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.

Not sure if this (or any other SW supplement stuff) has been FAQ'd/been covered in another thread, but as the title implies really. Can a Wolf Lord take the Armour of Asvald Stormwrack and a Thunderwolf? In the fluff section of the Armour it states it's TDA, but in the actual rules it simply lists the rules the IC gains from wearing it, including the basic TDA ones, ie Bulky, Deep Strike, can't Sweeping Advance and Relentless, without explicitly stating that it is TDA, and thus excluding the Lord from being able to take a Thunderwolf.
Any help would be greatly appreciated, as I want a Thunderlord with IWND

Edit: Added poll

That is interesting, why wouldn't they just state it is Terminator Armor and let that grant the Special Rules....

Because GW feels that mentioning it in the fluff is enough.

Like the requirement to blow the Drop Pod Doors?
I know, low blow and unrelated to the topic at hand, but whenever someone mentions 'Rules in Fluff' that very debate is the first thing that comes to mind....

It's terminator armor. No thunder wolf.

No where in its rules does it say its terminator armor, in fact they specifically went out of their way to NOT list it as terminator armor in its rules(listing all the benefits of terminator armor but none of the downsides)

You can wear it on a thunderwolf.

JinxDragon wrote:
Like the requirement to blow the Drop Pod Doors?
I know, low blow and unrelated to the topic at hand, but whenever someone mentions 'Rules in Fluff' that very debate is the first thing that comes to mind....

Hey, you're preachin' to the choir on this one. GW's been in the business long enough to know that mixing rules into the fluff doesn't work.

But... Narrative!

We'd have more time to “Forge a Narrative” if we didn't have to stop every five minutes for a rules debate

 Leth wrote:
No where in its rules does it say its terminator armor, in fact they specifically went out of their way to NOT list it as terminator armor in its rules(listing all the benefits of terminator armor but none of the downsides)

You can wear it on a thunderwolf.

This is exactly my argument. It would have been much quicker and less ambiguous to simply say it was TDA that also confers a 4++ and IWND. That or simply say that models with this cannot take Thunderwolves or bikes.
Added a poll to this thread to more accurately gauge how people view this. Got my first game with the new wolves on Thursday and need to know whether or not this combo has the support of the community in general.

Yep, I am running him with krakenbone sword and armor.

See the YMDC community explode over that one

I think we're on a similar wavelength here, I too have mine written up with the armour and the Krakenbone sword on a Thunderwolf.

Is there anything in the rules that specifies that Bulky models cannot ride mounts/bikes? Having a look through but if anyone's already found it let me know

All the best of luck explaining your line of reasoning to a judge the first time anyone complains about it at a competitive tournament...

Because there is nothing in the rules that says he cant......

Even if it was TDA, which it doesn't say in its rules, why would it not be allowed to take a TW mount also? I don't recall seeing that rule anywhere.

Doesn't it say it is Terminator Armour in its rules? The part in italics?

Ghaz,
It was one of the first ones I toothed on, so I remember it in a fonder light then I should, and one of the first that brought to my attention how poorly formatted these books are.
A great deal of the problems are simply Rules being written in the wrong place....

 Bulldogging wrote:
Even if it was TDA, which it doesn't say in its rules, why would it not be allowed to take a TW mount also? I don't recall seeing that rule anywhere.

Because the option for a Wolf Lord to take a Thunderwolf mount says the following:

If Terminator armour is not taken, a Wolf Lord may take a Thunderwolf mount…xx pts

JinxDragon wrote:
Ghaz,
It was one of the first ones I toothed on, so I remember it in a fonder light then I should, and one of the first that brought to my attention how poorly formatted these books are.
A great deal of the problems are simply Rules being written in the wrong place....

And I was agreeing with you...

So we're agreed this is a no right as the rules clearly cover that you can't have TDA and TW and the armour is TDA.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So we're agreed this is a no right as the rules clearly cover that you can't have TDA and TW and the armour is TDA.

I'm still not 100% convinced. Find me the section in the rules (Not fluff) where it says that the armour is TDA. For the record I am nowhere near a power-gamer. I can certainly see that the RAI is probably that it is TDA, but the part that irks me is that they went out of their way to say it wasn't terminator armour.

As I said, when you have to explain to a judge, with a straight face, that the paragraph in italics above 'the rules' which says it is Terminator Armour doesn't actually count because it isn't in 'the rules', I wish you all the best.

Maybe in a court of law at a litigation hearing you would manage to push this one through.... But not to a rational human being who is judging a toy soldiers convention for grown men.

 Sandyman11 wrote:
they went out of their way to say it wasn't terminator armour.

No they didn't. At no point did they say it isn't Terminator Armour.

If they intended for it to not be Terminator armour, they would not have called it such in the fluff.

 Sandyman11 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So we're agreed this is a no right as the rules clearly cover that you can't have TDA and TW and the armour is TDA.

I'm still not 100% convinced. Find me the section in the rules (Not fluff) where it says that the armour is TDA. For the record I am nowhere near a power-gamer. I can certainly see that the RAI is probably that it is TDA, but the part that irks me is that they went out of their way to say it wasn't terminator armour.

Where in the rules does it tell you which parts are rules and which parts are fluff?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also where does it say that it isn't Terminator armour?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Sandyman11 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So we're agreed this is a no right as the rules clearly cover that you can't have TDA and TW and the armour is TDA.

I'm still not 100% convinced. Find me the section in the rules (Not fluff) where it says that the armour is TDA. For the record I am nowhere near a power-gamer. I can certainly see that the RAI is probably that it is TDA, but the part that irks me is that they went out of their way to say it wasn't terminator armour.

Where in the rules does it tell you which parts are rules and which parts are fluff?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also where does it say that it isn't Terminator armour?

I thought that was the general consensus? That the italics bits above profiles were fluff...? Don't know about you but it's always been the case for me and everyone else I've encountered.
By the looks of things we're gonna be looking at a fair wait until GW FAQ this. Speaking of which which was the last codex to have it's FAQ updated/be FAQ'd? Ie how long a wait are we looking at?

 Sandyman11 wrote:
I thought that was the general consensus? That the italics bits above profiles were fluff...? Don't know about you but it's always been the case for me and everyone else I've encountered.
By the looks of things we're gonna be looking at a fair wait until GW FAQ this.

Regardless of whether or not it's fluff, the fact that it's described as Terminator Armour is going to be enough for most people, just like it was for Njal in the last codex. And just as his fluff description as a Zoanthrope was enough for most players when arguing over the Doom's Warp Field in the last Tyranid codex.

GW have a long history of mixing 'rules' into fluff and just expecting players to figure out what they meant. You can try and apply the strict letter of the rules to it, but all that's going to do for you is piss off potential opponents.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Sandyman11 wrote:
they went out of their way to say it wasn't terminator armour.

No they didn't. At no point did they say it isn't Terminator Armour.

If they intended for it to not be Terminator armour, they would not have called it such in the fluff.

This mentality is why GW don't actually engage with the competitive scene for FAQs etc. They see people saying stuff like Sandyman did.

How anyone can read a background paragraph that says it is Terminator Armour, then convince themselves that GW went "out of their way" to say it wasn't Terminator Armour is mind boggling to me.

It makes competitive players look delusional. No wonder GW stay away lol

The general consensus is that the part in itallics largely has no in game effect and can thus be ignored. Here it has a clear in game effect so why are you ignoring it?

As for FAQs they haven't done a proper one since 6th Ed I believe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The general consensus is that the part in itallics largely has no in game effect and can thus be ignored. Here it has a clear in game effect so why are you ignoring it?

As for FAQs they haven't done a proper one since the start of 6th Ed I believe.

AlexRae wrote:
This mentality is why GW don't actually engage with the competitive scene for FAQs etc. They see people saying stuff like Sandyman did.

Given that the studio hasn't actively engaged with their customer base since the late '90s (at which point in time GW was still actively supporting and running tournaments), that seems an unlikely claim.

My point is that regardless of the fact that it is terminator armor in the fluff they went out of their way to in the RULES section not calling it terminator armor.

Literally most of the text could have been removed by saying "terminator armor". Or they could have said "A suit of terminator armor that grants a 4+ invul and IWND"

Which leads to the conclusion that they actively in the RULES portion went out of their way to not describe it as terminator armor.

If we want to go fluff instead of rules, there are a lot of places where it falls apart.

Not saying something is not actively doing anything.