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.

Timmah wrote:

AndrewC wrote:I asked a question earlier to see if anyone had picked up on Timmahs' ultimate mistake on his logical argument. No one responded, oh well.

Timmah hasn't thought through his statement. By stating that a model wearing terminator armour isn't a terminator, then he is also stating that said model can ride in a Rhino/Razorback and only counts as one model for the purposes of transport.

So is this the position that he is truly advocating?

Timmah, this sweeping statement of yours has to be all or nothing.

Is this hypothetical Librarian of yours really capable of sweeping advance, riding in a rhino and only counts as one model for the purposes of transport.

Or is he for all purposes a terminator, incabable of riding in a rhino, counts as two models for transport and incabable of sweeping advance?

Because you can't be both.

Andrew

Beat by barlio and five minutes, shouldn't have stopped typing to check the codex

Yes except Rhino's and Razorbacks, in their rules entries, state an model in terminator armor cannot embark. So yes, they count as 1 model for transport but no they cannot use rhinos/razorbacks

Ok then we can determine how logical this is with a yes or no answer. Are ICs in Terminator armor just as bulky as normal Terminators? If yes then logic would then imply that the even the idea of them only taking up one model for transport is absurd. If no then you believe that they so awesome that they break the laws of physics in the 40k universe just with their very presense.

I know that in this thread we can go round and round on wording and the grey areas of the rules, but common sense will carry more weight in a discussion like this.

Flavius Infernus wrote:
I'm not really in this discussion to prove a particular point, but only to try to improve the rules by questioning the workarounds that people habitually use to compensate for problems with the rules.

Same here, someone needs to question these things so that GW can continue to improve their game.

Barlio: I don't think the real-world logic of relative bulkiness can be applied to the game.

I don't think you'd be able to fit 10 space marine models into a rhino model, and a razorback model is the same size inside, so why not the same number of models. Ditto for the LR variants.

Then if you consider old-school smaller terminator models and old school smaller rhinos...

The rules are the only thing that can tell us how many models of a given type fit into a given transport.

Timmah wrote:
Yes except Rhino's and Razorbacks, in their rules entries, state an model in terminator armor cannot embark. So yes, they count as 1 model for transport but no they cannot use rhinos/razorbacks

And therein lies your problem, same rule, but quoted in different ways. One says Terminators the others says models in terminator armour.

And this is why everyone is arguing the interchangablity of the phrases as to what is meant by terminators.

Oh and best of luck making the one model thing fly

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:

Timmah wrote:
Yes except Rhino's and Razorbacks, in their rules entries, state an model in terminator armor cannot embark. So yes, they count as 1 model for transport but no they cannot use rhinos/razorbacks

And therein lies your problem, same rule, but quoted in different ways. One says Terminators the others says models in terminator armour.

And this is why everyone is arguing the interchangablity of the phrases as to what is meant by terminators.

Oh and best of luck making the one model thing fly
Cheers
Andrew

Well see we have 2 separate instances of a ruling that states what can and can't go in transports.

I'm pretty sure the BGB states that MC's can't ride in transports and :gasp: neither can terminators! They must be the same thing. All MC's are Terminators and vice versa

So if you want to be TFG play space wolves take the maximum 20 Terminator models. They can sweeping advance every 3rd one can take a Terminator heavy weapon. Every one else take a lightning claw and storm shield. Hell you can even fit 16 in a crusader ....

Thankfully No one will ever get away with this since it is wrong and will be thrown out of every game it is tried in. It does not matter if it is RAW. Game As Played, Terminators cannot sweeping advance and take up 2 spaces in a transport.

Tri wrote:So if you want to be TFG play space wolves take the maximum 20 Terminator models. They can sweeping advance every 3rd one can take a Terminator heavy weapon. Every one else take a lightning claw and storm shield. Hell you can even fit 16 in a crusader ....

Thankfully No one will ever get away with this since it is wrong and will be thrown out of every game it is tried in. It does not matter if it is RAW. Game As Played, Terminators cannot sweeping advance and take up 2 spaces in a transport.

Nooo, Tri. The discussion was getting really reasonable and almost cooperative there for a minute.

The first paragraph of your post is an argumentem ad absurdem. Just because something can be carried to some kind of absurd extreme doesn't make the original argument less true.

The second paragraph of your post is a strawman (with ad hominem and ad baculum undertones). Nobody is arguing that this *should* be done in a tournament, and threatening people with bad consequences doesn't make their original arguments less true.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Kaaihn:

Okay I see what you're saying, but still, supposing hypothetically for a minute that the authors had meant for the sentence "Terminators cannot perform a Sweeping Advance" to apply only to the unit type Terminators (and not other models wearing Terminator Armor) and for that rule to be an exception in the larger rules on Terminator Armor (like they did in the DH codex). Are you not even willing to admit that it's a possibility?

If not, then what is it that makes you 100% sure that putting the potentially different terms in the same section would communicate the author's intention that a rule that specifies "terminators" also refers to other types of units in terminator armor?

I'll wait till after dinner for a response.

You see what I was getting at in my previous post, so I am not going to go back and edit it.

No, I am not willing to admit that it is a possibility. There is no allowance for it to be any other way based on how it is written here. The premise that any place you see a term that is an exact term of a unit type that it can only be that unit type is a false premise. That is a player created convention, and it is an incorrect one.

It applies to the wargear and not the unit because they included it in the wargear section and not the unit profile section. That makes it a wargear rule, not a unit specific rule. Knowing that just further proves that the idea that the word "Terminator" must be nothing but the formal unit Terminator is an incorrect comprehension of how the 40K rules are written.

There is more to rules comprehension than a pure understanding of language. In any body of work you must identify the conventions used by the writers and incorporate them into your understanding of that body of work. That understanding combined with an understanding of language in general is what allows for an accurate reading of any text.

I disagree completely with anyone that picks over the 40K rules in a language vacuum. As an example, without understanding based on the entire body of work that GW uses the term Space Marine Terminator to reference any Marine from any codex equipped with Terminator Armour, you end up with people claiming that Grey Knight Terminators only take up one space in a transport. This is incorrect. By the written material given, Grey Knights are Space Marines. A Terminator is any model wearing Terminator Armour. Space Marine Terminator is a descriptive term used in multiple places to describe units outside Codex: Space Marines.

The conventions in use on these various forums to set the standard of what is allowed to be referenced to obtain an answer using only the printed material are completely player created. Don't make the mistake of thinking GW agrees with all of them. They don't. Ask them yourself about all these unwritten assumptions at a GW event with a designers panel, or even the official rules answers email address GW provides on their website. You will probably be surprised at some of the answers you get showing common mistakes in many of these unwritten assumptions people have.

Timmah wrote:
Well see we have 2 separate instances of a ruling that states what can and can't go in transports.

I'm pretty sure the BGB states that MC's can't ride in transports and :gasp: neither can terminators! They must be the same thing. All MC's are Terminators and vice versa

Which has bugger all to do with this discussion/thread , which is can a librarian sweeping advance? and is a model in terminator armour a Terminator?

Andrew

And I believe (50/50 on this) that GW has already ruled that models in terminator armour takes 2 'slots', but this I will not defend as I can't find the reference.

Timmah wrote:Ok so per the DH rules
Nemesis weapons are...and have the following charactersistics when wielded by different rank so Grey Knights:
Str bonus Pwr Force
Grey Knight
Justicar
Terminator
Brother-Captain
Grand Master

Note Brother Captain and Grand masters. So if they are also terminators how do we know what kind of weapon to give them.

kaaihn wrote:
The premise that any place you see a term that is an exact term of a unit type that it can only be that unit type is a false premise. That is a player created convention, and it is an incorrect one.

So any one of these unit types could be any of the other 4 types? Because, basically thats what I am getting.

I list specific units yet "any place you see a term that is an exact term of a unit type that it can only be that unit type is a false premise." so a grey knight could mean anything by your own admission.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

AndrewC wrote:

Timmah wrote:
Well see we have 2 separate instances of a ruling that states what can and can't go in transports.

I'm pretty sure the BGB states that MC's can't ride in transports and :gasp: neither can terminators! They must be the same thing. All MC's are Terminators and vice versa

Which has bugger all to do with this discussion/thread , which is can a librarian sweeping advance? and is a model in terminator armour a Terminator?

Andrew

And I believe (50/50 on this) that GW has already ruled that models in terminator armour takes 2 'slots', but this I will not defend as I can't find the reference.

You are correct, nothing to do with this discussion besides show another time when transports state what type of unit can't ride in them. You are saying that because 1 type of unit can't ride in a transport then all things that can't ride in that transport are said unit.

Okay, Kaaihn, I'll accept that I won't be able to talk you out of your position. I think you're allowing the rules writers to get away with something that they shouldn't necessarily be allowed to get away with, but I understand your point of view.

...so, now I'm just waiting for Nurglitch's pseudocode proof.

Timmah wrote:
You are correct, nothing to do with this discussion besides show another time when transports state what type of unit can't ride in them. You are saying that because 1 type of unit can't ride in a transport then all things that can't ride in that transport are said unit.

No, what I am saying is that in each case there is a specific rule regarding the use of Terminators/transports. which is basically X cant use this transport.

Like all 'good' rule sets this is repeated under both entries so that there is no confusion. A bit like under shooting it states that if you move you can't fire heavy weapons. Look under heavy weapons and it says you can't shoot if you move. Like an equation, both sides have to balance.

Except in this case they screwed up. On one side they wrote Terminators, on the other they wrote models in terminator armour. People are trying to 'balance the equation' and you have a huge argument, sorry discussion, over whether or not a model in terminator armour is a Terminator.

Once you settle that interpretation, you can answer the question of the definition of Terminator and so find out if your Librarian can sweeping advance.

Cheers

Andrew

And will an Admin/Mod please change that bloody EU flag to a Scottish Saltire for me!

Thank you.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Okay, Kaaihn, I'll accept that I won't be able to talk you out of your position. I think you're allowing the rules writers to get away with something that they shouldn't necessarily be allowed to get away with, but I understand your point of view.

...so, now I'm just waiting for Nurglitch's pseudocode proof.

One thing to keep in mind. Not agreeing with the writing style used does not change the meaning of it. It just means you don't think it is the ideal style to use.

And you know what? I hate the writing style. Rules for a game, especially a game such as this with an enormity of rules, should be written in the simplest language terms possible. There should be no inferences necessary, ever. We have to infer that a specific term is not always an exclusive term just as much as we have to infer that dedicated transports of troops count as one choice of your two total for deployment in dawn of war (the example confirms the inference is correct). None of these inferences would be necessary with a different writing style.

This is probably one of the lowest quality styles they could use for this type of medium, and is largely why I think the game is massive joke as a serious tournament contender.

Andrew, I am just saying that it may not in fact be the same rule repeated. Yes, per my argument, it encompasses 2 units where written one place and only 1 unit in the other place, but I would guess this could be shown to happen in other places in the rules.

If I can find one such place where a rule works like this that is more black and white would you agree with me?

Flavius Infernus wrote:Barlio: I don't think the real-world logic of relative bulkiness can be applied to the game.

I don't think you'd be able to fit 10 space marine models into a rhino model, and a razorback model is the same size inside, so why not the same number of models. Ditto for the LR variants.

Then if you consider old-school smaller terminator models and old school smaller rhinos...

The rules are the only thing that can tell us how many models of a given type fit into a given transport.

Oh I understand that (hence the "true scale" movement), but to say that in relative scale a SM Chaplain, Librarian, Captain, etc... is not as big if not bigger than his fellow Mahreens is insane. The point I'm trying to make is that GK Termies and Chaos Termies count as 2 models then why can we not apply the same requirements to ICs with Termie armor. That right there should show how ridiculous it is to really continue with this.

Timmah wrote:

Razerous wrote:

Space Marine 5th Edition Codex p102 wrote: Armour..
Terminator Armour
....cannot perform a Sweeping Advance

I think its pretty clear cut and your argument is a perfect example of rules laywering.

By the same logic (the reasoning the OP used) we can start transporting IC in terminator armor via the description of p102 yet that brings it into direct conflict with other entries (Rhino & Razorback Descriptions) in the codex.

So do we go by your reasoning, which obviously sounds sketchy and is flawed (as the exact same reasoning bring more conflict into play)

Or do we go by the standard status quo & assuming everything under the Armour section refers to models wearing the appropriate type of armor?

I dunno, tough call.

Face + palm.

No, actually rhinos and razorbacks clarify that they cannot transport models in terminator armor.

Hahahhaahahha PWND

After reading the thread I really do not understand the argument against this.

Personally, I don't understand how anyone can read the text and come to the conclusion that the text actually says a libby in terminator armor can't do a sweeping advance. Note that the rule itself says "Terminators cannot perform a Sweeping Advance". The term Terminator is already defined for us, and refers to a specific unit.

RAW 100% allows characters to sweeping advance, because the limit put in the terminator armor is exclusive to "Terminators"

Now, I think this is an oversight and would not try to play it this way. However, arguing that there is some explicit inclusion of models other than terminators in terminator armor in the restriction on sweeping advance is ridiculous. The text explicitly says "Terminators", not 'models in terminator armor".

Implicit meanings are the Domain of RAI. It could very well be that the author believed it would be interpreted the way it has been, that any model in terminator armor counts as a terminator for this purpose. However, no where does it state this and it is conceivable to me that ICs were intended to be able to still SA with terminator armor on.

I really do not see how someone can say that RAW is telling you the libby in terminator armor can't SA.

Dracos wrote:After reading the thread I really do not understand the argument against this.

Personally, I don't understand how anyone can read the text and come to the conclusion that the text actually says a libby in terminator armor can't do a sweeping advance. Note that the rule itself says "Terminators cannot perform a Sweeping Advance". The term Terminator is already defined for us, and refers to a specific unit.

RAW 100% allows characters to sweeping advance, because the limit put in the terminator armor is exclusive to "Terminators"

Now, I think this is an oversight and would not try to play it this way. However, arguing that there is some explicit inclusion of models other than terminators in terminator armor in the restriction on sweeping advance is ridiculous. The text explicitly says "Terminators", not 'models in terminator armor".

Implicit meanings are the Domain of RAI. It could very well be that the author believed it would be interpreted the way it has been, that any model in terminator armor counts as a terminator for this purpose. However, no where does it state this and it is conceivable to me that ICs were intended to be able to still SA with terminator armor on.

I really do not see how someone can say that RAW is telling you the libby in terminator armor can't SA.

I really do not see how someone can say that RAW is telling you that Terminator in the reference it is used is an exclusive term to "Terminators".

The idea that any place a word is used that you can match to an actual unit means that it can only mean that unit name is a player created idea, and it is incorrect.

Kaaihn wrote:I really do not see how someone can say that RAW is telling you that Terminator in the reference it is used is an exclusive term to "Terminators".

The idea that any place a word is used that you can match to an actual unit means that it can only mean that unit name is a player created idea, and it is incorrect.

True, but that does bring up the slippery slope issue. How close does it have to be before you can use them interchangeably?

In this case it's not too big of an issue but could someone argue that because Bane Wolves and Devil Dogs are part of Hellhound Squadrons that makes them also Hellhounds? Maybe not the best example but I think you get the idea. There definitely has to be a line between the reasonable and the ridiculous, but who gets to draw it?

DoW

No rule exists in a vacuum.

Even when you're making a "rule as written" argument, you have to understand that every word written is part of, and takes meaning from, a much larger context. Here, the context isn't just p.102 of Codex:SM, it's the entire collection of GW products dealing with the concept of terminator armor. And in that context, it's clear that the terms "Terminator" and "Model in Terminator Armor" are used interchangeably.

Codex SM p.102 says "Terminators cannot perform a Sweeping Advance". Taken in context, we understand that those words, those rules, as written, mean that Models in Terminator Armor cannot perform a Sweeping Advance. Therefore a librarian in terminator armor cannot sweeping advance.

It is not sufficient to say "well, we'll have to agree to disagree because I'm arguing RAW and you're arguing RAI." An argument that completely ignores context is simply not a valid "rule as written" argument.

-GK

I don't see in the context how terminator and model in terminator armor are interchangable.

Oh look, context makes us insert opinions into the discussion. Hello RAI.

Hmm, is a Librarian a Space Marine? I think so. If he is in Terminator Armor he would then qualify as a Space Marine Terminator I would think. Seems like over-think to me.

Part of the problem is that we are attempting to decypher a language here, one that has evolved inside GW over the last few decades. It boils down to whether or not they use terminators interchangeably with wearing terminator armor.


The rules in codex SM build on previous works, looking back we can see that a good chunk of the SM terminator armor rules wording is a cut and paste from other marines' books as well as previous editions of the SM codex. Perhaps a study of some of these books will help us understand how they use the terms at GW.

In the current codex, IC in terminator armor would only count as one model if the terms are not interchangeable. And IC would be able to SA as well, if they were not in a terminator squad. Nothing definitive by any means.

In the Black templar codex the Terminator armor rules are virtually the same, no mention of ttansport restrictions in those rules tho here. Looking at the rhino and razor lisitng we see that they can transport space marines but not terminators. Ahh, so an IC in terminator armor can ride in these transports. However looking at the LR we see that they can only transport models in power armor or terminators. So the IC in terminator armor cannot ride in a LR at all.

In the DA codex we again have very similar rules wording, no mention of transport restrictions here either. Under rhinos and razors however we find that they cannot carry models in terminator armor. And the LR simply says that terminators count as two models, ao very similar results to the current SM codex.

Now, the previous SM codex. This has rules for the terminator armor again very much the same...no transport mention. Under rhinos we find that they can carry space marines but not terminators ... so IC would be able to ride here fine. The LR however can again only carry space marines in power armor or terminators... so no IC allowed once again.

The space wolves are more free thinkers, their codex varies more widely yet, allowing all sorts of intersting things as has been mentioned previously in this thread.

That does leave us with one further codex, the Blood angels. And this is an exceptionally useful codex because it was released at the same time as the DA codex so the rules are of exactly the same vintage. And since it appeared in the magazine it was printed without extraneous fluff, it had to fit into a more restricted amount of space so it is a more concentrated version of the rules in some ways. The transport rules are what we expect, rhinoes cannot carry models in terminator armor...but then we have the LR stating that modles in terminator armor count as two models. And when we look at the terminator armor rules we find something else interesting. It simply lists: may not sweeping advance.

For the Blood angels, models with terminator armor cannot sweeping advance.



So at least for one chapter, where in order to conserve space they were as concise as possible, we find that models in terminator armor cannot sweep.


This is not gear that changes over time, this is comparing the same terminator armor rules from the same time period (DA and BA). So this is not a case of gear changing over time, as has occured occasionally in 40k. Either we have to conclude that the DA and the BA rules are different from one reading of the rules--- or else we conclude that GW uses the terms interchangeably from the other reading of the rules.



Sliggoth

Timmah wrote:I don't see in the context how terminator and model in terminator armor are interchangable.

.

No need to apologize. We'll explain it over and over until you understand.

mikhaila wrote:

Timmah wrote:I don't see in the context how terminator and model in terminator armor are interchangable.

.

No need to apologize. We'll explain it over and over until you understand.

The fact that you think this was an apology makes me not trust you when trying to decipher the rules or read something in context...

never read such an interesting arguement. its an eye oppener to see the standpoints between RAI and RAW.
Personally at a game i would run with RAI unless a judge told me otherwise.
Fair enough i wouldnt be happy with that kind of exploit.
But in all reality im not going to care if a termie librarian can sweeping advance. Most likely that unit is dead anyway. Why should i care if he decided to move up a bit closer and kill them?
It is a bit nit picky. But im not calling anybody a rules lawyer. Thats not how i do things.
For my opinion Terminator Armour confers all its stats to the user equipped and thats how i play it.
Im not going to quote some stupid book. im not going to read FAQ's thats just how i see it in the codex and rulebook.
ANYWAY its an interesting read.

BoW- John

Timmah wrote:Andrew, I am just saying that it may not in fact be the same rule repeated. Yes, per my argument, it encompasses 2 units where written one place and only 1 unit in the other place, but I would guess this could be shown to happen in other places in the rules.

If I can find one such place where a rule works like this that is more black and white would you agree with me?

Unfortunately Timmah your not saying that it may not be the same rule, you are stating that it is not the same rule. In the first one you're debating, the latter, dictating.

I would be very interested in seeing other rules that change 'context' between entries, but one poorly written rule does not make all others poorly written.

Cheers

Andrew

Also there is no such thing as a model in terminator armour, only models of terminator armour.

Timmah;

You are just being silly. You never told us where it is written that a tactical marine moves 6".

All models in terminator armor are terminators. duh. What makes a terminator a terminator? Terminator armor. To try to extrapolate more from that is childish, self-serving, and annoying.

You are "that guy."
Every shop has one. The loathed "rules lawyer" that rather than playing a game we all enjoy, bastardizes it with nonsense and attempts to manipulate a poorly written rules set.

I don't play games with "that guy." I would rather drink bleach than spens time listening to the drivel.

On a side note, I feel the same way about nfw with grey knights. I have been playing them for years, and i have never interpreted "slain outright" to mean it kills eternal warriors. I am NOT "that guy."

Timmah wrote:I don't see in the context how terminator and model in terminator armor are interchangable.

Of course you don't, because you've chosen to ignore all context. That makes for a very poor RAW argument.

Timmah wrote:Oh look, context makes us insert opinions into the discussion. Hello RAI.

That argument fails because it rests on the faulty premise that every word or phrase can have only one meaning, and that no two words or phrases can ever have the same meaning.

It is your opinion that the RAW allow ICs in terminator armor to sweeping advance. You have reached that opinion by ignoring all context and pretending the terminator armor rules on p. 102 exist in a vacuum. It is my opinion that the RAW do not allow ICs in terminator armor to sweeping advance. I have reached that opinion by taking context into account and understanding that "terminators" and "models in terminator armor" have the same meaning. Both of our arguments include opinion. Both of our arguments address the rules as written. Inserting opinions does not make an argument a RAI argument.

Keep in mind that if you really do want your librarian in terminator armor to sweeping advance, it's not those of us here on dakka you have to convince, it's your opponent, your judge, or your TO. You can hop up and down and scream RAW until you're blue in the face, but in a game with a rich tapestry of interwoven and ever-evolving rules, an argument that completely ignores context is unlikely to persuade anyone.


-GK

Inigo Montoya wrote:Timmah;

You are just being silly. You never told us where it is written that a tactical marine moves 6".

All models in terminator armor are terminators. duh. What makes a terminator a terminator? Terminator armor. To try to extrapolate more from that is childish, self-serving, and annoying.

You are "that guy."
Every shop has one. The loathed "rules lawyer" that rather than playing a game we all enjoy, bastardizes it with nonsense and attempts to manipulate a poorly written rules set.

I don't play games with "that guy." I would rather drink bleach than spens time listening to the drivel.

On a side note, I feel the same way about nfw with grey knights. I have been playing them for years, and i have never interpreted "slain outright" to mean it kills eternal warriors. I am NOT "that guy."

I love how I keep getting attacked in this thread. I have already stated, I DO NOT PLAY THIS WAY.
Again, this is a rules discussion forum, if you can't handle a little bit of rules lawyering while discussing how something works, maybe you should stay outa this forum or at least not post.

I love how because I choose a answer that is not commonly accept I am automatically a rules lawyer. Maybe my entire club plays this way and in fact we all think you are the rules lawyer for saying I can't... Oh look, it all depends on the point of view.

Marines moving 6 inches was shown by flavius, I didn't think I needed to repeat him.


@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?


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.
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.

For example: you agree that the rulebook says "terminators cannot make sweeping advances" right?
There is also only one unit specifically called a terminator correct?
So there we have 0 room for interpretation.