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.

Barlio,

THANK YOU!!!

barlio wrote:No, you can't claim that LRBT equals the Exterminator. If were going hardcore RAW then LRBT cannot equal an Exterminator or Demolisher. Personally I would be down with that, but since we are in a thread that argues that an IC in Termie armor can sweeping advance then we are dividing by 0 anyways.

Uh, that was my point exaclty. Take a gander at the entire conversation we had.

Yeah ignore me on this one then.

Kitzz wrote:You are correct, there is a Leman Russ Battle Tank. But there are also other tanks listed in the codex entry for Leman Russ Battle Tank (the Punisher, for example). If we are saying that Terminator Armor = Tactical Dreadnought Armor = Terminator = Space Marine Terminator, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to say Leman Russ Battle Tank = Leman Russ Exterminator = Leman Russ Demolisher etc.

Ah, I see.

However, this train of logic is once again devoid of context; it's merely applying a different (secondary) set of rules to the Warhammer 40k ruleset than was being applied before. That is to say, whereas before it was "it must be explicitly stated to be the same for it to mean the same thing", it is now "if they are under the same entry they are the same thing".

The difference in this case is that Leman Russ Battle Tanks are a specific model with different stats and weaponry from the other tanks available in a Leman Russ squadron. There's no implication in the Inquisitorial codices that Leman Russ Battle Tank is anything other than the literal tank it specifies.

However, "On the other hand, this armour is somewhat cumbersome, so Space Marine Terminators are not able to purse a more lightly armoured foe when they flee. Terminators cannot perform a Sweeping Advance." tells you what both "Terminators" and "Space Marine Terminators" are referring to; models wearing the Terminator Armor that is "somewhat cumbersome". It refers to "this armor" (Terminator armor, obviously) and then gives the armor as the reason that (Space Marine) Terminators cannot pursue their enemy. The fact that this is in the entry for Terminator armor (and is thus applicable to all models wearing Terminator armor unless it's otherwise specified) only solidifies the position that Terminator refers to models equipped with the armor.

Furthermore, the models for Librarians in Terminator armor are, officially, called both "Librarian in Terminator Armor" and "Terminator Librarian". (And, it would additionally seem that the one labeled "Terminator Librarian" is the more recent model.

Actually, I think it can be read to delineate abilities not granted to Terminators vs models in Terminator armor. I think it is perfectly reasonable to read that, as written, the rules for the wargear item apply differently to different units.

As for the "Terminator Librarian" being a unit, that is simply the designation for the model as it is sold. There is no such reference in the codex.

And...hey...look at your location...weird...

I don't think that's reasonable, because there's no further distinction between the two. The passage goes from the wargear and models equipped with it to the term "Terminator" without any sort of change of subject. This is consistent with the subject remaining the same thing, but jarring for a change of subject.

Both the designation for the selling of the model and the codex were written by the company. In the rules for Warhammer, Terminator is a term that only has meaning in the context Games Workshop uses it. It's whatever they want it to be, and they want it to mean a model that has the armor; regular Terminators are regular marines who wear Terminator armor, Terminator Librarians are Librarians who wear Terminator armor, etc.

(Hmm, both in Minnesota. Cool!)

There's even a picture on the bottom of p.102 to help people figure out which models are wearing Terminator Armour. Here's a hint, it's the guy on the right.

Nurglitch wrote:There's even a picture on the bottom of p.102 to help people figure out which models are wearing Terminator Armour. Here's a hint, it's the guy on the right.

Yeah but he's wearing a helmet. What character in terminator armor ever wears a helmet? That's right none of them. /sarcasm

Your honor I would like to close with the bald and screaming argument. As you can see only characters don't wear helmets. You can't tell that they are bald and screaming if they are wearing their helmuts. Therefore characters are different than Terminators.

So what all of you are trying to say is that IC in Terminator Armour do not have to follow the rules stated for it??

It doesn't matter if it is an IC or not, if you are using the rules listed under the wargear Terminator Armour, all the rules for that piece of wargear apply unless said IC has a specific entry in it's profile overriding something.

An IC that has the wargear of Terminator Armour is governed by the abilities contained in Terminator Armour wargear rules, as well as now being governed by rules specifying Space Marine Terminator and Terminator as they are specific descriptions associated to Terminator Armour, which would be conveyed to any model that equips that piece of wargear.

Kaaihn wrote:It doesn't matter if it is an IC or not, if you are using the rules listed under the wargear Terminator Armour, all the rules for that piece of wargear apply unless said IC has a specific entry in it's profile overriding something.

An IC that has the wargear of Terminator Armour is governed by the abilities contained in Terminator Armour wargear rules, as well as now being governed by rules specifying Space Marine Terminator and Terminator as they are specific descriptions associated to Terminator Armour, which would be conveyed to any model that equips that piece of wargear.

I agree with this. For some weird and untelling reason all these other peeps on here can't seem to put that together and think that in some way the IC and all his might can just do WTF ever he wants.

ShawnSum wrote:So what all of you are trying to say is that IC in Terminator Armour do not have to follow the rules stated for it??

That's the crux of the argument (quasi-pun intended). Some people are trying to say that IC that choose Termie armor are not subject to the sweeping advance restriction. I do not believe that (Kaaihn hit the nail on the head).

Nurglitch wrote:There's even a picture on the bottom of p.102 to help people figure out which models are wearing Terminator Armour. Here's a hint, it's the guy on the right.

Uh I never said my model wasn't wearing terminator armor.

Now tell me which of these rules I am breaking if I SA with a librarian in terminator armour.

Models in terminator armor have the relentless special rule

Terminators cannot perform sweeping advances

A model wearing terminator armor has a 2+ armor save and a 5+ invulnerable save

Any model wearing terminator armor can be teleported onto the battlefield.



I am not breaking any of those rules.
No where does the codex define what a terminator is. So we can only apply that line to anything called a terminator.

TERMINATOR - this word is undefined in the space marine codex. If we try and define it we are assuming and implying what it means, thus RAI
So we must take this word at face value and only things specifically called a terminator in their name can be affected by this rule.


ONCE AGAIN FOR YOU GUYS HAVING DIFFICULTY

No where is the word terminator defined. If it is please link the exact quote and page number. If you try and assume what one is you are playing RAI.
Only models that have Terminator in the name can be terminators then per RAW.

Again, outside of fluff, no one has been able to prove that there is such a thing as a terminator librarian.
I do not see a stat line for a terminator librarian, nor a unit entry for one.

Because it doesn't fricken matter what the definition is.

Terminator armor is something you put on a Spehss Mahreen. When you put Terminator armor on Spehss Mahreens he gets stuff and is restricted in a certain way (as you kindly pointed out).

Heck I'll give you a definition:

Terminator - A veteran Spehss Mahreen who (in reward of years of service and for killing Xenos Scum) is given a suit of ancient armor. He then can continue to kill more Xenos scum in a totally more AWESOME WAY .

kirsanth wrote:"Terminator" is used three times in the actual rules.

Exactly the same number of times as "models in Terminator armor"

"Tactical Dreadnaught Armor" is used once, and "Space Marine Terminator" once also.

Which ones do we ignore?

To add one more note, since you did change some text(!). Terminator is defined by example in the same place Terminator armor is defined.
The section everyone has been quoting back and forth.

The rules for using Terminator armor refer to the user of the armor as Terminators. Either that or it refers to the armor itself - either way IC cannot SA in it.

barlio wrote:Because it doesn't fricken matter what the definition is.

Terminator armor is something you put on a Spehss Mahreen. When you put Terminator armor on Spehss Mahreens he gets stuff and is restricted in a certain way (as you kindly pointed out).

Heck I'll give you a definition:

Terminator - A veteran Spehss Mahreen who (in reward of years of service and for killing Xenos Scum) is given a suit of ancient armor. He then can continue to kill more Xenos scum in a totally more AWESOME WAY .

You cannot define it yourself, that is RAI.

kirsanth wrote:

To add one more note, since you did change some text(!). Terminator is defined by example in the same place Terminator armor is defined.
The section everyone has been quoting back and forth.
The rules for using Terminator armor refer to the user of the armor as Terminators. Either that or it refers to the armor itself - either way IC cannot SA in it.

Yes terminators do use the armor.
In fact all terminators use terminator armor.

However it does not say:
All users of terminator armor are terminators.

Must I got back to showing the logical fallacy of this statement?

No. . . that is a house rule.

The ceramite plates can deflect most conventional assaults, whilst the Crux Terminatus on every Terminator's shoulder plate serves as a ward capable of turning aside even attacks from power weapons or melta fire.

I forgot about this one; it is another instance of Terminator referring to anyone wearing the armor. All Terminator armor has a Crux Terminatus, that's what gives it the Invulnerable save. This is further proof that when GW says Terminator it means a model with Terminator armor.

Seriously, that's three instances of it. It's defined by Games Workshop, they have defined it multiple times.

The same place that defines Terminator armor refers to the users of such as Terminator's.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

The ceramite plates can deflect most conventional assaults, whilst the Crux Terminatus on every Terminator's shoulder plate serves as a ward capable of turning aside even attacks from power weapons or melta fire.

I forgot about this one; it is another instance of Terminator referring to anyone wearing the armor. All Terminator armor has a Crux Terminatus, that's what gives it the Invulnerable save. This is further proof that when GW says Terminator it means a model with Terminator armor.

Seriously, that's three instances of it. It's defined by Games Workshop, they have defined it multiple times.

No it says there is a Crux Terminatus on every "Terminator's" shoulder.
So all terminators have a crux terminatus.

I already covered this and it gets us right back to the logical fallacy of:

All terminators have a crux terminatus
so
All things with a crux terminatus are terminators.


By the way, can we please stop using the fluff at the beginning of the entry to make arguments? First off it doesn't even work in your argument
and 2nd
Otherwise, per the fluff of the terminator entry:
"Terminators are invincible, they are unstoppable and they never yield"

Guess you can't kill my terminators.

Timmah wrote:

barlio wrote:Because it doesn't fricken matter what the definition is.

Terminator armor is something you put on a Spehss Mahreen. When you put Terminator armor on Spehss Mahreens he gets stuff and is restricted in a certain way (as you kindly pointed out).

Heck I'll give you a definition:

Terminator - A veteran Spehss Mahreen who (in reward of years of service and for killing Xenos Scum) is given a suit of ancient armor. He then can continue to kill more Xenos scum in a totally more AWESOME WAY .

You cannot define it yourself, that is RAI.

Yes I can. I will define it however I want. Heck the Emperor wasn't even Human. He was in fact a C'Tan dressed as a human (a bisexual-human as well).

Bolters aren't really bolters. I say they are now Soda-Can Sized Ballistic Missiles. Nanana na naaaaa. *Inserts fingers in ears* nananananannanana THE EMPEROR PROETECTS, THE EMPEROR PROTECTS.

Do you get the point? Anybody can say what they want online and it really doesn't matter. You are splitting hairs and you are doing so in such a way that it is irritating. Who cares what they are (or are not) called? What about the old days of 3rd Edition and Terminator Honors?

barlio wrote:

Yes I can. I will define it however I want. Heck the Emperor wasn't even Human. He was in fact a C'Tan dressed as a human (a bisexual-human as well).

Bolters aren't really bolters. I say they are now Soda-Can Sized Ballistic Missiles. Nanana na naaaaa. *Inserts fingers in ears* nananananannanana THE EMPEROR PROETECTS, THE EMPEROR PROTECTS.

Do you get the point? Anybody can say what they want online and it really doesn't matter. You are splitting hairs and you are doing so in such a way that it is irritating. Who cares what they are (or are not) called? What about the old days of 3rd Edition and Terminator Honors?

No I am discussing a rule on a Rules forum. I have no interest in house rules. I also have no interest in your personal attacks towards me.

I have stayed civil this entire thread yet have been called a rules lawyer and an idiot on multiple occasions.

If you do not want to discuss this, why are you in this thread? No one is forcing you to be. So please either post something constructing or gerrout.

You are being a rules lawyer in this thread.

Really.

I count myself as one more often than not, so take this as personally as you like. I am not saying this because I disagree with your point (I am pretty sure I do), but because I have to nit-pick a LOT to even understand your point.

I've got to say I tuned out of this debate on page 1 but your whole argument is that Terminator armour only slows down people called terminators?

So working through this to make sure I'm following your line of rules .... librarians in terminator armour does not count as two models (in transport) and can embark on rhinos and razorbacks.


Sorry your an idiot. Why is any one even arguing with this fool?

Timmah wrote:No it says there is a Crux Terminatus on every "Terminator's" shoulder.
So all terminators have a crux terminatus.

Saying that only the elite choice labeled "Terminators" have a Crux Terminatus would be illogical, because everyone with the armor has it. Your definition requires the passage to be written illogically, mine does not. Occam's razor says they're using my definition.

By the way, can we please stop using the fluff at the beginning of the entry to make arguments? First off it doesn't even work in your argument
and 2nd
Otherwise, per the fluff of the terminator entry:
"Terminators are invincible, they are unstoppable and they never yield"

I'm not saying that the fluff is rules, I'm saying that the terminology is shown in the fluff. As both are written by Games Workshop, the most logical conclusion is that the terminology is the same.


Games Workshop explicitly calls their models "Terminator Librarians" when referring to a Librarian in Terminator armor. Games Workshop made the term up, they define what it is.

kirsanth wrote:You are being a rules lawyer in this thread.

Really.

I count myself as one more often than not, so take this as personally as you like. I am not saying this because I disagree with your point (I am pretty sure I do), but because I have to nit-pick a LOT to even understand your point.

Why am I? Because you disagree with me? Because my point isn't the popular answer?

Again I am discussing something on a forum where multiple people have agreed with me on my point of view. This is a rules forum, we are suppose to hash our way through different rules. Would you really like it if every post was a question like: "what do I need to roll to hit with my space marine?"

I am not arguing this in a game and I have said I probably won't.
I have not gotten angry once, nor have I yelled at the people countering my argument or called them dumb.

So please tell me how I am a rules lawyer.

(my bet is you go with "your arguing against a popular opinion")

Because you are arguing RAI and RAW at the same time. The discussion seemed to end about 2 pages ago. You yourself stated that Terminators cannot SA. I get that. You are arguing that IC in Terminator Armor does not equal a "Terminator" and therefore since he is not a "Terminator" he may sweeping advance. I get that. Everybody gets that.

Here's the problem, everybody else besides you believes that an IC in Terminator armor ~ Terminator. An IC in Terminator Armor gains both the benefits and the negatives of using such a piece of equipment. Therefore an IC in Termie Armor cannot Sweeping Advance. Your being called a rules Lawyer because you are looking for a distinction that doesn't need to be there.

I don't want to discuss the "ruling" because there is no ruling discussion taking place. If anything you are trying to argue wording. There is a reason why RAW and RAI are two different schools of thought. You say that this isn't a case of RAI, but RAW. You seem to want to follow RAI with everything else except Sweeping Advance. That's Rules Lawyering.

Edit: I get the need for intellectual discussion (in your previous post). I think there are, at points, reasonable discussion on even very basic rules. But this is a "What do I need to hit" that has been boiled down to the marrow.

Tri wrote:I've got to say I tuned out of this debate on page 1 but your whole argument is that Terminator armour only slows down people called terminators?

So working through this to make sure I'm following your line of rules .... librarians in terminator armour does not count as two models (in transport) and can embark on rhinos and razorbacks.


Sorry your an idiot. Why is any one even arguing with this fool?

Again you come in here with attacks about a discussion on a RULES FORUM. Why? No one is forcing you to be here.

Please leave as its obvious you have not read the thread and have fallen to personal attacks.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

barlio wrote:
Here's the problem, everybody else besides you believes that an IC in Terminator armor ~ Terminator. An IC in Terminator Armor gains both the benefits and the negatives of using such a piece of equipment. Therefore an IC in Termie Armor cannot Sweeping Advance. Your being called a rules Lawyer because you are looking for a distinction that doesn't need to be there.

No everyone does not agree with the above. There have been multiple posters in here that have agreed with me that a IC in terminator armor =! a terminator. Also I will state again that the popular answer isn't always correct. So please stop trying to use that as a point of argument.

barlio wrote:
I don't want to discuss the "ruling" because there is no ruling discussion taking place. If anything you are trying to argue wording. There is a reason why RAW and RAI are two different schools of thought. You say that this isn't a case of RAI, but RAW. You seem to want to follow RAI with everything else except Sweeping Advance. That's Rules Lawyering.

So because, per RAW there is no definition of what a terminator is, and I choose not to define it (which I can't, because I would have to make an assumption) than I am rules lawyering?
Sorry but if anything you are the one trying to give a definition to terminator as you have tried to do in your last 30 posts.

The rules of Terminator armor only specify that Terminators cannot SA.

So here we go:

Please link the post where it states that:
"Any model in terminator armor is considered to be a terminator"

Heck, please show me the definition of terminator.

Right, there isn't one. Since there is no definition of terminator, trying to define it would be to make an assumption (RAI).

Did you read my whole post or just the first two sentences?

"I am not saying this because I disagree with your point (I am pretty sure I do), but because I have to nit-pick a LOT to even understand your point."

Popular has nothing to do with it.
No one has EVER asserted this before that I have read or heard. In fact to even understand what you asserting and why, it takes a fair amount of reading and explaining. Even then I do not think it works. Most of your argument has devolved into grammar and demanding definitions of words. From there into the realm of picking sentences from a section and showing how they stand slightly different.

Bare in mind - I previously said I tend to call myself a rules lawyer. I am TFG in most discussions about rules in my groups. Not so much in games, mind you. So I really appreciate the nit-picking you are going to. But you really have to realize you are doing it.

I have often picked up debates lacking information and chosen the wrong side. Gwar! for instance has helped neuter some of my favorite tactics. I will not call him an idiot, dumb, popular, or even spiteful. He was right and proved it in the rules. I would call him a rules lawyer though - and doubt he would whine about it.

I rarely side with popular, I just stay out of the conversation.

For the record I do realize I am nit-picking.
And I have already stated I would not do or even try to do this in a game. (probably)

I am just saying that it provides a discussion of how rules are written vs how we want them to be written. And how much RAI is thrown into our current rules.

I am just saying that in this case we assume any model in terminator armor is a terminator. (very logical and would give it a 99% chance of being correct)
However the problem with this is we assume because we don't have a definition of what a terminator is (outside of the troops entry) (which leads to the problem of whether we take the word at face value or interpret it)

Anyways I see both sides and in any actual game would side with him not being able to SA. However I do think its kinda a quirky situation and by bringing it to GW's attention we might get a better written rule set in the future.


(on a side note, I see your from Oakland, ca. If I send you my Jamarcus Russsell Jersey can you get it signed for me :p )