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.

In the defining rules for terminator armor it says terminatour cannot board razorbacks and rhino but a captian would not be referred to as a terminator he would be referred to as a character wearing TA armour. Terminators are the elite unit choice thus allowing any character that take TA as an upgrade to board a Rhino or razorback.
So Darnath and Calgar both in terminator armour could both embark in Rhinos together Seeing as they are not TECHNICALLY terminators .

Do we really need a branching thread from the Runic armor thread?

LunaHound wrote:Do we really need a branching thread from the Runic armor thread?

Yes yes we do completey different arguemnet based on different loopholes.

"Models in terminator armor... cannot embark rhinos..."
"Calgar may choose to wear this suit of terminator armor"

...I'm not seeing it.

No he can't.
I didn't think we could post scanned rules on this site.

Ok that was my fault for making the origanl post a bit confussing its now cleaned up for those who accidently read the SW terminator rules. Now plead read the Codex Space marines Definition of which was orignally included.

Grey elder wrote:Seeing as they are not TECHNICALLY terminatours .

Gorkamorka wrote:"Models in terminator armor... cannot embark rhinos..."
"Calgar may choose to wear this suit of terminator armor"

...I'm not seeing it.

I still dont see it

and this is indeed branching off the runic armor thread.

Ya we get it , its not the same armor we are discussing , but its branching ( emphasize that again ) off the same idea.

LunaHound wrote:

Grey elder wrote:Seeing as they are not TECHNICALLY terminatours .

Gorkamorka wrote:"Models in terminator armor... cannot embark rhinos..."
"Calgar may choose to wear this suit of terminator armor"

...I'm not seeing it.

I still dont see it

and this is indeed branching off the runic armor thread.

Ya we get it , its not the same armor we are discussing , but its branching ( emphasize that again ) off the same idea.

Now please LOOK and and maybe read it says terminators NOT models wearing terminator armour cannot embark in rhinos and seeing as Calgar isnt a terminatour he is not affected by that rule he is classified as a model wearing
terminator armour NOT a terminatour. A terminatour is a model belonging to either the Terminator assualt squad or just plai Terminator squad.

Alright... which page are we looking at?

LunaHound wrote:Alright... which page are we looking at?

page 102 for armour rules and types.

"I'm sorry, those bolters you purchased in your codex are just heavy, they're not actually heavy bolters."

That's where this is all going to end up.

I don't play IG but I remember Gw put out a faq about grey knight terminators not being able to get in a Valkyrie, could this be applied here?

solkan wrote:"I'm sorry, those bolters you purchased in your codex are just heavy, they're not actually heavy bolters."

That's where this is all going to end up.

Iam sorry but your example there could have been better please extrapulate. And btw this is actually precise wording in this case.

orkcommander wrote:I don't play IG but I remember Gw put out a faq about grey knight terminators not being able to get in a Valkyrie, could this be applied here?

He is trying to say , people wearing Terminator armor are not the unit: Terminators hence they can.

I still say thats a very bad attempt to twist the meaning.

orkcommander wrote:I don't play IG but I remember Gw put out a faq about grey knight terminators not being able to get in a Valkyrie, could this be applied here?

Lol i belive not were strictly talking about rhinos and razorbacks here and how thier rules for the terminatour armour is worded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:

orkcommander wrote:I don't play IG but I remember Gw put out a faq about grey knight terminators not being able to get in a Valkyrie, could this be applied here?

He is trying to say , people wearing Terminator armor are not the unit: Terminators hence they can.

I still say thats a very bad attempt to twist the meaning.

Its not a twist at all it clearly says terminators and not models wearing terminator armour which would be Calgar in this case and last time i checked wearing TA did not make you a Terminator as in part of the unit which is what RAW would mean.

Ok, you're RIGHT!

In C: SW and C: CSM 'models in teminator armour' are relentless, cannot sweeping advance and count as two models in a vehicle. This is accepted to be most correct.

In C: BA and C: SM 'models in teminator armour' are relentless, but only 'Terminators' cannot sweeping advance and count as two models in a vehicle.

In C: DA and C: BT 'models in teminator armour' are relentless and count as two models in a vehicle, but only 'Terminators' cannot sweeping advance.

In C: DH 'models in teminator armour' count as two models in a vehicle and cannot sweeping advance, but only 'characters in terminator armour' are relentless.

Definitely added to my RAW Fun thread.....

ArbitorIan wrote:Ok, you're RIGHT!

In C: SW and C: CSM 'models in teminator armour' are relentless, cannot sweeping advance and count as two models in a vehicle. This is accepted to be most correct.

In C: BA and C: SM 'models in teminator armour' are relentless, but only 'Terminators' cannot sweeping advance and count as two models in a vehicle.

In C: DA and C: BT 'models in teminator armour' are relentless and count as two models in a vehicle, but only 'Terminators' cannot sweeping advance.

In C: DH 'models in teminator armour' count as two models in a vehicle and cannot sweeping advance, but only 'characters in terminator armour' are relentless.

THANK YOU for understanding me. That make Calgar able to sweeping advance and embark in a rhino/razorback.

@Grey elder - I assume that what you are saying is that 'terminators' refers to members of a unit of a terminator squad chosen from the elite section of the SM codex and that these as explicitly stated cannot embark a rhino or razorback.

Whereas 'models in terminator armour' provides 2+/5++ and DS capability but does not explicity give a transport restriction. Hence a model in terminator armour that is not a member of a terminator squad could use a rhino/razorback.

Whilst I understand the semantics of your argument (hell, you could even try and argue that 'terminators' does not cover 'terminator assault squads' either) there is an issue.

Nowhere is it defined that 'terminators' only applies to 'members of a terminator squad' rather than 'models in terminator armour'. Given that the text is silent both readings could be argued as valid.

However, since the inception of 40k, 'terminators' has been used as a generic term for any and all models (units or characters) in terminator armour and this common usage has been accepted. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, where there are two possible semantic interpretations of a rule but one is in common usage while the other is not, you use that version - that's the way the law works, not just GW.

GW faq

"Q. Can allied models in terminator armour,
such as Grey Knight Terminators, embark in
Valkyries/Vendettas?
A. No. The Valkyrie cannot transport Ogryns or
models of a similar size (such as Terminators)."

It's the "models of similar size" I was talking about. With that phrase GW is addressing transport capacities of vehicles to model sizes.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:@Grey elder - I assume that what you are saying is that 'terminators' refers to members of a unit of a terminator squad chosen from the elite section of the SM codex and that these as explicitly stated cannot embark a rhino or razorback.

Whereas 'models in terminator armour' provides 2+/5++ and DS capability but does not explicity give a transport restriction. Hence a model in terminator armour that is not a member of a terminator squad could use a rhino/razorback.

Whilst I understand the semantics of your argument (hell, you could even try and argue that 'terminators' does not cover 'terminator assault squads' either) there is an issue.

Nowhere is it defined that 'terminators' only applies to 'members of a terminator squad' rather than 'models in terminator armour'. Given that the text is silent both readings could be argued as valid.

However, since the inception of 40k, 'terminators' has been used as a generic term for any and all models (units or characters) in terminator armour and this common usage has been accepted. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, where there are two possible semantic interpretations of a rule but one is in common usage while the other is not, you use that version - that's the way the law works, not just GW.

Look at it from RAW. And you will see that it is correct.

Grey elder wrote:
THANK YOU for understanding me. That make Calgar able to sweeping advance and embark in a rhino/razorback.

I DO understand. But what you need to understand is , GW is full of oversights like this.
If we are to dwell on all the faults , who is going to be able to play a proper game?

Common sense should be applied .

orkcommander wrote:GW faq

"Q. Can allied models in terminator armour,
such as Grey Knight Terminators, embark in
Valkyries/Vendettas?
A. No. The Valkyrie cannot transport Ogryns or
models of a similar size (such as Terminators)."

It's the "models of similar size" I was talking about. With that phrase GW is addressing transport capacities of vehicles to model sizes.

This just specifcaly states Valkyries/Vendettas and not Rhinos/Razorbacks.RAW.

orkcommander wrote:GW faq

"Q. Can allied models in terminator armour,
such as Grey Knight Terminators, embark in
Valkyries/Vendettas?
A. No. The Valkyrie cannot transport Ogryns or
models of a similar size (such as Terminators)."

It's the "models of similar size" I was talking about. With that phrase GW is addressing transport capacities of vehicles to model sizes.

But again people will point out to you that this FAQ is for IG and that it's actually saying "The Valkyrie cannot transport" not the models don't fit so theoretically if you managed to squish one guy in the Valkyrie would then be unable to move. Cos you know it's not say that Models wearing can't embark any transport.

Edit: My keyboard is bleeding... interesting...

LunaHound wrote:

Grey elder wrote:
THANK YOU for understanding me. That make Calgar able to sweeping advance and embark in a rhino/razorback.

I DO understand. But what you need to understand is , GW is full of oversights like this.
If we are to dwell on all the faults , who is going to be able to play a proper game?

Common sense should be applied .

Right i find it fun pointing out the oversight iam not saying i would play with them i just like pointing them out for what they really are. Broken peices of crap. for a game that is based on rules alot is to be implied. Heavy sigh.

Grey elder wrote:
THANK YOU for understanding me. That make Calgar able to sweeping advance and embark in a rhino/razorback.

If you play that way, you are TFG

If you played me and pulled that, I would leave. And not play you again.

I think any tourny organizer would rule against you if you tried it in a tourney.

Vanguard27 wrote:

Grey elder wrote:
THANK YOU for understanding me. That make Calgar able to sweeping advance and embark in a rhino/razorback.

If you play that way, you are TFG

If you played me and pulled that, I would leave. And not play you again.

I think any tourny organizer would rule against you if you tried it in a tourney.

As i said i wouldnt personally play this way iam just pointing out RAW and how they are technially suppost to be played.

Firstly - TerminatOrs. Given you're quoting text with the right spelling....

Firstly, RAW, you have NOTHING that States "terminators" only applies to Terminator Assault squads in the Elite section, NOTHING. You have *assumed* that.

Given this undermines your entire premise your conclusion is likewise flawed.

It's the whole deff rolla thing again with the meaning of "any" and "special" GW FAQed it and it addressed tank shock and ram for all of 40k.

The imp guard FAQ not only addresses the Valkyrie/Vendetta situation but also addresses transport capacities of all vehicles to model sizes for the whole game.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Firstly - TerminatOrs. Given you're quoting text with the right spelling....

Firstly, RAW, you have NOTHING that States "terminators" only applies to Terminator Assault squads in the Elite section, NOTHING. You have *assumed* that.

Given this undermines your entire premise your conclusion is likewise flawed.

Here and example of a Terminator for you buddy Look really carefully at the picture and read the text taken from space marine codex well it does not state it changes thier name or thier unit name and it both terminator units that are affected by the RAW and its the only unit that actually includes terminators but if you find another unit that includes an actual Terminator then by all means post it becuase until otherwise stated Calgar is treated as a model wearing Terminator armour and not a terminator.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

orkcommander wrote:It's the whole deff rolla thing again with the meaning of "any" and "special" GW FAQed it and it addressed tank shock and ram for all of 40k.

The imp guard FAQ not only addresses the Valkyrie/Vendetta situation but also addresses transport capacities of all vehicles to model sizes for the whole game.

Yes but until they address this it is still RAW.

Wow, seriously.

TERMINATOR. NO "U".

Model in terminator armour == Terminator. Terms are used interchangeably.