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.

I can't wait to also put my Space Marine Captain on a bike with an entire honour guard on bikes and then embark in a Land Raider too! Hey, it's RAW.

puma713 wrote:I can't wait to also put my Space Marine Captain on a bike with an entire honour guard on bikes and then embark in a Land Raider too! Hey, it's RAW.

Sorry, that's a no go. Only infantry can embark on transports. Bikes aren't infantry.

has anyone heard of common sence? or does everyone like exploiting little written mistakes in the rules?

jy2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:I can't wait to also put my Space Marine Captain on a bike with an entire honour guard on bikes and then embark in a Land Raider too! Hey, it's RAW.

Sorry, that's a no go. Only infantry can embark on transports. Bikes aren't infantry.

To be very specific, Type: Infantry are the only ones that can embark in transports. Now if you could just show me the line in the rulebook where it says that taking a bike changes your unit type from Infantry to Bike, then you'll be right.

I've heard of common sense...

What's this "sence" you speak of?

/Also, blind RAW is useless for rules discussions.
//It's Terminator armor.
///This is why GW hates writing FAQs, because they have to deal with an inundation of... "special" questions like this.

Antharius wrote:has anyone heard of common sence? or does everyone like exploiting little written mistakes in the rules?

My point was to show how ridiculous RAW arguments are. It's fairly obvious that bikes weren't meant to ride in transports, but RAW, it is legal.

First time to YMDC?

Or we could save the tangential rules discussions for their own threads.

Players are free to make up their own minds as to when RAW is and is not applied in their games. We don't need to have a discussion of every single odd RAW situation here... there's already another thread for that

This is the real first time using a full on forum that isnt my club forum and there isnt hardcore like this.

insaniak wrote:

Players are free to make up their own minds as to when RAW is and is not applied in their games.

True. However, RAW purists often paint a picture that if you're not playing it that way, then you're not playing by the rules. That if you apply logic. . .*ahem*. . .sorry - RAI to the situation, that you're somehow making up your own rules, not trying to discern the meaning behind the sentences written.

That is why I gave the bike example. It is obvious that taking a bike not changing your unit type is an oversight. However, it is still RAW sans logic. RAW purists will say you're breaking the rules because you're not letting your opponent embark on transports. People that use logic and apply it to the RAW will say that embarking bikes on transports is just as much against the logic of the rules.

It applies to the Njal situation as well.

SaintHazard wrote:Except that fluff /= rules, and never has?

The "comprehension" part of "reading comprehension" is what requires the hard info to be read in context with what is sometimes considered fluff. GW is not publishing logic games for the players to decode. The books are written to keep the reader engaged. Surely they could be more explicit but its not always necessary.

Hey, play as you will. I would have no part in treating the armor as anything but terminator armor with a better save.

can explain to me how it applies to Njal?

puma713 wrote:My point was to show how ridiculous RAW arguments are. It's fairly obvious that bikes weren't meant to ride in transports, but RAW, it is legal.

RAW, in itself, isn't ridiculous. RAW is what tells us how Rapid Fire weapons work, how far models can move in when charging into combat, and the front armour value of the Leman Russ. It's what the game is made of.

RAW as the sole basis of rules discussion does indeed lead to ridiculous places at times... but what constitutes 'ridiculous' is very often down to personal opinion. An interpretation that you find ridiculous might seem perfectly sensible to someone else.

It would be nice if people (those for strict RAW, those against it, and those barking their shins on the fence) could all keep that in mind when discussing the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:True. However, RAW purists often paint a picture that if you're not playing it that way, then you're not playing by the rules. That if you apply logic. . .*ahem*. . .sorry - RAI to the situation, that you're somehow making up your own rules, not trying to discern the meaning behind the sentences written.

And they would be correct. If you're not playing by the rules as written, you're not playing by the rules.

What people from both sides of the argument tend to overlook is that this isn't actually a problem. If both players are happy with how they are playing the game, it quite simply doesn't matter whether they're playing by the actual rules, or by their own interpretation of what makes the rules 'better'...

insaniak wrote:

puma713 wrote:My point was to show how ridiculous RAW arguments are. It's fairly obvious that bikes weren't meant to ride in transports, but RAW, it is legal.

RAW, in itself, isn't ridiculous. RAW is what tells us how Rapid Fire weapons work, how far models can move in when charging into combat, and the front armour value of the Leman Russ. It's what the game is made of.

RAW as the sole basis of rules discussion does indeed lead to ridiculous places at times... but what constitutes 'ridiculous' is very often down to personal opinion. An interpretation that you find ridiculous might seem perfectly sensible to someone else.

It would be nice if people (those for strict RAW, those against it, and those barking their shins on the fence) could all keep that in mind when discussing the rules.

True, true. I guess when you use the acronym RAW, it is used to convey the negative connotation that it usually accompanies. When you're talking about RAW, you're generally not talking about moving 6", because it is written plainly. You're most often talking about ambiguous situations that can be twisted and misconstrued depending on the point-of-view of the reader.

Antharius wrote:can explain to me how it applies to Njal?

The bike example applies to Njal in this way: Unit Type: Bikes don't ride in transports. However, an infantry model taking a bike doesn't change their unit type from Infantry to Bike. Since Unit Type: Bikes can't ride in transports, it was most likely an oversight and bikes (whether taken from infantry or not) shouldn't be allowed to ride in transports. With the Njal example, it is Runic Terminator Armour. It is terminator armour and as such, should follow the rules for terminator armour. Describing it with an adjective does not make it not-terminator-armour and it was probably an oversight on the part of GW not to further define it.

And the Storm Bolter/Heavy Bolter argument doesn't really work, because they are two weapons with two very clear profiles. "Is a storm bolter the same thing as a heavy bolter?" No - because there is a clear definition of both and there is no such thing as a "bolter" subset. There is a Terminator Armour subset of which Runic Terminator Armour is a part of. There are no rules nor a profile for a Bolter (except in the Witchhunter and Daemonhunter codices - and even those were changed in the rulebook for 5th Edition. But it doesn't even matter - what one codex says doesn't apply to the game as a whole.) There is a Boltgun.

It is Terminator Armor. People who like to argue for the sake of arguing are obviously and plainly absurd. It's almost like trolling, or just is. RAW is only good for ambiguous situations, when you follow it to extremes like this you are a fanatic. Please stop hurting the game.

- And while we're at it, let's steer away from personal attacks, mkay? Ta, tha mngmnt -

Shinkaze wrote: It is Terminator Armor.

Where does it say it's 'Terminator Armour' exactly?

@ChrisCP: Getting you on a technicality here it says 'Terminator Armour' in Runic 'Terminator Armour' lol.

Has anyone ever thought

Runic Terminator Armour
Njal alone has the skill to ensorcel suits of terminator armour. He has a 2+ armour save and a 4+ invulerable save.

Wait a minute he can ensorcel them? Maybe he is that god damn good at doing this that it removes all the drawbacks of Termi Armour and therefore is not noted as being 'Terminator Armour' for that reason as it is no longer 'Terminator Armour' it is "Runic Terminator Armour".

Maybe just maybe? It is something to chew over.

ChrisCP wrote:

Shinkaze wrote: It is Terminator Armor.

Where does it say it's 'Terminator Armour' exactly?

Right after Runic.

puma713 wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

Shinkaze wrote: It is Terminator Armor.

Where does it say it's 'Terminator Armour' exactly?

Right after Runic.

Everyone saw that answer coming. You got him on a technicality there.
Word the question better next time especially when people are taking it so seriously and "As written" even though we know what you where implying.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod130011a

How about the WYSIWYG rules that would not allow you to play the official GW model without representing this armour as terminator armour?

Can everyone just look at the picture and let this argument die?

Fearspect wrote:http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod130011a

How about the WYSIWYG rules that would not allow you to play the official GW model without representing this armour as terminator armour?

Can everyone just look at the picture and let this argument die?

I see Ruinic terminator armour here. It resembles Terminator Armour though, but that means nothing rules wise sadly.
(to be honest I think they meant for him to be under the same rules as terminator armour -with his added rule, but fethed up the rules for him)

Yes you are all so busy being clever none looked into the 'why' of the question The follow through is, does that term 'Terminator Armor' exist as a wargear entry for Njal?

No, I guess you were so busy being clever you forget to read the thread?

It is Terminator Armour with runes on it that give a 4+ invulnerable.

GW has already demonstrated a mechanic where they can give 2+/3++ armour on a model without transport restrictions named Vulkan (giving him artificer armour and a counts as storm shield).

Ordo Dakka wrote:No, I guess you were so busy being clever you forget to read the thread?

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:
Is it "Terminator Armor", "Runic Armor", or something new and different! Meaning, as the codex states nothing more then it "Confers a 2+ armor save and a 4+ invul save" does that mean that it ALSO counts at TERMINATOR armor for EVERYTHING else that would act as an inhibitor. For example, does it make Njal count as two models when embarked in a transport, does it prohibit Njal from riding in Rhinos/Razorbacks and does it prevent Njal from making a Sweeping Advance in close combat?

ChrisCP wrote:Yes you are all so busy being clever none looked into the 'why' of the question The follow through is, does that term 'Terminator Armour' exist as a Wargear entry for Njal?

I can't see the point you were making with that aside, care to clarify it or don't you have access to the SW codex? If you do, look at his Wargear entry in the army list and his profile (pages 82 & 53), if you don't here's the scoop. It lists "Runic Armour" no mention of terminator armour, nor using the rules for terminator armour or even an implication that he actually wears the damn stuff, or that it's the armour conferring the saves for that matter.

I'd love it if people actually read a thread before posting nonsense.

To the "it says 'Terminator Armour' right after 'Runic' crowd," don't get excited, you didn't get anyone on a technicality, you're just wrong.

Like I said ten billion million times in the thread already - if "Runic Terminator Armour" is "Terminator Armour" because it says "Terminator Armour" after "Runic," then are my "Storm Bolters" actually "Heavy Bolters," because it says "Bolter" after "Storm?" Do all of my Storm Bolters now fire 3 S5 AP4 shots?

Except Runic is an adjective describing the armour, and your bolter examples (you love going to these bizarre extremes a lot, don't you?) have associated stats already. If the rules aren't laid out, default to what you know.

???
You're making an assumption then, and, I'll quote to you what I told MGS.

ChrisCP wrote:...it is a fallacy when one assumes a positive in the absence of confirmation. To do so borders on the presumptuous. The only course to take is to say 'No it isn't.' to do otherwise would allow for a black cat to be white ('I have a black pussy in the other room') and other such sillinesses, because one has assumed in the absence of evidence...

There is no need to quote the purpose of the scientific method, and it is way out of scope with what we are talking about here: a simple rule.

SaintHazard wrote:Like I said ten billion million times in the thread already - if "Runic Terminator Armour" is "Terminator Armour" because it says "Terminator Armour" after "Runic," then are my "Storm Bolters" actually "Heavy Bolters," because it says "Bolter" after "Storm?"

No. but using the same logic, 'Storm Heavy Bolters' would be.

You all seem to be forgetting the major point of

Terminator armor = Wargear (Specifically Armor)

Runic Terminator Armor = Special Rule/ Special Wargear

Nightwing and Staff of the Storm Caller are also Special Rule/Special wargear which specifically state that they follow the rules for the normal wargear (Staff of Stormcaller = Runic Weapon and Nightwing = Chooser of the slain respectively)

Does anyone want to try explaining why the "Runic Terminator Armor" Specifically leaves out this imporant point (meaning, Runic Terminator Armor acts exactally like Terminator armor but with a 4+ invul instead of 5+). I mean, if you look throughout the codex, this is really the only situation where it isnt clear (see Foehammer, Anvil Shield, and the Axe Morkai for details)

Just a thought...