Does anyone have access to the previous edition of the BA codex? The wording of the terminator armor rules there might give us an important clue. Unfortunately I have moved i the last few years so my copies of most of the earlier 40k material is hiding in some box or the other.


We have two views on the rules atm:

1) The terminator armor rules section all apply to all models in the armor, the terms are used interchangeably.

2) The rules in this section apply to different models depending on if the term terminator or terminator armor is used in each sentence.

If view 2 is correct then we find that there is a tremendous variability in what models can use various transports. The same model in different armies may or may not be able to ride in rhinos, razorbacks or LR. Some models wearing terminator armor could not ride in the LR (the classic terminator delivery vehicle). And of course, in some armies the IC counts as two models and in others as one.
These rules have been kept largely the same over the course of the last series of marine rules lists, and the sweeping advance paragraph has been used unchanged through all but the BA codex. This means that GW has had several iterations of the rules, and many years, in which to change the wording of the rules if there was some reason to do so.

Why has GW not changed this long standing rule to clarify what vehicles can be used?

Under view 2 they have left this a strange mess of truly strange rules in place for the better part of a decade. ( IC in terminator armor being allowed to ride in a rhino but not a LR is truly strange)

Under view 1 its simple, they havent addressed this issue because there is no issue. GW uses the terms interchangeably so the rules are clear in and of themselves, there is no starnge set of problems.


If the GW view is in line with view 1 then there is no need for them to change anything, and if they do indeed follow view 1 then they have no interest in even addressing view 2 since its clearly in error from their point of view.


Sliggoth

Very true sliggoth (also very nice summary of all the dif armies). And thats the main reason I believe that GW is going for view 1. However thats not what they wrote.

This thread was never really started to try to pull something on your opponent that he isn't going to be ready for. Heck, the amount of times people even take a terminator librarian, much less sweeping advance with him is probably very minimal.

It was more brought up to show that there are still problems with the rules and GW needs to dedicate more attention to them.

So, I was wondering... What unit in Codex: Space Marines could the "Terminators" reference in Terminator Armour be? I see Terminator Squad and Assault Terminator Squad, but no "Terminators".

Well, actually I noticed that there are Terminator models in these units. Perhaps these are the "Terminators" of which Terminator Armour speaks. But that's kind of odd, because these units also have Terminator Sergeants, and it seems odd that Terminator Sergeants could make Sweeping Advances while Terminators could not. We would be stuck with the problem of whether a unit of Terminators and Terminator Sergeants could make a Sweeping Advance.

Flavius Infernus:

I'm just working it up now, I'll PM it to you in a bit for you to check.

Nurglitch wrote:So, I was wondering... What unit in Codex: Space Marines could the "Terminators" reference in Terminator Armour be? I see Terminator Squad and Assault Terminator Squad, but no "Terminators".

Well, actually I noticed that there are Terminator models in these units. Perhaps these are the "Terminators" of which Terminator Armour speaks. But that's kind of odd, because these units also have Terminator Sergeants, and it seems odd that Terminator Sergeants could make Sweeping Advances while Terminators could not. We would be stuck with the problem of whether a unit of Terminators and Terminator Sergeants could make a Sweeping Advance.

Flavius Infernus:

I'm just working it up now, I'll PM it to you in a bit for you to check.

Yea last I checked just because something has a prefix doesn't change what it is.

Camaro
Red Camaro
V8 Camaro

Oh look, all camaros
Unless your arguing that making it plural changes what it is.

Timmah:

Would you agree the same applies to suffixes?

Nurglitch wrote:Timmah:

Would you agree the same applies to suffixes?

Yes, sorry I made a typo. (I guess my entire argument is moot now because of it)

But ... depending on which view GW takes then its quite possible that they wrote exactly what they meant. If they subscribe to view 1 then they use the terms interchangeably so they would be perfectly hapy with the RAW. If in their view terminators = models in terminator armor then what they have written works as is, and requires no modification.

If GW agrees with view 2 then indeed the rule on terminator armor is flawed and has been flawed for many iterations of the codex and for many years.



Sliggoth

Timmah:

So would "armour" be a suffix one could add to "Terminator" without changing what the latter refers to?

Nurglitch wrote:So, I was wondering... What unit in Codex: Space Marines could the "Terminators" reference in Terminator Armour be? I see Terminator Squad and Assault Terminator Squad, but no "Terminators".

Well, actually I noticed that there are Terminator models in these units. Perhaps these are the "Terminators" of which Terminator Armour speaks. But that's kind of odd, because these units also have Terminator Sergeants, and it seems odd that Terminator Sergeants could make Sweeping Advances while Terminators could not. We would be stuck with the problem of whether a unit of Terminators and Terminator Sergeants could make a Sweeping Advance.

Flavius Infernus:

I'm just working it up now, I'll PM it to you in a bit for you to check.

Yeah I thought of this counterargument. Usually it wouldn't come up because, as established a couple of pages ago, the whole unit has to be able to roll the die in order to sweep, so if the unit has any terminators in it at all, then it can't sweep.

But I guess it could come up if the sergeant were the last model left in the terminator unit, then you'd have to bring up the question of whether or not a terminator sergeant is a terminator. I don't think I want to go there at this time, but if that's what the rules say, then that's what they say.

And of course the whole problem would have been averted if the wargear description had just said "models in terminator armor" for the sweep rule like it did everywhere else in that entry instead of throwing in "terminators." We know for sure that terminator sergeants wear terminator armor because the army list entry says so.

Flavius Infernus wrote:And of course the whole problem would have been averted if the wargear description had just said "models in terminator armor" for the sweep rule like it did everywhere else in that entry instead of throwing in "terminators." We know for sure that terminator sergeants wear terminator armor because the army list entry says so.

I do not believe anyone ever disagreed with that.

Nurglitch wrote:Timmah:

So would "armour" be a suffix one could add to "Terminator" without changing what the latter refers to?

Armour as a suffix does not describe the "terminator".

Terminator sergeant. What is the terminator? He is a sergeant
Terminator armor. What is the terminator? He is an armor.

Yea, doesn't work. For "terminator armour" terminator would be the prefix and armour would be what the prefix is describing.

In essence armour does not describe terminator where as sergeant does.

I believe enough precedent has been called that GW uses "Terminator" and "model in terminator armour" interchangeably, thus negating this loophole. Things get too weird, as has been pointed out, if you try to interpret those two as different things.

Dracos wrote:I believe enough precedent has been called that GW uses "Terminator" and "model in terminator armour" interchangeably, thus negating this loophole. Things get too weird, as has been pointed out, if you try to interpret those two as different things.

So basically GW should write their rules better so that grey issues like this stop coming up and we don't need to look across 10 codeci for a still interpretted answer.

Good, thats what I was going for.

Yeah this is just another drop in the bucket for their issues writing consistent rules.

Flavius Infernus:

So what unit do the Terminators noted in Terminator Armour reference?

I think GW rules are only inconsistent when you consider that they would never consider certain things and that RAI is also how they feel personally the game should be played.

The rules are and have always been guidelines ; the problem is that it doesnt match up in Tournament games where people take things very seriously.

I am pretty sure when writing they dont take into account RAW and just "Lets explain it ".

Hollismason wrote:I think GW rules are only inconsistent when you consider that they would never consider certain things and that RAI is also how they feel personally the game should be played.

The rules are and have always been guidelines ; the problem is that it doesnt match up in Tournament games where people take things very seriously.

I am pretty sure when writing they dont take into account RAW and just "Lets explain it ".

Exactly, which is kinda sad because it can lead to many rules questions. The fact that disputes are decided by rolling a dice alone should tell you how much they care about the rules.

They really need to just set up a more structured system.

Yeah they're decided mid-game that way. Extensive discussions about the rules, codicies, etc... need to take place before or after the game.

What kind of structure is appealing to you guys? Do we need to change 40k into Squad Leader or something? I can see how the grey areas can be a problem, but rolling a dice and dealing with it later is better than not even finishing a game. It's not that GW doesn't care about the rules, it's that they can only go so far in creating a rules system. Like every other game that has ever been created there are issues with 40k. What is important is how we address and handle said issues in both mid-game and meta-game arenas.

As heated and stupid I may get on the interweb I understand that I am not going to be that way in a game. As Timmah and others have stated taking RAW to this extreme is not something they would probably do in real life, but it is still being addressed and we are going to have to just deal with it.

barlio wrote:Yeah they're decided mid-game that way. Extensive discussions about the rules, codicies, etc... need to take place before or after the game.

What kind of structure is appealing to you guys? Do we need to change 40k into Squad Leader or something? I can see how the grey areas can be a problem, but rolling a dice and dealing with it later is better than not even finishing a game. It's not that GW doesn't care about the rules, it's that they can only go so far in creating a rules system. Like every other game that has ever been created there are issues with 40k. What is important is how we address and handle said issues in both mid-game and meta-game arenas.

As heated and stupid I may get on the interweb I understand that I am not going to be that way in a game. As Timmah and others have stated taking RAW to this extreme is not something they would probably do in real life, but it is still being addressed and we are going to have to just deal with it.

idk, I know plenty of other games as, if not more complicated than 40k.
Take magic the gathering for instance. It has a very good ruleset plus they help to train judges so that everyone is giving the same answer when a question arises.

I have no idea why you guys gotta bring it to its edge.

Its quite stupid, and quite frankly makes me wonder how old some of you are.

Conculsion: it makes no sense RAW, go with RAI and then leave it at that.

Bla_Ze wrote:I have no idea why you guys gotta bring it to its edge.

Its quite stupid, and quite frankly makes me wonder how old some of you are.

Conculsion: it makes no sense RAW, go with RAI and then leave it at that.

Obviously your way of thinking is right and everyone who disagrees is 8 years old.

Except this type of argument would put you in this range as well. (as well as the fact that you play with little dolls or action figures)

Timmah wrote:

Dracos wrote:I believe enough precedent has been called that GW uses "Terminator" and "model in terminator armour" interchangeably, thus negating this loophole. Things get too weird, as has been pointed out, if you try to interpret those two as different things.

So basically GW should write their rules better so that grey issues like this stop coming up and we don't need to look across 10 codeci for a still interpretted answer.

Good, thats what I was going for.

Your looking at it backwards. Your saying the RAW is that only the formal named unit Terminators is restricted from sweeping advance, but that you see from looking at the overall context that it is simply a descriptive term for models in terminator armour.

The correct answer is that by standard language rules it is a descriptive term for models in terminator armour, and the overall context confirms this to be correct both by the language used in the writing of these rules as well as the function of the game.

See the difference? It is an extremely popular misconception that a valid RAW argument is acceptable by looking at a sentence in a vacuum. Couple that with another even more popular misconception that a term that can be matched to a unit name is considered exclusive to that unit and you get some extraordinarily wrong answers. Both of these conventions are 100% player created and perpetuated. Both of them are in fact completely wrong.

Disregarding relevant written material is not acceptable, as it can change the answer to the question.

Treating a term that matches a name as exclusively that named entity is a convention of a writing style that is not used by GW for 40K. In the writing style used, terms are defined using their context to identify the proper definition. Sometimes that context will show them to be referring to a named entity, sometimes it will show the term to be nothing more than descriptive language.

Kaaihn, would you agree that wargear can function differently depending on what model it is equipped to?

A Sm wearing terminator armour is a terminator determind by his armour
therfore a master or any IC wearing terminator armour is in fact a terminator
an assualt marine is an assualt marine but in all hes just a SM with a jump pack
by your argument terminators are soming different to a SM which they not there just SM s in Terminator armour
when wearing Terminator armour you move slower as the armour is bulky hence why there is no sweeping advance

so no he cant as hes technicaly as you discribe it a terminator librian

Timmah wrote:Kaaihn, would you agree that wargear can function differently depending on what model it is equipped to?

Same name = same wargear?

I do not think that is the case, actually.

Or what is your real question?

@giantkiller So because my reading of something disagrees with your reading; I have ignored all context?
Thats a great argument. "MY INTERPRETATION IS RIGHT AND IF YOU DISAGREE, THEN YOU DON'T KNOW ENGRISH!!"
Does that sound like a good argument now?

Congratulations, you have succeeded in pointing out the fallacy of an argument I did not make. Do you stuff every straw man you kill and mount it on your wall?

Nowhere have I insulted you, nor have I implied that you were illiterate or an imbecile. I pointed out a fact with which you later explicitly agreed: you choose to ignore all context.

Look it doesn't matter how stupid I am or how much of a rules lawyer I am. When reading with context it allows us to form different opinions. You have formed the opinion that all models in terminator armor are terminators. If you cannot cite this in the rules being spelled out, then it is just that, an opinion which you have reached through reading context. The problem is context can be interpretted sooo many ways as proven by this thread alone. So we are in the RAI zone.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... your argument that multiple interpretations and differing opinions equals Rule As Interpreted fails. Words as written are capable of many shades of meaning. Two entirely different written words or phrases can have the same meaning. One very important tool to use in discovering what these written words actually mean is context. Different people may interpret the same context differently. Therefore opinions can differ as to what the rules as written actually say. Arguments based on opinions as to what the rules as written mean are... you guessed it... rules as written arguments.

My answer is to take everything exactly as worded and use rules in a vaccum, which seems to be the only way to not have differing opinions.

When it comes right down to it, you could have the most brilliantly crafted argument ever made explaining how x rule, taken out of context, should be interpreted. That argument will always be unpersuasive because all rules in 40k necessarily interact with, build upon, and depend on, other rules. No rule can exist out of context, therefore any interpretation of a rule "in a vacuum" is completely irrelevant. Nevertheless, I think in many cases you'd be surprised as to how many people could still manage to form opinions different from yours, even in your vacuum.

For example: you agree that the rulebook says "terminators cannot make sweeping advances" right?

Correct.

There is also only one unit specifically called a terminator correct?

Incorrect. "Terminator" is a term of art that, when evaluated in light of context, encompasses any model in terminator armor. There are several units that include, or could include models in terminator armor. Any of them could be called terminators.

So there we have 0 room for interpretation.

Incorrect. See above.


So now that you've acknowledged that you are, in fact, ignoring context, and you admit that this is all an exercise in pointing out awkwardly-worded GW rules, I will bow out of this thread with the following kudos to you: If there were no context whatsoever to be had, your argument would be correct. That discovery, which has no relevance whatsoever to how anyone does or should play the game, is worth exactly 3,482 SchruteBucks. Don't spend 'em all in one place.

-GK

I see Terminator Squads in the Forces of the Space Marines section of Codex: Space Marines. I also see Terminator Squads and Terminator Assault Squads in the Army List section. But I can't find where the "Terminators" unit is. Someone help a Brother in Darkness out?

GiantKiller wrote:

My answer is to take everything exactly as worded and use rules in a vaccum, which seems to be the only way to not have differing opinions.

When it comes right down to it, you could have the most brilliantly crafted argument ever made explaining how x rule, taken out of context, should be interpreted. That argument will always be unpersuasive because all rules in 40k necessarily interact with, build upon, and depend on, other rules. No rule can exist out of context, therefore any interpretation of a rule "in a vacuum" is completely irrelevant. Nevertheless, I think in many cases you'd be surprised as to how many people could still manage to form opinions different from yours, even in your vacuum.

For example: you agree that the rulebook says "terminators cannot make sweeping advances" right?

Correct.

There is also only one unit specifically called a terminator correct?

Incorrect. "Terminator" is a term of art that, when evaluated in light of context, encompasses any model in terminator armor. There are several units that include, or could include models in terminator armor. Any of them could be called terminators.

So there we have 0 room for interpretation.

Incorrect. See above.

You failed to take RAW in a vacuum for the 2nd question. Unless of course you can cite a page number and quote that specifically states a "Terminator" is a term of art that, when evaluated in light of context, encompasses any model in terminator armor. Rules in a vacuum do give you only 1 answer. Unless of course if you can prove otherwise, but I have yet to see anything.

You are trying to tell me rules in a vacuum give different meanings yet in your argument you say "when evaluated in light of context". Not a vacuum because you are evaluating something.



Nurglitch we have already been over suffixes and prefixes. Squad and assault squad both modify the word terminator so they are still terminators

see
red camaro
blue camaro
camaro

a camaro is a camaro is a camaro.


@Kirsanth
My question is whether wargear, in its description, can change its effect based on which model is using it.
This was the initial complaint, that wargear worked the same no matter who was wearing it.
Meaning any reference in the Terminator armor wargear section automatically applied to any model wearing that armor.


Anyways back to my question.

Would you agree that Wargear can work differently for different units?

How about a fake camaro? Is a fake camaro a camaro?

Nurglitch why are you avoiding my question?

I would say that fake is a different type of prefix. Its not like we have fake terminator assault squads that we are arguing about.

I'm sorry, I didn't notice a question: could you quote it so that I can answer it?

Timmah wrote:

Would you agree that Wargear can work differently for different units?

I'm sorry, I thought you had addressed that question to kirsanth.

I'm assuming that you're asking whether I, and others, would agree that some of the rules detailed under the heading of Terminator Armour apply to models wearing Terminator Armour, and some apply to Terminators, which apparently means "Terminator Squads and/or Terminator Assault Squads".

I would say no, the rules detailed in the wargear section apply to models referencing that item of wargear, and the rules modifying the behaviour of a model's wargear are detailed in the rules for that model.

Nurglitch wrote:I'm sorry, I thought you had addressed that question to kirsanth.

I'm assuming that you're asking whether I, and others, would agree that some of the rules detailed under the heading of Terminator Armour apply to models wearing Terminator Armour, and some apply to Terminators, which apparently means "Terminator Squads and/or Terminator Assault Squads".

I would say no, the rules detailed in the wargear section apply to models referencing that item of wargear, and the rules modifying the behaviour of a model's wargear are detailed in the rules for that model.

That is not what I am asking at all, see what happens when you assume.

All I am asking is:

Can wargear work differently for different models as detailed in the wargear definition?

No, because the whole point of wargear is that it works the same for every model equipped with it.

Timmah debating using leading tactics works only on those not worth debating.

While the text is not directly clear on this, interpreting it one way causes all kinds of problems, whereas interpreting it another seems consistent and causes no issues.

Go with the one that causes no issues IMO.

You're a persistent one, Timmah, I'll give you that. You've been ducking punches for a dozen pages now, and dancing around the issue for an extended period of time that just frustrates the person you're playing against.

I'll also give you the fact that the codex is poorly written, and the rules are generally taken as they are written...

Frankly I'm just astonished this is still being discussed. I think 'My Librarian In Terminator Armour Can Sweeping Advance' should be one of those humourous random Dakka headers, because every time I open this thread I mistake it for one.

Nurglitch wrote:No, because the whole point of wargear is that it works the same for every model equipped with it.

Then how do you describe nemesis force weapons or grey knight terminator armor?

Please quote me the rules, as I do not own the Codex.

Timmah wrote:Kaaihn, would you agree that wargear can function differently depending on what model it is equipped to?

What is the specific rules questions you are asking? I don't want to make an assumption based on my guess of what you are asking about.

Terminator Armour
"...Grey knights in terminator armour (but not inquisitors) have one more attack on their profile than normal. ..."

Nemesis Force weapons
"...Nemesis force weapons are one-handed weapons and have the following characteristics when wielded by different ranks of grey knights...(gives list of effects for each type of model)"

Heck even newer codeci do it:
Hammerhead railgun
"..The subumitions option is only available to the vehicle mounted railgun"

Timmah:

Please quote the rules properly.

Nurglitch wrote:Timmah:

Please quote the rules properly.

Now your just dancing around the question because you don't want to answer it. I quoted the relevant parts for all 3 of them.

Actually, timmah, I'd say that he has a point. When we're arguing over single words, having the direct, unedited version of the rules is necessary, because the way that GW says things is vital. I mean, this whole 12 page thread (oh my gawd!) is based off of one word. 'terminators'.

I understand that the exact wording might not be relevant tot the point you're trying to make, but it is relevant to the discussion.

No, I'm asking you to quote the rules properly because otherwise you look like you're quoting out of context, and without providing citation should someone wish to make sure you're quoting the rules correctly.

From what you've quoted though, it is clear that those rules apply to all models in the Daemon Hunters army that are equipped with Terminator Armour.

Nurglitch wrote:No, I'm asking you to quote the rules properly because otherwise you look like you're quoting out of context, and without providing citation should someone wish to make sure you're quoting the rules correctly.

From what you've quoted though, it is clear that those rules apply to all models in the Daemon Hunters army that are equipped with Terminator Armour.

Oh really? Even inquisitors...

Look I can admit when I am wrong. But here I have quoted you specific passages in the wargear entry where gear functions differently for different units and you won't even admit it. I guess all my inquisitors get +1 attack then.

Timmah:

So far I haven't really seen much evidence to back up the notion that you can admit you're wrong. Mind you, I expect you feel the same way about me, so how about considering why it is that I might not consider the quoted rules to contradict the claim that wargear rules work the same for all units that are equipped with them, and hence reference them.

So no, your Inquisitors don't get +1 Attack. The wargear rules you quoted specifically state that they do not.

However, it appears that you're confused about how it could be the case that some wargear rules specify different sub-rules for different models that may be equipped with the wargear, and yet all wargear rules apply to all models that may be equipped with said wargear.

What it appears that you're trying to do is get me to agree to the notion that because some wargear rules specify different sub-rules for different models, that it could be the case that the rules for Terminator Armour to specify some rules for models wearing Terminator Armour and some rules for Terminators.

Moreover, you're trying to push the notion that by "Terminators", the wargear rules are referring strictly to the Terminator Squad and Terminator Assault Squad units, and not to all units that may be entirely equipped with Terminator Armour.

Your attempt to make it seem reasonable that the wargear rules might apply to some units equipped with the wargear and not to others isn't reasonable because it equivocates about how the rules "work". After all, the rule that all models wearing Grey Knight Terminator Armour get +1A except for Inquisitors works for Grey Knights and Inquisitors. Not to mention the weakness inherent in trying to establish a precedence by format from the codex documentation of previous editions...

Now, find me a piece of wargear from a 5th edition Codex that is entirely different for one model that might be equipped with it than another, and you might have something.

Moreover your argument that the term "Terminators" must mean "Terminator Squads" and/or "Terminator Assault Squads" pretty much renders your position inconsistent.

Basically, what it seems you're saying, is that Terminator Squads cannot make Sweeping Advances because the wargear rule Terminator Armour references "Terminators". At the same time you're saying that Librarians in Terminator Armour can make Sweaping Advances because the wargear rule Terminator Armour references "Terminators" and not "Models wearing Terminator Armour".

No I was just trying to bring the rules debate down to a single point.

Many others have argued that all war gear rules function for any model wearing it. And that war gear can't be different depending on the unit wearing it.

I wanted to clear this incorrect POV up so that we could reduce the rules controversy to one point.

I listed something from the Tau book regarding railguns. I realize this is slightly older than 5th edition.

So in order to reduce our discussion down to 1 point:

Would you agree that the entry in the wargear section on a piece of wargear can function differently for different units if said units are referenced in the rules?

Much like the Nemesis force weapon entry does:

"...Nemesis force weapons are one-handed weapons and have the following characteristics when wielded by different ranks of grey knights...(gives list of effects for each type of model)"

<funny>
Using Timmah's logic I have now concluded that when my squad is down to its last man, he can now perform Sweeping Advances, since the rule specifically references plural, and he is now singular.
Also, I can fit sixty 'Terminators' (whatever they are) in a Land Raider, since 'Terminators' count as only two models in a vehicle - ten men in only two slots? Sweet!

</funny>

EDIT: For clearer joke-erating. Also maths.

I would certainly agree, if said units are referenced in the sub-rules of the wargear.

I can't grasp why you're still at it.

Nurglitch wrote:I would certainly agree, if said units are referenced in the sub-rules of the wargear.

Alright so we can agree our only disagreement is whether wearing terminator armor makes you a terminator.

If terminator armor =! terminator
Then the view I brought up is correct.

If terminator armor = terminator
Then the conventional view is correct

Everything else at this point is pretty much settled. (I believe)

And since we are never going to agree on the above question, I think we can let this thread die now.

Ill miss you 12 page thread


Because Bla_ze, I would rather duke it out in a rules forum thread with other people who know the rules very well, then during a game where my opponent may or may not grasp the rules as well as me.

Timmah:

I think you're giving up entirely too easily. I think it would be useful to explore why we disagree and what we disagree about.

Let's take your position that being equipped with Terminator Armour does not make a model a Terminator, and couple it to your position that the "Terminators" reference in the Terminator Armour rules means "Terminator Squads".

I disagree with both positions, precisely because they are inconsistent positions, both with respect to the Terminator Armour rules, and with each other.

On one hand you want us to believe, contrary to evidence, that the reference to "Terminators" does not refer to models equipped with Terminator Armour despite being in the Terminator Armour rules, and being used interchangeably with such constructions as "in Terminator armour", "wearing Terminator armour", "Space Marine Terminators", etc.

On the other hand you want us to believe, contrary to evidence again, that the reference to "Terminators" actually refers to Terminator Squads and Terminator Assault Squads, despite the requirement of literal reference previously applied.

You seem to want to interpret "Terminators" literally in the first case, and loosely in the second case, neither of which is supported by the evidence given in the rules.

Timmah wrote:If you wish to contradict me, please quote me the page that states a model wearing terminator armor is considered a terminator.

You left "Deathwing Terminators" off that list. Deathwing Terminators are not Terminators or Space Marine Terminators. I found this out when a GW customer service rep told me I couldn't arm my Deathwing Terminator Sergeants with the heavy weapon because they're not Terminators - and the heavy goes to one terminator in the squad (not one model).

Timmah wrote:Terminator Armour
"...Grey knights in terminator armour (but not inquisitors) have one more attack on their profile than normal. ..."

Nemesis Force weapons
"...Nemesis force weapons are one-handed weapons and have the following characteristics when wielded by different ranks of grey knights...(gives list of effects for each type of model)"

The differences here aren't from the terminator armor. GK terminators are assumed to have 'terminator honors' giving them +1 attack, as do all marines trained to use terminator armor. It's an ingrained part of the story for a few codices. You used to be able to buy TH for your sargeants, giving them an extra attack. Inquisitors don't get it because 1) they aren't marines and 2) they haven't trained to gain the TH. The terminator armor isn't different, the person wearing it is.

GK's improve psychic abilities as they age and train. Veteran GK's with improved psychics are the ones using Terminator armor, and serving as justicars in squads of GK's in Power armor. Their weapons act as power weapons. Further up the line a grandmaster can use his as a force weapon.

All nicely spelled out in the DH codex, but it's fluff and story, so you probably dismiss it. I assume you know all about it, and just try to cherry pick the parts you want to use to try and prove the point your working on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Timmah wrote:

Because Bla_ze, I would rather duke it out in a rules forum thread with other people who know the rules very well, then during a game where my opponent may or may not grasp the rules as well as me.

Sorry, can you quote the page number and codex where it says that you have a better grasp of the rules than the average person? While you may 'intend' to have a good grasp of the rules, if it isn't written down, you shouldn't claim to actually have one.

Nurglitch wrote:Timmah:

I think you're giving up entirely too easily. I think it would be useful to explore why we disagree and what we disagree about.

Let's take your position that being equipped with Terminator Armour does not make a model a Terminator, and couple it to your position that the "Terminators" reference in the Terminator Armour rules means "Terminator Squads".

I disagree with both positions, precisely because they are inconsistent positions, both with respect to the Terminator Armour rules, and with each other.

On one hand you want us to believe, contrary to evidence, that the reference to "Terminators" does not refer to models equipped with Terminator Armour despite being in the Terminator Armour rules, and being used interchangeably with such constructions as "in Terminator armour", "wearing Terminator armour", "Space Marine Terminators", etc.

On the other hand you want us to believe, contrary to evidence again, that the reference to "Terminators" actually refers to Terminator Squads and Terminator Assault Squads, despite the requirement of literal reference previously applied.

You seem to want to interpret "Terminators" literally in the first case, and loosely in the second case, neither of which is supported by the evidence given in the rules.

This is exactly why I agree with Nurg now. In order to interpret them as not interchangeable it breaks alot of stuff. Timmah, I think you need to just admit to being wrong on this one. You have a point, that is that the terminology is not consistent nor specifically defined. However, in order for the wording to make sense in context, and to be consistent with other rules you must interpret model in terminator armor and terminator as being interchangeable.

mikhaila wrote:

Timmah wrote:Terminator Armour
"...Grey knights in terminator armour (but not inquisitors) have one more attack on their profile than normal. ..."

Nemesis Force weapons
"...Nemesis force weapons are one-handed weapons and have the following characteristics when wielded by different ranks of grey knights...(gives list of effects for each type of model)"

The differences here aren't from the terminator armor. GK terminators are assumed to have 'terminator honors' giving them +1 attack, as do all marines trained to use terminator armor. It's an ingrained part of the story for a few codices. You used to be able to buy TH for your sargeants, giving them an extra attack. Inquisitors don't get it because 1) they aren't marines and 2) they haven't trained to gain the TH. The terminator armor isn't different, the person wearing it is.

GK's improve psychic abilities as they age and train. Veteran GK's with improved psychics are the ones using Terminator armor, and serving as justicars in squads of GK's in Power armor. Their weapons act as power weapons. Further up the line a grandmaster can use his as a force weapon.

All nicely spelled out in the DH codex, but it's fluff and story, so you probably dismiss it. I assume you know all about it, and just try to cherry pick the parts you want to use to try and prove the point your working on.

Mikhaila this was merely a reference to show that wargear can be different for different models. Which you yourself spelled out in the second one.

"GK's improve psychic abilities as they age and train. Veteran GK's with improved psychics are the ones using Terminator armor, and serving as justicars in squads of GK's in Power armor. Their weapons act as power weapons. Further up the line a grandmaster can use his as a force weapon. "

There you go, wargear can work differently for different models.

mikhaila wrote:
Sorry, can you quote the page number and codex where it says that you have a better grasp of the rules than the average person? While you may 'intend' to have a good grasp of the rules, if it isn't written down, you shouldn't claim to actually have one

Honestly I don't know why you continue to lace your posts with sarcasm and subtle attacks at me. For a DCM you really should try and restrain yourself more. Aren't you suppose to be a model for the community or something? If you can't handle a simple rules discussion without making fun of one of the participants maybe you should restrain yourself from posting or coming to this forum.

Don't you think that, given the very specific wording on what model gets what effect in the force weapon entry, it's a bit silly to assume they would be this vague about the Terminator entry?

Honestly, I think the only way you can find an issue here is if you are looking for one.

Oh and sorry for calling you a troll earlier, I genuinely thought you were just trying to stir up gak when you opened that new ork topic but I guess you just missed the other thread.

Does different wargear work differently for different models? That appears to be the subquestion that this thread has created.

There have been two cases found where to any extent the rules show different models using the same gear to different effects. The tyranids have many weapons that have a str tied directly to the str of the model using the weapon, and the GK have nemesis weapons that act differently for different models.

For the tyranids, the gear itself is really acting the same ... its applying the str (sometimes modified) of the model as a ranged attack. We do have to apply different strengths, but then for any model using a ccw we also have to apply different strengths so we find that the tyranids are not so different from other cases.

The GK we have a case where the gear is actually quite different for different models, having an entirely different ability at times. Looking at the rules here we also find that the differences are however clearly spelled out and listed. We also find numerous references throughout the fluff going into details about these differences.

*Normally fluff is irrelevent to rules discussions, however this thread is tied up in a need to understand the language and thinking of GW so fluff is another valuable resource in this one particular case...the understanding of GW's version of language*

So we find that in the one example of gear being used differently for different models GW takes a great deal of care and effort to clearly spell out the differences. To the extent that it becomes clear that they understand there might be some confusion so they are attempting to spell the differences out quite clearly.



So actually, the GK use of the same gear in different ways does indeed have strong bearing on the two views of this thread: it points out that GW devotes clear effort to lay out when gear does in fact operate differently for different models. The differences are noted and make up a basis for the storyline behind the rules as well.



This means that overall the GK example actually lends weight to view 1 that the terminator armor = terminator point of view, since the rules there are not clearly and strongly laying out the opposing view 2. And the rules for the BA marines uses a condensed format and clearly states view 1 (in regard to the sweeping advance rules). Plus in all of the fluff for any of the marine rules there is no mention of IC in terminator armor being quicker or smaller than other terminators.


Again, fluff is not relevent to the rules per se but is relevent to the a discussion on the GW language.


Sliggoth

Honestly I don't know why you continue to lace your posts with sarcasm and subtle attacks at me. For a DCM you really should try and restrain yourself more. Aren't you suppose to be a model for the community or something? If you can't handle a simple rules discussion without making fun of one of the participants maybe you should restrain yourself from posting or coming to this forum.

Might have something to do with your own attitude, how you lace your posts with sarcasm and subtle attacks. DCM's send money to Dakka, I don't remember reading anywhere in the rules where it said "Donate money, Be a DCM, then be nice to Timma". If you find that, please quote me the rules and page. (Which is actually a not-subtle attack on the whole "only reply if you can quote rules" thing that some people love.) I've been coming to this forum for a long time, I'll be here for a lot longer, your invitation to leave is politely declined. If you can't handle a bit of sarcasm, perhaps you should restrain yourself from posting or coming to this forum?

Now we're getting off topic.

I think the rules go something like this:

1. A terminator Librarian can sweeping advance.

2. Anyone attempting to pull such a manoeuvre in-game will likely lose an opponent, gain a foot in his/her crotch or both.

3. Discussing an unclear rules issue that clashes with fluff/common sense on a rules forum will get you flamed and called a rules lawyer, even if you are only asking in theory.

4. DCMs pay money. They can act like TFG if they want to, provided they don't breach any forum rules.

Points 1 through 3?

Unclear.

Point 4?

What?

Either way - thread closed.

WAY too many personal attacks.