Switch Theme:

The Stupid Terminator Armour Argument  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




This discussion is absolutely, totally stupid. However, I am curious to see how those players who insist that it is always RAW, only RAW, all the time, justify using accepted conventions that cover idiotic rules errors like this one. So here it is.

The point in question is whether or not Terminators have Terminator armour. Obviously they do, but not by the RAW. The entry in the Marine Codex for Terminators does not list Terminator armour under their equipment or Special Skills. It does list that they have a 2+ save, and that they are able to always Deep Strike, which are abilities that are also part of Terminator armour. So no problem there. But it doesn't say that they have the ability to move and fire heavy weapons, or that they have a 5+ invulnerable save.

Those rules only exist in the Wargear entry for Terminator armour. The exact wordings are 'Space Marines in Terminator armour are capable of moving and firing with heavy weapons', and 'A model wearing Terminator armour has a 2+ armour save and a 5+ Invulnerable save'. So clearly, if you have Terminators, and you wish to give them these abilities, you have to prove that they are equipped with Terminator armour.

Some people might be tempted to say 'prove that they're not'. This rules set is permissive - if you want to do something, like give your models a 5+ invulnerable save, you have to show that they are specifically allowed to do so. But I'm more than happy to present an argument as to why they are not.

Terminator armour is an object in the Armoury. In order to be equipped with something from the Armoury, you must have access to the Armoury, which a regular Terminator does not have. Without access to the Armoury, it can't even be said to use the rules for Terminator armour, because you have to have an item of Wargear to use its special rules.

Let's have it with premises, because we like premises:

P1. A model cannot be equipped with an item in the Armoury unless it is specifically allowed to access the Armoury.
P2. Terminator armour is an item in the Armoury.

Conclusion: A model cannot be equipped with Terminator armour unless it is specifically allowed to access the Armoury.

P1. A model cannot be equipped with Terminator armour unless it is specifically allowed to access the Armoury.
P2. Terminators are not specifically allowed to access the Armoury.

Conclusion: Terminators cannot be equipped with Terminator armour.
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






Los Angeles, CA


Premise 1 of the first argument is completely unfounded. Many, many, many models (across all codexes) that do not have access to the armory, have items found in the wargear section.

Although a model must have permission to select items from the armory, it is perfectly normal for a codex entry to specify that the unit (or models within the unit) have wargear items whose rules are found only in the wargear section.

A Terminator with a Storm Shield would be a simple example of this.


I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

The Terminator Armour entry uses the terms 'a model in Terminator Armour' and 'Terminator' interchangeably. That's proof enough for me that a 'model in Terminator Armour' and a 'Terminator' are one and the same.


 
   
Made in us
Speedy Swiftclaw Biker



Minneapolis, MN

Okay, why would you even give this airtime?

   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine




Murfreesboro, TN

It's been argued before. Don't ask me why.

As a rule of thumb, the designers do not hide "easter eggs" in the rules. If clever reading is required to unlock some sort of hidden option, then it is most likely the result of wishful thinking.

But there's no sense crying over every mistake;
You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

Member of the "No Retreat for Calgar" Club 
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut




Relic has a point. He wants to prove that conventions are accepted by all, even thouse who declare that they allways play by the RAW.

Relics example (Terminators) though has been disproved, since the RAW support that Terminators wear Terminator armour.

- (insaniak) The Terminator Armour entry uses the terms 'a model in Terminator Armour' and 'Terminator' interchangeably. This is evidence that Terminators are models in Terminator armour.

- The "Armoury/equipment" argument has been disproved by Yakface.
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

It is not always possible to play by the RAW because there are cases where the RAW can be interpreted different ways. In such cases people normally prefer to do what seems fair and sensible to get on with the game. I think this is widely recognised on Dakka.

There's a difference between that attitude, and people who have perhaps lazily accepted "conventions" which are clearly wrong (e.g. AP1 weapons vs Fast Moving Skimmers) and get upset by the RAW and try to find ways around it.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




Premise 1 of the first argument is completely unfounded. Many, many, many models (across all codexes) that do not have access to the armory, have items found in the wargear section.

Although a model must have permission to select items from the armory, it is perfectly normal for a codex entry to specify that the unit (or models within the unit) have wargear items whose rules are found only in the wargear section.

A Terminator with a Storm Shield would be a simple example of this.


Exactly right. I shortened the premise because I didn't feel it necessary to include 'unless specifically told that they have it'. In full, the premise should read:

'A model cannot be equipped with an item in the Armoury unless it is specifically allowed to access the Armoury, or it is specifically told that it is equipped with such an item.'

General rules such as 'you can't have something from the armoury unless it says you can' always have exceptions. A Terminator with a Storm Shield is just that - he's a regular model who doesn't have access to the Armoury, but is specifically told that he has an item from it, ie. a Storm Shield. This doesn't mean he has any other item from the Armoury he likes, just a Storm Shield. So yes, it is perfectly normal for a Codex entry to specify such things, but there's clearly no specification of Terminator armour in the Codex entry for Terminators.

The Terminator Armour entry uses the terms 'a model in Terminator Armour' and 'Terminator' interchangeably. That's proof enough for me that a 'model in Terminator Armour' and a 'Terminator' are one and the same.


Any sane man would agree with you. But by strict rules definitions, that's not so. The item 'Terminator armour' is a piece of wargear. To use the rules for a piece of Wargear, it has to say specifically that those rules apply to you. 'Terminator armour' is a game term - we can't be too loose with definitions of game terms. Otherwise it would make perfect sense that Scouts are allowed to Scout. The entry for Terminator armour specifically says 'models in Terminator armour...' do clever things like moving and shooting heavy weapons. It also says 'Terminators may not Sweeping Advance'. We already know this from other places, specifically p43 from the main rulebook. The rest of the phrases in that entry refer to models with the item of wargear 'Terminator armour'. To say that that is interchangeable with the Codex entry 'Terminators' is ascribing qualities to it that are not specified. In effect, you are giving a model Wargear that the book doesn't say it has.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Premises, we like premises.

You listed an argument, and the flaw was pointed out. The next step is to restate or admit error.

"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




I restated the premise in my last post, but sure, if you need to stall for more time to come up with a counterargument, here it is in full again.

P1. A model cannot be equipped with an item in the Armoury unless it is specifically allowed to access the Armoury, or it is specifically told that it is equipped with such an item.
P2. Terminator armour is an item in the Armoury.

Conclusion: A model cannot be equipped with Terminator armour unless it is specifically allowed to access the Armoury, or is specifically told that it is equipped with such an item.

P1. A model cannot be equipped with Terminator armour unless it is specifically allowed to access the Armoury, or is specifically told that it is equipped with such an item.
P2. Terminators are not specifically allowed to access the Armoury, nor are they specifically told that they are equipped with this item.

Conclusion: Terminators cannot be equipped with Terminator armour.

Speaking of arguments, I don't see one from you. After all, the rules are permissive. If you want your models to move and shoot heavy weapons, or take a 5+ invulnerable save, I would expect you'd have some sort of ironclad argument that demonstrates this. You've asserted that 'terminators are models in terminator armour'. Let's see that in some sort of logical argument form, with premises and a conclusion.
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

From my memory of the SM codex, the Terminator squad figures are shown to be wearing Terminator armour. Doesn't that mean they have Terminator armour?

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Well considering how NONE of the unit entries tell you what armor the model has how is it that the Space Marines aren't all walking around nekkid?

The models come stock with the armor supplied by the model itself, not by it's unit description. So I spend the $50 for 5 Terminators and viola, I have 5 models in Terminator armor.

The options only list what WEAPONS the models are armed with by default.


Can you D.I.G. it? 
   
Made in us
Master of the Hunt





Angmar

Hey I don't want to get into this, but I have often heard that it has been proven that terminators do have terminator armour by the RAW, yet I have never actually seen the formal argument for why they do.

Being a permissive rule set, you have to prove that they do, right? So, what is the actual argument? Could someone please link it or post it, just to satisfy my curiosity?

"It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the seed of Arabica that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion."
 
   
Made in es
Fresh-Faced New User




Spain

Excellent point, blue loki. We all know that Terminator models are wearing Terminator Armor, but the RAW in the Terminators entry don´t say so, Like it or not.
We, as players, are using a convention, accepted by all in this matter, to avoid the nonsense that sometimes the RAW are.
I really want to see a "proper" argument with premises of why Terminators have Terminator Armor by RAW .

Might makes right. 
   
Made in us
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch






<div class="NTForums_Quote">Posted By Kilkrazy on 03/22/2006 8:11 AM<br>From my memory of the SM codex, the Terminator squad figures are shown to be wearing Terminator armour. Doesn't that mean they have Terminator armour?</div><br><br>

This is just like how wrecks can become terrain with all of the features of area terrain but aren't actually declared 'area' terrain. Also note in the space marine codex that space marine scouts don't have the scout rule even though they are named as such. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it could still be a chicken in drag.

I play them with termi armor though. I cannot prove that they are equipped with them though.

Anyone got a codex handy? Are space marine bikes equipped with bikes to get the bike special rules or does that just use the name?

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Silverdale, WA

Remember those who read this! This has come up before and will probably come up again and the point isn't necessarily wether or not terminators wear terminator armor. The point is that it is an exercise for those who claim that RAW is the only way to go to prove how exactly that is possible. Personally, I believe that it is impossible to play this game without using a little bit of creative license or attempting to find middle ground on unclear rules. Having said that, I do believe that there is merit in using these forums in an effort to gleen RAW interps. Whether or not anyone plays that way is different story and it's always good to distinguish between RAW for arguments sake and RAW for actual game use.

 
   
Made in es
Fresh-Faced New User




Spain

Amen to that, brother Glaive.

Might makes right. 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Any sane man would agree with you. But by strict rules definitions, that's not so. The item 'Terminator armour' is a piece of wargear.

And according to the Terminator Armour entry, a model with Terminator Armour is a 'Terminator'. So it follows that a 'Terminator' is a model with Terminator Armour.


Quite frankly, the Scouts thing should work in exactly the same way. Because GW were too lazy to come up with a different (and less potentially confusing) name for it, the USR refers to 'Scouts' rather than 'Models with the Scout ability. So as far as I'm concerned the only reason it doesn't apply to Marine Scout Squads is that Pete Haines said it doesn't... but then, we all should know by now how well thought out his rules 'clarifications' were...



To say that that is interchangeable with the Codex entry 'Terminators' is ascribing qualities to it that are not specified. In effect, you are giving a model Wargear that the book doesn't say it has.

Rubbish. A 'Terminator' is clearly, by the Terminator Armour listing, a 'model in Terminator Armour'

 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




And according to the Terminator Armour entry, a model with Terminator Armour is a 'Terminator'. So it follows that a 'Terminator' is a model with Terminator Armour.


Rubbish. A 'Terminator' is clearly, by the Terminator Armour listing, a 'model in Terminator Armour'


I see your point, but this is a fallacy of equivocation. You are assuming a couple of things - firstly, that the entry for Terminator Armour says that a model in Terminator armour is a Terminator, and secondly, that Terminators are therefore models in Terminator armour.

The entry doesn't specify that a model in Terminator armour is called a Terminator. (The next entry, on Terminator Honours, does say that a Sergeant with Terminator Honours is called a Veteran Sergeant, for example.) The Terminator Armour entry refers to models in Terminator armour, Space Marines in Terminator armour, and so forth. The terms might be used loosely, but to assume that all models in Terminator armour are Terminators is an assumption.

Secondly, even if we accept that assumption, the converse is not necessarily true. Saying that all A are B does not automatically say that all B are A. The terms being used here are clearly defined - we have to be careful when making assumptions about defined game terms.

'Terminator Armour' is an item of Wargear in the Armoury. It grants certain abilities to models equipped with it.

'Terminators' are an Elites choice in the Space Marine list. They have certain weapons, equipment, characteristics, and special rules, which are clearly marked in their entry. The item of Wargear, 'Terminator armour', and ergo the attendant special abilities, is not one of those pieces of equipment that is marked. (Someone else said that only weapons are given in the entries. That is not true - Librarians, Techmarines, etc. describe exactly what pieces of wargear they come with automatically. Assault Marines state that they come with jump packs.)

Quite frankly, the Scouts thing should work in exactly the same way. Because GW were too lazy to come up with a different (and less potentially confusing) name for it, the USR refers to 'Scouts' rather than 'Models with the Scout ability. So as far as I'm concerned the only reason it doesn't apply to Marine Scout Squads is that Pete Haines said it doesn't... but then, we all should know by now how well thought out his rules 'clarifications' were...


I hear you, and yes, the rules are bad. They are so bad that we must use accepted conventions to cover idiotic errors like this. But the fact remains, the item of Wargear 'Terminator armour' and the unit type 'Terminators' need to be specifically linked in order to consider the second to be equipped with the first. By the RAW, anyway.

I've put forward my argument. There are four premises and two conclusions there to pick apart. I'm interested to see if anyone can put forward a logical, formal argument as to why Terminators are models in Terminator armour. Particularly mauleed, since this thread is his idea.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

The terms might be used loosely, but to assume that all models in Terminator armour are Terminators is an assumption.

That wasn't what I was assuming. I was instead saying that 'Terminators' are 'models in Terminator Armour' based on the fact that the entry uses the two terms interchangably.


'Terminators' are an Elites choice in the Space Marine list.

And are also, according to the rules entry for Terminator Armour, 'models in Terminator Armour'


But the fact remains, the item of Wargear 'Terminator armour' and the unit type 'Terminators' need to be specifically linked in order to consider the second to be equipped with the first. By the RAW, anyway.

They ARE specifically linked. Right there in the Terminator Armour entry.

 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

<div class="NTForums_Quote">Posted By snooggums on 03/22/2006 12:51 PM<br><div class="NTForums_Quote">Posted By Kilkrazy on 03/22/2006 8:11 AM<br>From my memory of the SM codex, the Terminator squad figures are shown to be wearing Terminator armour. Doesn't that mean they have Terminator armour?</div><br><br>

This is just like how wrecks can become terrain with all of the features of area terrain but aren't actually declared 'area' terrain. Also note in the space marine codex that space marine scouts don't have the scout rule even though they are named as such. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it could still be a chicken in drag.

I play them with termi armor though. I cannot prove that they are equipped with them though.

Anyone got a codex handy? Are space marine bikes equipped with bikes to get the bike special rules or does that just use the name?</div><br><br>

What I mean is, look at the pictures above each Codex unit entry. The Terminators one shows Terminator suits. The Tac Marines one shows standard SM armour. The Scouts one shows guys in some lesser kind of armounr.

Nothing says these pictures aren't rules. You have to assume either that the whole book is rules or start to make your own decisions as to what is rules or not.

If the picture of Terminators shows marines in Terminator armour, they have Terminator armour.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Insaniak - how do we know that the terms are used interchangeably? Perhaps it's just offering rules for both Terminators and models in Terminator armor separately.

The pictures could be 'official', I guess, but I don't think you can draw many conclusions from them. For example, is a Rhino a small vehicle, or is a Rhino a small vehicle with a Space Marine standing in front of it, as in the picture in its entry.

Is a dreadnought a walker with the weapons shown in the picture, or can it be legally given different weapons as in its rules? If the picture is only one possible dreadnought configuration, then why can't the Terminator picture be one possible Terminator configuration - note that the Sergeant is perfectly capable of taking Terminator armor from the armory.

Finally, is there even any assurance that the pictures are of the things that they're close to? Why must that be a picture of a Terminator - I don't see where it says this.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Insaniak - how do we know that the terms are used interchangeably? Perhaps it's just offering rules for both Terminators and models in Terminator armor separately.

...because they're both in an entry under the heading 'Terminator Armour'... and because we read the entry, and notice that the two terms are used interchangably...

 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






San Jose, CA

Careful with that, insaniak. If "models in Terminator Armour" are the same as "Terminators," then upgrading a SM IC to have Terminator armour should change his profile to that given in the Terminators entry.

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

If "models in Terminator Armour" are the same as "Terminators," then upgrading a SM IC to have Terminator armour should change his profile to that given in the Terminators entry.

If "models in Terminator Armour" are NOT the same as "Terminators," then Terminator Squad Sergeants are free to choose whatever they want from the Armoury, regardless of whether it has a 'T' or not, and ICs in Terminator Armour can make Sweeping Advances, while squads of Terminators can not...

A 'Terminator' chosen from the squad entry would have the profile listed in the Squad entry, while benefiting from the rules for Terminator Armour in the same way that a Marine Biker benefits from the rules for a Space Marine Bike.
An IC uses their own profile. Nothing in the rules suggests that he should take a profile from a different unit selection just because he takes an item of Wargear. The unit uses the Wargear, the Wargear doesn't use the unit.


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






I would have posted this sooner, but it's fun to see Relic post so much and be proven wrong with so small an argument: (and dakka's been painfully slow)

P1. Models in terminator armor have a 5+ invulnerable save. -SM Codex, page 25 "A model wearing terminator armor have a 2+ armor save and a 5+ invulnerable save."
P2. Models in terminator armor can move and shoot heavy weapons. -SM Codex, page 25 "Space marines in terminator armor are capable of moving and firing with heavy weapons."
P3. Terminators are equipped with terminator armor - Main Rulebook, page 3 - "Terminator Squad - Elite space marines equipped with the virtually impregnable terminator armor...."
Conclusion: Terminators have a 5+ invulnerable save and can move and shoot their heavy weapons.

Bookmark it people.

Relic, I'll patiently await your statement of defeat.

"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




If "models in Terminator Armour" are NOT the same as "Terminators," then Terminator Squad Sergeants are free to choose whatever they want from the Armoury, regardless of whether it has a 'T' or not, and ICs in Terminator Armour can make Sweeping Advances, while squads of Terminators can not...


Yes, quite right. That would be totally within the RAW.

Sorry, mate, but I'm not deductively convinced that you can equate 'models in Terminator armour' and 'Terminators', both of which are defined game terms, simply because they are used in separate sentences under the same heading. The Terminator Armour wargear entry discusses the effects of the item of Wargear, 'Terminator Armour' on any model equipped with it. The sentence that refers to 'Terminators' might be related to the effects of Terminator Armour, which would mean that the best you might be able to show is that 'models in Terminator armour' can be considered 'Terminators'.

That then has the problem of a logical fallacy of equivocation. In other words, the entry for Terminator Armour might suggest that 'models in Terminator Armour' can be considered 'Terminators', but it doesn't automatically follow that all 'Terminators' can be considered 'models in Terminator armour'. That requires its own proof.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut



Bellevue, WA

And according to the Terminator Armour entry, a model with Terminator Armour is a 'Terminator'. So it follows that a 'Terminator' is a model with Terminator Armour.


all squares are rectangles. not all rectangles are squares. THis is a pretty basic logical fallacy you're commiting here.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut



Bellevue, WA

Heh, ed's workaround for this issue basically boils down to citing printed fluff. Basically the idea is that anything printed within the rulebook is a rule. I think that's pretty patently absurd myself, but some people are willing to buy the rhetorical gymnastics.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

The sentence that refers to 'Terminators' might be related to the effects of Terminator Armour, which would mean that the best you might be able to show is that 'models in Terminator armour' can be considered 'Terminators'.

Nope. The way the entry is written, it's the other way around.

We have a rules entry entitled 'Terminator Armour'

Within that entry are two paragraphs of text that refer to 'models in Terminator Armour', 'Space Marines in Terminator Armour', Space Marine Terminators, and 'Terminators'.

In other words, the Terminator Armour entry contains rules that apply tofour differently labelled types of models. We can therefore conclude that all 4 of these are considered 'models that have Terminator Armour'... if they weren't, the rules under the heading 'Terminator Armour' would not apply to them any more than the rules for a Force Weapon would apply to a model with a Bolter.


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: