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.

hey all, a good friend of mine is running wolves but the codex seems to have fallen into a grey zone...mostly because its pretty dated. One thing we cant seem to nail down is terminator armor rules. In his codex is stats they just get a 2+ armor save and an invuln save....but if i remember correctly the chaos termis had slow and purposful and relentless? Also the hunter killer missile in the wolf codex does not match with the one in the current rulebook. How do we digest all of this? and what takes presedence, the rulebook or codex?

What Armour Chaos uses is irrelevant to how a Space Marine faction would function, so it is pointless comparing them to the Space Wolves Terminator Armour. However, it wouldn't make sense to give a Model both of those Special Rules as one is considered 'lite' of the other. In short, I would recommend reviewing the Choas Space Marine codex for the Rules for Choas Terminator Armour and then apply those Rules only to Choas Models in Terminator Armour.

As for the Wolves Terminator Armour, that has always been unique to the faction as it never functioned in the same way as other Space Marine Terminator Armour. The Rules for this special type of Terminator Armour can be found on page 61 of their Codex. I would recommend reviewing this page as it contains more then a single sentence, and within those other paragraphs are the Rules you will need to solve this question.

The third question you put forth is a little more tricky, as technically Codex over-rules Rulebook as the Rulebook says as much.
However, in situations where an old codex is running counter to an updated Rulebook, people often side with the updated Rules.

1) The only difference is the range for the SW missile, everything else is the same. You use the one in your codex, as the codex does not say to use the one in the BRB. (Some entries tell us that a weapon is this kind of weapon as noted in the BRB, HKM's for SW's do not say this so we use Codex rules).

2) as jinx has said Page 61 of the SW codex will give you the info you need to know about Terminator armor for SW's.

Page 3 of the Space Wolf FAQ states to use the Hunter Killer from the 40K Rulebook

http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/Space_Wolves_v1.0_May14.pdf

 DeathReaper wrote:
1) The only difference is the range for the SW missile

What's the difference? One says unlimited, the other says infinite. I'd think that means the same thing in this context.

I'm sure there are some math geeks that could disabuse you (at length) of the notion that those two words are synonymous. :p

Then I would ask them to devise by zero and see what happens.
Though if they begin by using infinity as a number, I already doubt their credentials.

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
1) The only difference is the range for the SW missile

What's the difference? One says unlimited, the other says infinite. I'd think that means the same thing in this context.

The word is the only difference.

Unlimited and infinite do mean the same thing in this context, but they technically have different ranges.

JinxDragon wrote:
Then I would ask them to devise by zero and see what happens.
Though if they begin by using infinity as a number, I already doubt their credentials.

I honestly never understood the problem with dividing by zero. Think about it, you have something and want to divide it by ... nothing. You still have something and the universe doesn't implode. Which to me means that the math geeks need to go back to the drawing board.

Clively,
While not a numberphile myself, I have listened to a few because mathematics is both frightening and alluring to me. Not surprising, these people consider it to be quite a big problem within the mathematical world and one that can only ever be answered by stating 'we can never define the answer.' This is because division is simply finding the number of times X can be subtracted from Y, so X-0 will always leave us with the number X left over at each step, leading to an unending chain of misery. It gets even more interesting when you try and plot the numbers, something Mathematicians seem to love doing, because depending on what X was to begin with one can end up with negative "infinity," positive "infinity." Clearly the answer can not be two undefined numbers found at the very opposite ends of the chart....

But we are getting faaaaar off topic, if you want to learn more please use Google as it is a friend to us all!
I will say this, if you want to make them cry even more ask them to find 0 to the power of 0....

clively wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Then I would ask them to devise by zero and see what happens.
Though if they begin by using infinity as a number, I already doubt their credentials.

I honestly never understood the problem with dividing by zero. Think about it, you have something and want to divide it by ... nothing. You still have something and the universe doesn't implode. Which to me means that the math geeks need to go back to the drawing board.

As off topic as this is, the reason you can't divide by zero is because division is essentially "subtracting".
20/5 = 4, this is the same as 20-5=15. 15-5=10, and so on until you get to 0, or nothing.
How many time did you take 5 away from 20 to get to 0? 4.

So, dividing 20 (or any number) by 0 goes as follows: 20/0= ???
20 - 0 = 20
20 - 0 = 20
20 - 0 = 20
You keep going in an infinite loop, it can't be "solved" or "calculated" since you cannot reach zero.

Damn, Jinx beat me to it.

I wonder if we watched the same numberphile episode though!

Its also what a lot of the mathematical tricks, that seem to show that 2 = 1, rely upon - they will substitue in algebraic equivalents that you dont realise end up dividing by zero at one point, and then resub back in the numbers to go "look, 2 = 1!"

JinxDragon wrote:
I wonder if we watched the same numberphile episode though!

I believe we did.
Numberphile is quite interesting. So are the Vsauce channels (mainly Vsauce3)

No arguments here, hell I run Crash Courses as background noise....
I'm such a nerd.

It gets even more interesting when you try and plot the numbers, something Mathematicians seem to love doing, because depending on what X was to begin with one can end up with negative "infinity," positive "infinity." Clearly the answer can not be two undefined numbers found at the very opposite ends of the chart....

Well there infinitely different infinities. The problem with having range infinite is that it doesn't tell us which infinite to use, unlimited is a more correct term. Though in application there is no difference and whether you're using Aleph Null or Aleph Twenty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

It gets even more interesting when you try and plot the numbers, something Mathematicians seem to love doing, because depending on what X was to begin with one can end up with negative "infinity," positive "infinity." Clearly the answer can not be two undefined numbers found at the very opposite ends of the chart....

Well there infinitely different infinities. The problem with having range infinite is that it doesn't tell us which infinite to use, unlimited is a more correct term. Though in application there is no difference and whether you're using Aleph Null or Aleph Twenty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

It gets even more interesting when you try and plot the numbers, something Mathematicians seem to love doing, because depending on what X was to begin with one can end up with negative "infinity," positive "infinity." Clearly the answer can not be two undefined numbers found at the very opposite ends of the chart....

Well there infinitely different infinities. The problem with having range infinite is that it doesn't tell us which infinite to use, unlimited is a more correct term. Though in application there is no difference and whether you're using Aleph Null or Aleph Twenty.