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.

Spellbound wrote:
No, a d6 IS required, because I AM using those books and regardless of whether you THINK I shouldn't or not, I see the other MANY instances of terminators of various types all taking 2 slots as VERY important to the discussion and VERY valid and I will NOT be told that they "don't count".

Its not whether or not 'I' think you should...the main rulebook specifically states that you refer only to the codex in question when applying rules such as the one in question...not other codexes.

And how can anyone say Apocalypse is a different game? It's the same game with certain adaptations to make bigger battles more interesting and more fun. Is Starcraft: Broodwar NOT Starcraft? Of course it's Starcraft, it's just got additional things added to it. We could play a 10,000 point game using 5 detachments and setup as per "pitched battle" if we wanted, but I think it's cool that my four vindicators can actually team up to do something special, or that my reserves can perform a dramatic flanking maneouver so I add more to the game with the expansion. In no way is the game NO LONGER Warhammer 40,000, it's just got additional rules for the scenario. That's like saying that when you play a unique mission at a tournament [Battle in the Eye of Terror for example] with special victory conditions or rules that you're no longer playing 40k, or that when you and a friend decide to play your own home-grown mission that it's no longer 40k. It's 40k armies, 40k rules....and a bit more for FUN.

Apocolypse IS a different game. I dont understand how you cannot see that. Try going to a RTT or Grand tournement and use "Apoc" only rules, like deployment, no point values, superheavies or whatever other craziness that is Apoc...you wont be able to do it. Why? It's a different game.

Here's when you roll a d6: When you can't agree on rules. It doesn't matter if I'm pulling my reasoning from a 10 year old WD article or voices in my head. If we don't agree, we roll a d6. Your style of play differs from mine. In your style of play, Slaanesh combat drugs would make any character ABSOLUTELY INVINCIBLE FOREVER in the old chaos codex, because that's what the RAW said. Mine differs, and thus we would have to roll a d6.

You roll a d6 when a rules dispute is within reason. What if I insist up and down that your eldar army cannot shoot guns at space marines? Your codex doesnt specifically say that you can shoot at space marines. Do we roll a d6 now?

Other game systems aside (which Apoc surely is), I'm telling you that you're looking up rules in the wrong manner and taking rules from codexes that need not be referanced...and I can show you specifically in the main rulebook where I'm correct...in english. This isnt a rules dispute, this is you being unreasonable and closing your eyes to the actual rules that are in question. Yes, I'm closing my eyes to YOUR point, because YOUR point is in direct dispute with the main rulebook in particular.

It doesn't matter how clear-cut you think the rule is. We don't agree, so it's decided by a d6 or by someone packing up models and going home - or a tournament organizer, and I'd put good money down on what any halfway decent organizer would rule in this case.

What is a 'decent' organiser? One that rules in your favor? Tournement organisers, ones that are generallyl considered good ones, decides rules issues based on RAW first, not RAI. So, if you want the money back that you put down, I'm hoping you put it down on the option that the organiser would allow the huge termie squad to ride. Thats probably the way they would go. Why? Because its RAW when referanced in the codexes that are in question, thats IG and Daemonhunters specifically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gandair wrote:I distinctly remember a thread a few weeks ago where people came to an agreement on them not getting a save because it's not a movement phase.

I'm having deja-vu reading this and thinking "did no one read the that last thread"

does anyone remember the name so we can search and link it?

yea, I'd like to see that one as well.

Also, the game hasn't started. The movement phases only exist once the game's begun. The scout moves happen before this don't they? How can you have a movement phase when there's no game to have a phase in yet?

If you back up in this thread you can clearly see my point. There may not have been a movement phase, but according to the scouting rules, we should play exactly as if there was one.

"If a dispute does crop up then work out the answer in a gentlemanly manner. Many players simply like to roll-off and let the dice decided who is right..."

The examples of what a dispute might be are examples, not an inclusive list. I have a completely valid TMIR dispute to say that the example in the rule book is referencing anything that is a Marine in Terminator armour, not specifically Codex: Space Marines. You think it means C:SM exclusive, I don't. D6 it.

As was pointed out, this is typically a forum of "What does the RAW say", not "how do you think this should be played". The answer to the question of "By the current RAW (ignoring RAI), how many Grey Knight Terminators can fit in a Valkyrie?" would be:

It hinges on whether or not the reference in the main rulebook of Space Marine Terminators is exclusive to Codex: Space Marine, or if that example is inclusive of anything that is a Marine in Terminator armour.

If exclusive, 12.
If inclusive, 6.

Most rules lawyers will tell you that any words that have a specific definition within the rules are taken as that definition. Space Marine Terminators would be Codex: Space Marine Terminators. Marines in Terminator armour would be any Marine in Terminator armour, not specific to one codex. The key here though is, you have to accept their belief in how the game works for them to be correct. There is no RAW of how the overall game works, and you would be amazed at how different some peoples methods actually are, both producing a completely playable game that is correct by every bit of printed RAW.

In the interest of completeness, I think it is also worth noting that there is a belief that Terminators can't ride in Valkyries at all. Ogryn's, which take up two slots each, can't, so why would Terminators be able to? That isn't a RAW argument, but I'm hearing that 'Ard Boyz will be enforcing that. It will be interesting to see if the Errata/FAQ addresses it.

My experience with TO's has been different to Deadshanes. The ones I know will rule by RAI if it seems obvious to them, such as terminator armor taking two slots in a transport, Valkyries being able to embark/disembark to ground level, etc.

I think we all agree Specific out ranks general rules.

Space Marine terminators are Specifically restricted in a transport.

GKTs are Specifically restricted in a Landraider.

GKTs are not Specifically restricted in a valyrie but are generally allowed to ride in them as a transport.

There are no Specific rules that say GTKs take up 2 slots in every transport.

Oversight by GW? Maybe, maybe not - after all they cost a LOT more than their SM brothers.


Just because a unit shares the same terminology as another unit does not make the units the same or even the rules the same. Chaos Terminators vs. SM Terminators vs. Inquisitors in terminator armor vs. GK Terminators all have different rules, allowances, and specific directions. We have to read the general rules and the specific rules for all the units - we can't make these assumptions based off of other units that really are nothing like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaaihn wrote:
In the interest of completeness, I think it is also worth noting that there is a belief that Terminators can't ride in Valkyries at all. Ogryn's, which take up two slots each, can't, so why would Terminators be able to? That isn't a RAW argument, but I'm hearing that 'Ard Boyz will be enforcing that. It will be interesting to see if the Errata/FAQ addresses it.

To be honest - I look at the Ogryn rule as fluff written into rule - mainly because they have to be tricked or corralled into a transport - I would guess it would be too dangerous to fly them if they were to get out of hand.

Once again, however, Ogryns are not terminators and only share 1 commonality and that is a handful of specific transport rules. Common sense would justify the comparison, however, common sense has no place in 40k (I dare someone to argue against that )

Spellbound wrote:It doesn't matter how clear-cut you think the rule is. We don't agree, so it's decided by a d6 or by someone packing up models and going home - or a tournament organizer, and I'd put good money down on what any halfway decent organizer would rule in this case.

Actually, I'd just walk away and find someone else to play. If it was a tournament it wouldn't be an issues because 99% of TO's follow the rules.

Flexen wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:
In the interest of completeness, I think it is also worth noting that there is a belief that Terminators can't ride in Valkyries at all. Ogryn's, which take up two slots each, can't, so why would Terminators be able to? That isn't a RAW argument, but I'm hearing that 'Ard Boyz will be enforcing that. It will be interesting to see if the Errata/FAQ addresses it.

To be honest - I look at the Ogryn rule as fluff written into rule - mainly because they have to be tricked or corralled into a transport - I would guess it would be too dangerous to fly them if they were to get out of hand.

Once again, however, Ogryns are not terminators and only share 1 commonality and that is a handful of specific transport rules. Common sense would justify the comparison, however, common sense has no place in 40k (I dare someone to argue against that )

That was my opinion as well, it never even occurred to me that the reason Ogryns can't ride in a Valkyrie is it being to small for large models, like Rhinos and Razorbacks and such. I was surprised to see others felt that way and that supposedly 'Ard Boyz are disallowing Terminators to ride in this years tournament.

Kaaihn wrote:

Flexen wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:
In the interest of completeness, I think it is also worth noting that there is a belief that Terminators can't ride in Valkyries at all. Ogryn's, which take up two slots each, can't, so why would Terminators be able to? That isn't a RAW argument, but I'm hearing that 'Ard Boyz will be enforcing that. It will be interesting to see if the Errata/FAQ addresses it.

To be honest - I look at the Ogryn rule as fluff written into rule - mainly because they have to be tricked or corralled into a transport - I would guess it would be too dangerous to fly them if they were to get out of hand.

Once again, however, Ogryns are not terminators and only share 1 commonality and that is a handful of specific transport rules. Common sense would justify the comparison, however, common sense has no place in 40k (I dare someone to argue against that )

That was my opinion as well, it never even occurred to me that the reason Ogryns can't ride in a Valkyrie is it being to small for large models, like Rhinos and Razorbacks and such. I was surprised to see others felt that way and that supposedly 'Ard Boyz are disallowing Terminators to ride in this years tournament.

Grey Knight Terminators may not travel in Valkyries
or Vendetta Gunships

From the Ard Boyz rule pack. While this is GW sanctioned event and while they are pretty clear on it, I would not say this is a precedence as to how to play it. You can look to it as to what might eventually come down the line as a GW FAQ or errata, but unless you are playing by the Ard Boyz rules each and every game you play all the time, then this ruling doesn't mean jack.

Brother Ramses wrote:From the Ard Boyz rule pack. While this is GW sanctioned event and while they are pretty clear on it, I would not say this is a precedence as to how to play it. You can look to it as to what might eventually come down the line as a GW FAQ or errata, but unless you are playing by the Ard Boyz rules each and every game you play all the time, then this ruling doesn't mean jack.

QFT. If GW want it to be law, they can release an Errata. Until then that does not mean anything outside of a 'Ard Boyz Tournament.

I never said it did. It seemed interesting and related to this thread, so I included it as a factoid with the disclaimer that it's not RAW.

I would think that the errata is going to be seen after the ard boys is over. If it was me I would wait and see what people abuse and fix it after the nastiest players use the loop holes to the maximum benefit, smart actually if that is one of the intents of ardboys. . Then clear up some of the issues in the errata. Its like retro actively play testing your game.

It seems to me that they recognized how brutal a Valkyrie carrying a ton of greyknights assaulting 1st turn would be and put that in the ard boys rules. If you can't use it in the hardest tourny, it stands to reason that it will be disallowed in the standard game as well. Basically don't expect it to be that way, count on it to be that way. I think we can all agree that it is not RAI on this one. However as stated above RAW would support it, except in ard boys, for now. If you use this in a RTT you will get terrible comp and sportsman ship IMHO. Many players will refuse that game, as is their right. The writing is on the wall on this one, I think and will make it harder to pull given the ard boys example of it being a No NO. If you use this tatic enjoy your 5 min of fame because it will be gone with the next faq / erratta.

I'm curious Gwar, and you can feel free not to answer seeing as this is the RAW forum: But could you list some rules where you think the RAI is blatantly clear but the RAW is completely the opposite?

And I don't have the codex, but are Space Marines listed in their book in the rules section under the heading "Space Marine Terminators" ?

Trasvi wrote:I'm curious Gwar, and you can feel free not to answer seeing as this is the RAW forum: But could you list some rules where you think the RAI is blatantly clear but the RAW is completely the opposite?

There is not a Single rule that I have found with a Clear RaW interpretation that I feel needs to be changed under the Guise of RaI. The developers know full well how to write (as amazing as that sounds). Whatever they write the rule to do, that is their intent, unless an Errata (and begrudgingly an FAQ) says otherwise. Rules without a Clear RaW interpretation boil down to whatever the two players/TO say is right, until GW release an Errata (or begrudgingly an FAQ)

And I don't have the codex, but are Space Marines listed in their book in the rules section under the heading "Space Marine Terminators" ?

Contents Page: Terminator Squad
Unit Entry: Terminator Squad
Unit Entry Profile: Terminator / Terminator Sergeant
Army List Entries: Terminator Squad / Terminator Assault Squad
Army List Profile: Terminator / Terminator Sergeant

My take on it is that GKTs cannot ride in a Valkyrie. There is no rule that I am aware of that states they can. Lack of a rule does not necessarily mean you can just because there is nothing written saying you can't. I think there is a lot of valid rules that indicate terminators in general can't ride in a Valkyrie but it is by no means and open and shut airtight case. If it was me I wouldn't put my terminators inside a Valkyrie. In a friendly game if my opponent wanted to do so I would probably be okay with it but in a tournament I'd probably ask a TO for a ruling... You can't really say what the TO would rule ahead of time unless you knew them well enough to know what are their preferences for this type of situation.

We do know that you won't you be able to do this at the ard Boyz this year and it's spelled out in black and white. It's not official though by any means... Just look at an i -house FAQ written for the UK GTs.

G

Errrr...what? The rules are crystal Clear. The Valkyrie lets any Infantry Ride in it, as per the BRB on Transports. Grey Knights Terminators are Infantry. Therefore they can ride in it. It is THAT simple.

Are the other chapters still called marines in thier own codices? I do not thinkGK termies are.

I have yet to meet a TO that would rule with GKT not taking 2 slots in anything, valkyrie included.

I'll ask at the Memphis GT.

Until then, we WOULD be d6ing as to whether "Terminator" means "Space Marine Terminator" or any terminator, period.

A terminator is a terminator.

G

smart_alex wrote:Are the other chapters still called marines in thier own codices? I do not thinkGK termies are.

They are on multiple places on Page 6 of the Daemonhunters codex, I quoted the passages earlier in the thread. A Grey Knight is a Space Marine, absolutely.

The methodology I use for the game tells me that where the rulebook says "Space Marine Terminator", that would be Codex:Space Marines. The common sense filter that gets applied to the RAW in actual play tells me that any unit that is a Marine in Terminator armour takes up two slots in a transport.

By the RAW of using that passage as SM codex specific, you could use inducted Space Marines (if you can induct terminators) from Dark Angels, Blood Angels, and Black Templars as taking one space in a Valkyrie. Only the Terminator entry in C:SM says they count as two for transport. The other four codexes that deal with Marines don't say in the wargear section, they say it in the transport section of the vehicles Terminators are allowed to ride in.

Green Blow Fly wrote:A terminator is a terminator.

G

Ah, but can't an Inquisitor Lord take terminator armor? Does that make him a Terminator? If so then his stats should would become those of a Terminator... and wouldn't he then also lose his psychic ability since terminators don't have psychic powers? I'm not advocating one pov over another, just throwing it out there for discussion.

But I do think that you have to refer to the codex you are using- along with the rulebook- and not other sources (other codeci). Your army must operate within the limits and permissions of its codex and the rulebook, not within the limits and permissions of other codeci- no matter how similar they are in the 40k fluff-world.

Don't be cute.

G

Beast wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:A terminator is a terminator.

G

Ah, but can't an Inquisitor Lord take terminator armor? Does that make him a Terminator? If so then his stats should would become those of a Terminator... and wouldn't he then also lose his psychic ability since terminators don't have psychic powers? I'm not advocating one pov over another, just throwing it out there for discussion.

But I do think that you have to refer to the codex you are using- along with the rulebook- and not other sources (other codeci). Your army must operate within the limits and permissions of its codex and the rulebook, not within the limits and permissions of other codeci- no matter how similar they are in the 40k fluff-world.

Actually, an Inquisitor that takes a suit of Terminator armour does gain all of the stats and abilities associate with anyone wearing a suit of TDA: armour save 2+, Invul save 5+, can move and shoot heavy weapons as if remaining stationary, may deep strike via teleportation, and can only consolidate after winning a close combat. This also means that Inquisitors in TDA may not embark in a Rhino, which they can take as a dedicated transport if they have a retinue. All other stat bonuses seen in other TDA units are from Terminator Honours, which while no longer referenced in 5th Ed were still referenced in 3rd Ed and was never available to Inquisitors.

On another note, I see people seem to missing the fact that the entry in the BRB that advises a Space Marine Terminator takes up two spaces is providing an example of a large model taking up more space on a transport than a regular sized model. Not that that means anything to a the RAW advocates on this thread, but it does support the concept that all larger infantry models take up more space that regular sized models in regards to transport capacity. Unfortunately, GW has seem fit to advise that any special restriction will be listed under each vehicles data sheet entry, and then promptly leave said special restrictions out of a codex that does not include large sized infantry models that can ride in a transport without issues. And since no one wants to compare Ogryns to Terminators, the issue will remain unsolved.

SJ

An Inquisitor wearing tactical dreadnaught armor is a human inside a suit of terminator armour. Obviously a Space Marine would not fit inside this particular suit. The Inquisitor is not S4 or T4 either which are state reserved fir Space Marines.

G

The problem with simply arguing, 'a Terminator is a Terminator' is, of course, that Games Workshop aren't so good at this stuff. Otherwise an Assassin is an Assassin, and Smoke Launchers are Smoke Launchers. But a Vindicare is not the same as a Cullexus, even though they share many of the same stats, and we'd all have Smoke Launchers that work in the same way.

Same thing happens with Terminators. There are at least three different type, Space Marine Terminators (which could be further devided into Deathwing, Assault Terminators, etc) Chaos Terminators and Grey Knight Terminators. None of these three Terminators have the same rules or wargear. Therefore, you can't simply consider a Terminator to be a Terminator. The specific type is very much relevent.

Of course, in this case, I wholeheartedly agree...how the blue hell are you gonna fit twelve Terminators in a Valkyrie? Even six is pushing things futher than I, personally, would wanna go. And clearly they intended to have a Terminator take up two slots, if they could ride at all. But what Games Workshop intended and what the rules say...

When it comes to using a Valk as a taxi for any terminator, a terminator is a terminator for all practical purposes and you have said as much yourself. Sure there are a plethora of various types such as the ones you mentioned but they are still terminators regardless of the various differences.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:When it comes to using a Valk as a taxi for any terminator, a terminator is a terminator for all practical purposes and you have said as much yourself. Sure there are a plethora of various types such as the ones you mentioned but they are still terminators regardless of the various differences.

G

The odd thing is, nowhere does it state that the Valkyrie Cannot transport Terminators The default for all transports is that they can carry any infantry unless prohibited (like the Rhino and razorbacks rule saying no terminators)

If you do assume that all Terminators are Terminators for this purpose (which I can certainly see) then that still leaves up to six Grey Knights in a Valkyrie. Which still strikes me as very odd.

UPDATE:

After getting home and actually studying the full rulebook...I think I'm forced to relent on the Flat-out scouting cover save. After looking more through the full movement and cover rules...well....

Touche Gwar....seems I was arguing intent. I think it could be interpreted my way...but its more of a "stretch" than simply interpreting it the way you described. This will have to be something I discuss at the beginning of the game against anyone with a Valk.

I personally have no problem playing it with cover saves, as I personally think its intent. But, its a stretch to grant the cover save on RAW.

Deadshane1 wrote:UPDATE:

After getting home and actually studying the full rulebook...I think I'm forced to relent on the Flat-out scouting cover save. After looking more through the full movement and cover rules...well....

Touche Gwar....seems I was arguing intent. I think it could be interpreted my way...but its more of a "stretch" than simply interpreting it the way you described. This will have to be something I discuss at the beginning of the game against anyone with a Valk.

I personally have no problem playing it with cover saves, as I personally think its intent. But, its a stretch to grant the cover save on RAW.

Don't worry Shane, I was like that at first. We still love you I also agree it is intent, just not RaW. It's kind of odd that a Bike can turboboost in scout, move and shoot normally T1, and then get their cover save but a skimmer can't :(

Chimeras used to be able to transport terminators. Was this because it was or wasn't specifically stated?

G

It was specifically mentioned that Chimeras could transport terminators.

It's not specifically stated that you can start a unit in a non-dedicated transport. Does anyone actually play this way?