not "identical in gaming terms".

Mannahnin wrote:We had a huge thread about this, and in fairness several people agreed with the position you're putting forward.

I disagree, in large part because there are several special rules out there (I referenced two) which DO hinge on the name on the profile, regardless of any difference in statline. Since those rules exist, those models are not "identical in gaming terms".

Perhaps we should agree to disagree?

I think it all depends on someone's comprehension of English. As a language, it's very ambiguous so there's never usually only one way to interoperate a rule or statement so I'm not going to argue against a point which is quite easily as valid as my own.

Iranna.

Mannahnin wrote:I disagree, in large part because there are several special rules out there (I referenced two) which DO hinge on the name on the profile, regardless of any difference in statline. Since those rules exist, those models are not "identical in gaming terms".

Not to restart the argument - but those special rules specifically target/reference names. In general names don't matter.

What is "in general"? If there are any purposes for which the rules of the game distinguish between these models, other than by their statline, then (IMO) they are not "identical in gaming terms".

Mannahnin wrote:What is "in general"? If there are any purposes for which the rules of the game distinguish between these models, other than by their statline, then (IMO) they are not "identical in gaming terms".

In general being wound allocation primarily. It's the same area as any other specific vs general discussion.

If they were identical and the sergeant could take a cml then it's weird that the entry says (in the DA codex at least, the only sm dex I have here)
"Any model [...] LC's or TH/SS"
"Any model [...] Chainfist" and
"One Terminator (rather than 'one model') [...] cml or heavy flamer"

rigeld2 wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:What is "in general"? If there are any purposes for which the rules of the game distinguish between these models, other than by their statline, then (IMO) they are not "identical in gaming terms".

In general being wound allocation primarily. It's the same area as any other specific vs general discussion.

What I'm pointing out (and what we're not going to resolve this time either) is that we disagree on that "identical in gaming terms" means. And you're right, that does have consequences for wound allocation, among other things.

Mann, how do you respond to the Long Fangs example I gave above?

that clearly tells me that the "Squad leader" is a "Long Fang" and would have to replace his BP with a heavy weapon, if it were not for the caveat on P.92 of the SW codex.

(P.92 SW codex "Each Long Fang, apart from the Squad leader, must replace his bolt pistol with one of the following:")

Mannahnin wrote:
What I'm pointing out (and what we're not going to resolve this time either) is that we disagree on that "identical in gaming terms" means. And you're right, that does have consequences for wound allocation, among other things.

Yes, this.

You're not going to get a definite answer regarding this, so you're best to just leave it.

Iranna.

DR, it's a good question. GW hasn't been 100% clear and consistent in how they label squad leaders and treat their weapon options.

I agree that the squad leader is a Long Fang in the sense of being a model which is part of a Long Fang unit, but not a Long Fang in terms of a regular LF model with access to the regular upgrades, as distinct from the squad leader upgrades. The issue is that GW doesn't consistently keep these two types (model vs unit with the same name) clearly distinct.

Iranna wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:What I'm pointing out (and what we're not going to resolve this time either) is that we disagree on that "identical in gaming terms" means. And you're right, that does have consequences for wound allocation, among other things.

Yes, this.

You're not going to get a definite answer regarding this, so you're best to just leave it.

Well, since it impacts wound allocation, it may come up in one's regular gaming group. FWIW, the INAT council, after discussion, went with my interpretation.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/up/INATFAQv5.0.1.pdf

Mannahnin wrote:

Well, since it impacts wound allocation, it may come up in one's regular gaming group. FWIW, the INAT council, after discussion, went with my interpretation.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/up/INATFAQv5.0.1.pdf

Then I stand corrected, touché good sir.

Iranna.

Well, we could be wrong, of course. GW may come out later and say that no, they didn't mean for sergeants to be different for wound allocation. If they do that, we'll reverse our ruling. But I think the preponderence of evidence (including newer stuff like Empathic Obliterator, which didn't exist yet when we made that ruling) leans to the conclusion that they are different.

Mannahnin wrote:Well, we could be wrong, of course. GW may come out later and say that no, they didn't mean for sergeants to be different for wound allocation. If they do that, we'll reverse our ruling. But I think the preponderence of evidence (including newer stuff like Empathic Obliterator, which didn't exist yet when we made that ruling) leans to the conclusion that they are different.

Reading over Trazyn's entry I can see where this point comes from and I'd actually say that it does have some more precedence than the "Identical in Gaming Terms" example.

Let's just hope there's an eventual FAQ to finally clear this and so many other things up.

Iranna.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Yeah, see the wargear section in the Terminator Squad entry?

See how the whole squad has Terminator Armor?

See how SA is denied by the Terminator Armour entry in the wargear section, not in the terminator "beastiary" entry?

A terminator Sgt is not a "Terminator"; but he is still in terminator armour; which is what denies SA.

SA is denied to "Terminators" in the wargear section. Just like the Cyclone Missile Launcher can only go on a "Terminator" in the unit entry.

How can in one reference the Sergeant not be considered a Terminator, but it is in the other entry?

Because (as I indicated in my previous post) they mean two different things by the same word, and we have to figure out which is which based on context.

Timmah wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:Yeah, see the wargear section in the Terminator Squad entry?

See how the whole squad has Terminator Armor?

See how SA is denied by the Terminator Armour entry in the wargear section, not in the terminator "beastiary" entry?

A terminator Sgt is not a "Terminator"; but he is still in terminator armour; which is what denies SA.

SA is denied to "Terminators" in the wargear section. Just like the Cyclone Missile Launcher can only go on a "Terminator" in the unit entry.

How can in one reference the Sergeant not be considered a Terminator, but it is in the other entry?

SA is denied to those wearing terminator armor. The CML can go on a Terminator.

Mannahnin wrote:Because (as I indicated in my previous post) they mean two different things by the same word, and we have to figure out which is which based on context.

Terminators is a proper noun since its capitalized.
Proper nouns refer to SPECIFIC persons, places or things.

So both cases refer to a specific thing (Terminators), yet your telling me they are somehow different?

Mannahnin wrote:

Iranna wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:What I'm pointing out (and what we're not going to resolve this time either) is that we disagree on that "identical in gaming terms" means. And you're right, that does have consequences for wound allocation, among other things.

Yes, this.

You're not going to get a definite answer regarding this, so you're best to just leave it.

Well, since it impacts wound allocation, it may come up in one's regular gaming group. FWIW, the INAT council, after discussion, went with my interpretation.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/up/INATFAQv5.0.1.pdf

The INAT is not correct on this issue.
Also I just re-read some of the INAT FAQ, and I now think less of it than I did previously.

The INAT FAQ needs to be worded better. The Answer to the Question below is odd.
SM.55A.02 – Q: If a unit with an Apothecary is killed
at the same time as other members of his unit do the
other squad members still get to make their ‘Feel No
Pain’ saves?

Based on the question it should have been answered like this:
A: The owning player can take any of the saving throws and corresponding ‘Feel No Pain’
saves at any time, before or after attempting the Apothecary’s saving throw(s)
This is because all wounds that happen at any given Initiative step are simultaneous
and therefore it does not matter when you roll
the saving throws and corresponding ‘Feel No Pain’ for any given wounded model at that Initiative step.

The Original answer is below:

A: A unit with an Apothecary is a ‘complex unit’ so the
owning player can choose to take all the other squad
member’s saving throws and corresponding ‘Feel No Pain’
saves before attempting the Apothecary’s saving throw(s)
[RAW]

As regards the Sgts, I obviously disagree with you. The INAT council is a fairly large body of TOs and veteran players, who agreed collectively on that ruling. I don't think the game breaks by any means if you play it differently, but I think there's enough evidence to make it at least a reasonable ruling.

I concur with you on the Apothecary answer.