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.

Does anyone have access to the previous edition of the BA codex? The wording of the terminator armor rules there might give us an important clue. Unfortunately I have moved i the last few years so my copies of most of the earlier 40k material is hiding in some box or the other.


We have two views on the rules atm:

1) The terminator armor rules section all apply to all models in the armor, the terms are used interchangeably.

2) The rules in this section apply to different models depending on if the term terminator or terminator armor is used in each sentence.

If view 2 is correct then we find that there is a tremendous variability in what models can use various transports. The same model in different armies may or may not be able to ride in rhinos, razorbacks or LR. Some models wearing terminator armor could not ride in the LR (the classic terminator delivery vehicle). And of course, in some armies the IC counts as two models and in others as one.
These rules have been kept largely the same over the course of the last series of marine rules lists, and the sweeping advance paragraph has been used unchanged through all but the BA codex. This means that GW has had several iterations of the rules, and many years, in which to change the wording of the rules if there was some reason to do so.

Why has GW not changed this long standing rule to clarify what vehicles can be used?

Under view 2 they have left this a strange mess of truly strange rules in place for the better part of a decade. ( IC in terminator armor being allowed to ride in a rhino but not a LR is truly strange)

Under view 1 its simple, they havent addressed this issue because there is no issue. GW uses the terms interchangeably so the rules are clear in and of themselves, there is no starnge set of problems.


If the GW view is in line with view 1 then there is no need for them to change anything, and if they do indeed follow view 1 then they have no interest in even addressing view 2 since its clearly in error from their point of view.


Sliggoth

Very true sliggoth (also very nice summary of all the dif armies). And thats the main reason I believe that GW is going for view 1. However thats not what they wrote.

This thread was never really started to try to pull something on your opponent that he isn't going to be ready for. Heck, the amount of times people even take a terminator librarian, much less sweeping advance with him is probably very minimal.

It was more brought up to show that there are still problems with the rules and GW needs to dedicate more attention to them.

So, I was wondering... What unit in Codex: Space Marines could the "Terminators" reference in Terminator Armour be? I see Terminator Squad and Assault Terminator Squad, but no "Terminators".

Well, actually I noticed that there are Terminator models in these units. Perhaps these are the "Terminators" of which Terminator Armour speaks. But that's kind of odd, because these units also have Terminator Sergeants, and it seems odd that Terminator Sergeants could make Sweeping Advances while Terminators could not. We would be stuck with the problem of whether a unit of Terminators and Terminator Sergeants could make a Sweeping Advance.

Flavius Infernus:

I'm just working it up now, I'll PM it to you in a bit for you to check.

Nurglitch wrote:So, I was wondering... What unit in Codex: Space Marines could the "Terminators" reference in Terminator Armour be? I see Terminator Squad and Assault Terminator Squad, but no "Terminators".

Well, actually I noticed that there are Terminator models in these units. Perhaps these are the "Terminators" of which Terminator Armour speaks. But that's kind of odd, because these units also have Terminator Sergeants, and it seems odd that Terminator Sergeants could make Sweeping Advances while Terminators could not. We would be stuck with the problem of whether a unit of Terminators and Terminator Sergeants could make a Sweeping Advance.

Flavius Infernus:

I'm just working it up now, I'll PM it to you in a bit for you to check.

Yea last I checked just because something has a prefix doesn't change what it is.

Camaro
Red Camaro
V8 Camaro

Oh look, all camaros
Unless your arguing that making it plural changes what it is.

Timmah:

Would you agree the same applies to suffixes?

Nurglitch wrote:Timmah:

Would you agree the same applies to suffixes?

Yes, sorry I made a typo. (I guess my entire argument is moot now because of it)

But ... depending on which view GW takes then its quite possible that they wrote exactly what they meant. If they subscribe to view 1 then they use the terms interchangeably so they would be perfectly hapy with the RAW. If in their view terminators = models in terminator armor then what they have written works as is, and requires no modification.

If GW agrees with view 2 then indeed the rule on terminator armor is flawed and has been flawed for many iterations of the codex and for many years.



Sliggoth

Timmah:

So would "armour" be a suffix one could add to "Terminator" without changing what the latter refers to?

Nurglitch wrote:So, I was wondering... What unit in Codex: Space Marines could the "Terminators" reference in Terminator Armour be? I see Terminator Squad and Assault Terminator Squad, but no "Terminators".

Well, actually I noticed that there are Terminator models in these units. Perhaps these are the "Terminators" of which Terminator Armour speaks. But that's kind of odd, because these units also have Terminator Sergeants, and it seems odd that Terminator Sergeants could make Sweeping Advances while Terminators could not. We would be stuck with the problem of whether a unit of Terminators and Terminator Sergeants could make a Sweeping Advance.

Flavius Infernus:

I'm just working it up now, I'll PM it to you in a bit for you to check.

Yeah I thought of this counterargument. Usually it wouldn't come up because, as established a couple of pages ago, the whole unit has to be able to roll the die in order to sweep, so if the unit has any terminators in it at all, then it can't sweep.

But I guess it could come up if the sergeant were the last model left in the terminator unit, then you'd have to bring up the question of whether or not a terminator sergeant is a terminator. I don't think I want to go there at this time, but if that's what the rules say, then that's what they say.

And of course the whole problem would have been averted if the wargear description had just said "models in terminator armor" for the sweep rule like it did everywhere else in that entry instead of throwing in "terminators." We know for sure that terminator sergeants wear terminator armor because the army list entry says so.

Flavius Infernus wrote:And of course the whole problem would have been averted if the wargear description had just said "models in terminator armor" for the sweep rule like it did everywhere else in that entry instead of throwing in "terminators." We know for sure that terminator sergeants wear terminator armor because the army list entry says so.

I do not believe anyone ever disagreed with that.

Nurglitch wrote:Timmah:

So would "armour" be a suffix one could add to "Terminator" without changing what the latter refers to?

Armour as a suffix does not describe the "terminator".

Terminator sergeant. What is the terminator? He is a sergeant
Terminator armor. What is the terminator? He is an armor.

Yea, doesn't work. For "terminator armour" terminator would be the prefix and armour would be what the prefix is describing.

In essence armour does not describe terminator where as sergeant does.

I believe enough precedent has been called that GW uses "Terminator" and "model in terminator armour" interchangeably, thus negating this loophole. Things get too weird, as has been pointed out, if you try to interpret those two as different things.

Dracos wrote:I believe enough precedent has been called that GW uses "Terminator" and "model in terminator armour" interchangeably, thus negating this loophole. Things get too weird, as has been pointed out, if you try to interpret those two as different things.

So basically GW should write their rules better so that grey issues like this stop coming up and we don't need to look across 10 codeci for a still interpretted answer.

Good, thats what I was going for.

Yeah this is just another drop in the bucket for their issues writing consistent rules.

Flavius Infernus:

So what unit do the Terminators noted in Terminator Armour reference?

I think GW rules are only inconsistent when you consider that they would never consider certain things and that RAI is also how they feel personally the game should be played.

The rules are and have always been guidelines ; the problem is that it doesnt match up in Tournament games where people take things very seriously.

I am pretty sure when writing they dont take into account RAW and just "Lets explain it ".

Hollismason wrote:I think GW rules are only inconsistent when you consider that they would never consider certain things and that RAI is also how they feel personally the game should be played.

The rules are and have always been guidelines ; the problem is that it doesnt match up in Tournament games where people take things very seriously.

I am pretty sure when writing they dont take into account RAW and just "Lets explain it ".

Exactly, which is kinda sad because it can lead to many rules questions. The fact that disputes are decided by rolling a dice alone should tell you how much they care about the rules.

They really need to just set up a more structured system.

Yeah they're decided mid-game that way. Extensive discussions about the rules, codicies, etc... need to take place before or after the game.

What kind of structure is appealing to you guys? Do we need to change 40k into Squad Leader or something? I can see how the grey areas can be a problem, but rolling a dice and dealing with it later is better than not even finishing a game. It's not that GW doesn't care about the rules, it's that they can only go so far in creating a rules system. Like every other game that has ever been created there are issues with 40k. What is important is how we address and handle said issues in both mid-game and meta-game arenas.

As heated and stupid I may get on the interweb I understand that I am not going to be that way in a game. As Timmah and others have stated taking RAW to this extreme is not something they would probably do in real life, but it is still being addressed and we are going to have to just deal with it.

barlio wrote:Yeah they're decided mid-game that way. Extensive discussions about the rules, codicies, etc... need to take place before or after the game.

What kind of structure is appealing to you guys? Do we need to change 40k into Squad Leader or something? I can see how the grey areas can be a problem, but rolling a dice and dealing with it later is better than not even finishing a game. It's not that GW doesn't care about the rules, it's that they can only go so far in creating a rules system. Like every other game that has ever been created there are issues with 40k. What is important is how we address and handle said issues in both mid-game and meta-game arenas.

As heated and stupid I may get on the interweb I understand that I am not going to be that way in a game. As Timmah and others have stated taking RAW to this extreme is not something they would probably do in real life, but it is still being addressed and we are going to have to just deal with it.

idk, I know plenty of other games as, if not more complicated than 40k.
Take magic the gathering for instance. It has a very good ruleset plus they help to train judges so that everyone is giving the same answer when a question arises.

I have no idea why you guys gotta bring it to its edge.

Its quite stupid, and quite frankly makes me wonder how old some of you are.

Conculsion: it makes no sense RAW, go with RAI and then leave it at that.

Bla_Ze wrote:I have no idea why you guys gotta bring it to its edge.

Its quite stupid, and quite frankly makes me wonder how old some of you are.

Conculsion: it makes no sense RAW, go with RAI and then leave it at that.

Obviously your way of thinking is right and everyone who disagrees is 8 years old.

Except this type of argument would put you in this range as well. (as well as the fact that you play with little dolls or action figures)

Timmah wrote:

Dracos wrote:I believe enough precedent has been called that GW uses "Terminator" and "model in terminator armour" interchangeably, thus negating this loophole. Things get too weird, as has been pointed out, if you try to interpret those two as different things.

So basically GW should write their rules better so that grey issues like this stop coming up and we don't need to look across 10 codeci for a still interpretted answer.

Good, thats what I was going for.

Your looking at it backwards. Your saying the RAW is that only the formal named unit Terminators is restricted from sweeping advance, but that you see from looking at the overall context that it is simply a descriptive term for models in terminator armour.

The correct answer is that by standard language rules it is a descriptive term for models in terminator armour, and the overall context confirms this to be correct both by the language used in the writing of these rules as well as the function of the game.

See the difference? It is an extremely popular misconception that a valid RAW argument is acceptable by looking at a sentence in a vacuum. Couple that with another even more popular misconception that a term that can be matched to a unit name is considered exclusive to that unit and you get some extraordinarily wrong answers. Both of these conventions are 100% player created and perpetuated. Both of them are in fact completely wrong.

Disregarding relevant written material is not acceptable, as it can change the answer to the question.

Treating a term that matches a name as exclusively that named entity is a convention of a writing style that is not used by GW for 40K. In the writing style used, terms are defined using their context to identify the proper definition. Sometimes that context will show them to be referring to a named entity, sometimes it will show the term to be nothing more than descriptive language.

Kaaihn, would you agree that wargear can function differently depending on what model it is equipped to?

A Sm wearing terminator armour is a terminator determind by his armour
therfore a master or any IC wearing terminator armour is in fact a terminator
an assualt marine is an assualt marine but in all hes just a SM with a jump pack
by your argument terminators are soming different to a SM which they not there just SM s in Terminator armour
when wearing Terminator armour you move slower as the armour is bulky hence why there is no sweeping advance

so no he cant as hes technicaly as you discribe it a terminator librian

Timmah wrote:Kaaihn, would you agree that wargear can function differently depending on what model it is equipped to?

Same name = same wargear?

I do not think that is the case, actually.

Or what is your real question?

@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?

Congratulations, you have succeeded in pointing out the fallacy of an argument I did not make. Do you stuff every straw man you kill and mount it on your wall?

Nowhere have I insulted you, nor have I implied that you were illiterate or an imbecile. I pointed out a fact with which you later explicitly agreed: you choose to ignore all context.

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.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... your argument that multiple interpretations and differing opinions equals Rule As Interpreted fails. Words as written are capable of many shades of meaning. Two entirely different written words or phrases can have the same meaning. One very important tool to use in discovering what these written words actually mean is context. Different people may interpret the same context differently. Therefore opinions can differ as to what the rules as written actually say. Arguments based on opinions as to what the rules as written mean are... you guessed it... rules as written arguments.

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.

When it comes right down to it, you could have the most brilliantly crafted argument ever made explaining how x rule, taken out of context, should be interpreted. That argument will always be unpersuasive because all rules in 40k necessarily interact with, build upon, and depend on, other rules. No rule can exist out of context, therefore any interpretation of a rule "in a vacuum" is completely irrelevant. Nevertheless, I think in many cases you'd be surprised as to how many people could still manage to form opinions different from yours, even in your vacuum.

For example: you agree that the rulebook says "terminators cannot make sweeping advances" right?

Correct.

There is also only one unit specifically called a terminator correct?

Incorrect. "Terminator" is a term of art that, when evaluated in light of context, encompasses any model in terminator armor. There are several units that include, or could include models in terminator armor. Any of them could be called terminators.

So there we have 0 room for interpretation.

Incorrect. See above.


So now that you've acknowledged that you are, in fact, ignoring context, and you admit that this is all an exercise in pointing out awkwardly-worded GW rules, I will bow out of this thread with the following kudos to you: If there were no context whatsoever to be had, your argument would be correct. That discovery, which has no relevance whatsoever to how anyone does or should play the game, is worth exactly 3,482 SchruteBucks. Don't spend 'em all in one place.

-GK

I see Terminator Squads in the Forces of the Space Marines section of Codex: Space Marines. I also see Terminator Squads and Terminator Assault Squads in the Army List section. But I can't find where the "Terminators" unit is. Someone help a Brother in Darkness out?

GiantKiller wrote:

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.

When it comes right down to it, you could have the most brilliantly crafted argument ever made explaining how x rule, taken out of context, should be interpreted. That argument will always be unpersuasive because all rules in 40k necessarily interact with, build upon, and depend on, other rules. No rule can exist out of context, therefore any interpretation of a rule "in a vacuum" is completely irrelevant. Nevertheless, I think in many cases you'd be surprised as to how many people could still manage to form opinions different from yours, even in your vacuum.

For example: you agree that the rulebook says "terminators cannot make sweeping advances" right?

Correct.

There is also only one unit specifically called a terminator correct?

Incorrect. "Terminator" is a term of art that, when evaluated in light of context, encompasses any model in terminator armor. There are several units that include, or could include models in terminator armor. Any of them could be called terminators.

So there we have 0 room for interpretation.

Incorrect. See above.

You failed to take RAW in a vacuum for the 2nd question. Unless of course you can cite a page number and quote that specifically states a "Terminator" is a term of art that, when evaluated in light of context, encompasses any model in terminator armor. Rules in a vacuum do give you only 1 answer. Unless of course if you can prove otherwise, but I have yet to see anything.

You are trying to tell me rules in a vacuum give different meanings yet in your argument you say "when evaluated in light of context". Not a vacuum because you are evaluating something.



Nurglitch we have already been over suffixes and prefixes. Squad and assault squad both modify the word terminator so they are still terminators

see
red camaro
blue camaro
camaro

a camaro is a camaro is a camaro.


@Kirsanth
My question is whether wargear, in its description, can change its effect based on which model is using it.
This was the initial complaint, that wargear worked the same no matter who was wearing it.
Meaning any reference in the Terminator armor wargear section automatically applied to any model wearing that armor.


Anyways back to my question.

Would you agree that Wargear can work differently for different units?

How about a fake camaro? Is a fake camaro a camaro?

Nurglitch why are you avoiding my question?

I would say that fake is a different type of prefix. Its not like we have fake terminator assault squads that we are arguing about.