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.

Here is something just for interest... when a sergeant takes terminator honors and receives the cruentus he should have a 5+ invulnerable save as well since the little bits of the Emperor's armor embedded in each badge is wot provides the save. Just for fluff... not RAW.

Here is something just for interest... when a sergeant takes terminator honors and receives the cruentus he should have a 5+ invulnerable save as well since the little bits of the Emperor's armor embedded in each badge is wot provides the save. Just for fluff... not RAW.

Here is something just for interest... I like cheese.

I believe you mean the "Crux Terminatus"

Posted By DragonPup on 04/29/2006 5:05 PM
Well, they don't call them Terminators because they are looking for John Connors...

Dur. They don't call them that because then they'd be Necrons.

"Here is something just for interest... I like cheese."

no way! me too!

Before the thread was sidetracked - no I don't think people actually play to the most extreme extent of RAW.  There are too many of these points that can be argued ad-infinitum. I imagine once in a while you'll get an argument that goes off the deep end, but I haven't seen that as normally being the case. The most common arguments I've seen by those who are familiar with the rules have been about LOS and terrain. Have an 8 second discussion before the game and problems solved.

 

 

 

I do not play by "the Rules". I am a cheater and happy to admit it. It would be fun to "try" and play RAW, but there are too many contradictions.

Instead me and my Homies are not scared of making common sense decisions on a "Guideline" type rule set. The Chowderheads on this forum call it "Cheating".

It's not cheating until you insist someone that doesn't see it your way must play it your way.

Then you're a filthy, stinkin' cheater.

What you and your buds do alone in your basement is no concern of ours. Don't ask, don't tell I say.

'All models in Terminator Armour are called Terminators' does NOT mean that 'all models called Terminators are in Terminator Armour'.

The Codex entry for the unit clearly states that they are Terminators. Are you saying there's a different kind of terminator? That a model in terminator armor, who is called a Terminator, is some magical mystical variety of Terminator that the codex entry refers to in the unit? Another kind of terminator that appears nowhere else in the codex if we accept your argument?

Patently absurd.

I should also note that nowhere in the rules or any codex does it state that a unit has only the equipment assigned to it under the weapons entry. Nor is every model's invul save listed in its unit profile. The chaplain, for instance, does not display his 4+ save from his Rosarius in his profile.

This is incredibly cut and dry. According to the wargear entry, a model in terminator armor is a terminator. In each unit entry, the unit consists of X number of Terminators. Respectfully, I don't see how you have a leg to stand on.

Ezz

It's not cheating until you insist someone that doesn't see it your way must play it your way.

Then you're a filthy, stinkin' cheater.

What kinda 'Tard does that?

doesn't see it your way

Ironic, almost.

What you and your buds do alone in your basement is no concern of ours. Don't ask, don't tell I say.

I guess you read the subject smart guy.

Real problem is you can't play totally by the Rules, as the current Rules are incomplete.

Posted By methoderik on 05/02/2006 6:43 PM


Real problem is you can't play totally by the Rules, as the current Rules are incomplete.

We are in complete agreement here. I certainly wouldn't tell someone that just dropped an ordnance template on me that they didn't get any hits. Where the rules are incomplete or definitively ambiguous, some accomodation must be made.

But some incompleteness doesn't mean you get to ignore the parts that are complete simply because they confuse you or you don't like them.

This rules fatalism you and other seem to espouse is not something that is deserving of any respect. "Some of the rules are bad, so all can be ignored as we see fit" is no way to play the game.

We are in complete agreement here.

I actually agree with you a lot, just not on the way you treat people. To be blunt, your attitude sucks. Be sarcastic and witty all you want, but nobody deserves to be put down.

This rules fatalism you and other seem to espouse is not something that is deserving of any respect.

You also assume to much.

"Some of the rules are bad, so all can be ignored as we see fit" is no way to play the game.

I think the real question is, who plays like this? While I may not have the gaming experience of some, I have yet to meet such person. Who doesn't look at their opponents forces, current mission, and terrain layout and reasonably discuss how the "grey areas" are going to work before the game? I have yet to have to use the "d6" method of solving a disagreement.

See the problem is not really the rules... it's the Morons using them.

It's not cheating until you insist someone that doesn't see it your way must play it your way.

Then you're a filthy, stinkin' cheater.

Then by your own definition...

Then by your own definition...

Congratulations on missing the point. He was, as you're well aware, referring to someone insisting you play it their way when the rules spell it out otherwise, not when the rules are unclear. That's when you cheat: when the rules specifically tell you to do A, and then you insist on playing B anyway.

Congratulations on missing the point. He was, as you're well aware, referring to someone insisting you play it their way when the rules spell it out otherwise, not when the rules are unclear. That's when you cheat: when the rules specifically tell you to do A, and then you insist on playing B anyway.

Wow, question the leader and the followers come spewing insults immediately. Ah the ways of Dakka.

He specifically said "until you insist someone that doesn't see it your way". There are definitely "foggy" rules that he would see one way and someone else would see another. We all know he tends to be very "forceful" in his interpretation and what he thinks of people that do not agree with his interpretation. Hence, he's fulfilling his own statement.

Wow, and I didn't even need to insult you to answer.

Posted By ezzeran on 05/02/2006 5:43 PM

'All models in Terminator Armour are called Terminators' does NOT mean that 'all models called Terminators are in Terminator Armour'.

The Codex entry for the unit clearly states that they are Terminators. Are you saying there's a different kind of terminator? That a model in terminator armor, who is called a Terminator, is some magical mystical variety of Terminator that the codex entry refers to in the unit? Another kind of terminator that appears nowhere else in the codex if we accept your argument?

Patently absurd.

Just because they do not talk about it does not mean that it does not exist. I could not care less about the fluffy non-existance of other types of terminator. Nor do I care whether Terminators wear Terminator armour or not.

All I'm selling is simple exercise logic.

I do not care about the outcome of this argument. I am not supporting one side or the other.

All that I am saying is that the simple statement, 'All models in Terminator Armour are called Terminators', does not equal the statement 'all models called Terminators are in Terminator Armour'.

Logically, you cannot flip a statement like this one and claim that it remains true without any furthur support. That is all I am saying.

 

Here is a simpler example:

You are given a single proven fact: 'All models in Police Uniform are called Police'. This is the only fact we are considering at this time.

The fact does not even that you if there ARE any models in Police Uniform. The only thing that it tells you is that IF there are, then they are designated 'Police'.

Without further information, you cannot claim that the inverse of this statement is true:  'all models called Police are in Police Uniform'. You don't know that some Police might not be in Tuxedos, Plain Clothes, Bathing Suits, or simply naked.

 

 

Hmm... so a simple logical truth is 'Patently absurd'?

I suggest you go back and re-read my post. All I am commenting on is a single statement.

"Wow, question the leader and the followers come spewing insults immediately. Ah the ways of Dakka."

since when does one person speak the the whole forum?

Sure. An oak is a tree, but not all trees are oaks. I get it.

Your logical exercise is interesting, to be sure, but this is a game that uses definitions to outline the way it's played. A Land Raider is a Tank. A Tank for the purposes of the 40k rules is clearly defined. Terminators and the terminator armor entry might be a tad hard to wade through to find the definition, but when you do find it, it's pretty hard to dispute.

And I, for one, do care about the outcome of this debate. After all... I'm a Deathwing player.

Ezz

@Ezz, if anyone tries to tell you that you can't teleport and that you don't get your 5+ inv save just hit them with something hard, blunt or sharp is your call. But you can not find a hard rule that states that terminators have terminator armor unless you take the whack @ss idea that everything written by GW as fluff can be taken as a rule so by RAW they don't have terminator armor.

you having a beef with 1 or 2 people is fine. but don't assume that they or any one group speak for the whole forum.
i was neutral in your arguement before, but now i'm biased just by you acting like a dick.

Posted By happypants on 05/03/2006 9:37 PM
@Ezz, if anyone tries to tell you that you can't teleport and that you don't get your 5+ inv save just hit them with something hard, blunt or sharp is your call. But you can not find a hard rule that states that terminators have terminator armor unless you take the whack @ss idea that everything written by GW as fluff can be taken as a rule so by RAW they don't have terminator armor.

What fluff are you referring to?  I'm talking about the wargear entry.  It's a component of the rules.  I'll write it again so it's hard to miss.  The Terminator Armor wargear entry states:  "Terminators may not sweeping advance."  That entry clearly indicates that a model in terminator armor is a terminator.  The unit entry for each type of terminator squad clearly indicates that the squad consists of X number of terminators.  How can anyone possibly dispute that?

Ezz

I can have something to do with the Terminator entry lists them as having a 2+ save, not a 2+/5+ (I). This, just as clearly, indicates that they are not wearing Terminator armor, but simply a good (2+) armor.

Note that I do indeed believe Terminators to have Terminator armor. I just see the RAW problem, too.

This reminds me a lot of the long and headache inducing posts when the new Tau codex came out. That one had some equally good gems in it such as claims that vehicle drones never have to take leadership checks, no Tau can be an independant character ever, and that no model could take anything out of the 'armory'.

-Hans

@Steelmage99

True, but then again, neither does the Chaplain's entry. For that matter, neither does the shield drone entry in the Tau codex. Or the Zoanthrope entry in the Tyranid Codex, noth of which are new codices. Neither does the Avatar entry in the Eldar codex. Or wraiths from the Necron codex. In point of fact, just about the only codex that does reference saves in the X/Y format is the Chaos codex. The final destruction of your hypothesis comes from the Daemonhunter codex under the Grey Knight Terminator entry. Even though the entry specifically states that the unit wears terminator armor (in the special rules section, I might add, not the weapon section) the unit profile does not show them with a 5+ save. Still, all of this is irrelavent as each codex is a stand alone product with its own format. And as Hans points out, that creates its own set of difficulties.

Ezz

Indeed. My point was simply to debunk the earlier statement.
That entry clearly indicates that a model in terminator armor is a terminator.
Indications are not accepted as rules in this forum, as stated in the Pathfinder/Devilfish-discussion, neither is the presence of other broken rules in other codecii, again pointing to the aforementioned discussion.

Common sense and abstract reading have no place in YMDC......luckily we all play outside of this forum where the game can actually be played.
As I have mentioned before; 8 times out of 10 the discussions on this forum becomes a theoretical intellectual exercise in the (mis)application of the english language.

And to make things perfectly clear; Terminators would wear Terminator-armor when playing with/against me. I doubt anybody on this forum would say otherwise in any real-life game.