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.

I am just wondering if there are any marine players out there who field terminators and don't take the 5+ inv. save or deepstrike them?

I think must of us are cheaters.
YMDC is a great place to know the finer nuances of the rules, BUT sometimes it becomes merely an intellectual exercise, and a quick lesson in the (mis)application of the english language.

Still, I wouldnt go any other place with any kind of rule question.

Why would my models in terminator armor not have the benefits of terminator armor?

Oh, I see your mistake. You've been duped into thinking that terminators aren't in terminator armor.

"I am just wondering if there are any marine players out there who field terminators and don't take the 5+ inv. save or deepstrike them? "

If you aren't letting your opponent deepstrike his terminator squads, he isn't the one cheating; you are.

Unless I completely overcreditted this thread, it is actually a question regarding how seriously people take YMDC.  As already stated there are a lot of rules holes created due to GW's sloppy writting and lack of an editor.  You can avoid a lot of crazy arguments at times by avoiding the literal interpretation, and just trying to think what makes the most sense. On the flip side, you can get people who believe their interpretation is more important than the rules, and these people do not deserve to play.  Perhaps the question Happypants is really asking is if we follow the YMDC rulings to a fault, or if we follow the rules as we believe they were intended? 

In such a case I have to say I follow the 'intention' of the rules (which I know is BS, as there is no true way to glean the intention of the designers). Terminators will be wearing terminator armor, Emperors Champions will be 0-1 and Ord markers will be able to wound things.  It makes the game move that much quicker, and doesn't have a strong affect on how I'd play.

 

Now, if I did completely overcredit this thread: Why would you state your Terminator armor YMDC question in such a cocky manner? Using quotations on "the rules", implying players cheat, and jumping to a conclusion within 1 sentance is a great way to piss everyone off. There is no point in arguing the rules with you if you cannot use the voice of reason to start a debate on an online forum - you need to take the time to write when you have calmed down, or at least edit your post beforehand.

I point out rules that are contradictory (pile in picture vs wording, ordinance not having wounding rules etc) that I would like to decide before the game starts that I believe will happen during the game. I also clarify any other personal rules that would effect the game (how elevation will work) so that we are approaching how the game is to be played. I play casually and have not run into an opponent that isn't able to work these things out ahead of time, and the only time I have ever D6'd anything was if something was really uncelar and we could not find a less advantageous approach (LOS sniping VS causing more wounds as an example, both cases were equally beneficial to the firer). I've also flubbed rules in unclear situations to make the game more enjoyable for both of us, while we were both in agreement that the rules were being broken.

Of course this is casual play, and I don't know if I would even enjoy a tournament setting as I personally don't enjoy winning as much as having a fun game. I've even had fun games where my artillery scattered, killing several squads and losing the game. My fun factor is influenced by my opponent so the more enjoyment oriented the opponent the more fun I have. Sure I enjoy winning more than losing overall.

And yes, I play with Terminators having Terminator Armor because of the context.

Terminator squads have terminator armor because the rules say so.

The rules do not, a fluff description from the main rulebook does.

I play mostly marines (just started a tau army that is still mostly grey) and I also 'cheat' I was just wondering if anyone actually played 100% by the letter of the 'law' (BGB & Codices)

The question was more about whether we are all just reliving our days in high school debate club (me included) or if anyone actually thought it was a good idea for terminators to fight in thier underoos. (models would probably be a lot cheaper)

Posted By snooggums on 04/28/2006 1:34 PM

The rules do not, a fluff description from the main rulebook does.

Which of course would mean you can prove text in the rulebook is not a rule.

Did I miss the "some of the stuff in here is just fluff, not rules" section? What page is that on?

The point is it's a ridiculous argument, that was almost actually technically correct. I happened to find a passage that makes the ridiculous argument false. Accept it, see the comedy in it, and find a new ridiculous argument to harp on.

@mauleed: I think that using fluff to prove rules is a slippery slope, I think this one is best chalked up to being a stupid misprint that was obviously intended to give terminators terminator armor and all the benefits which go along with that. If you ever have someone that is actually playing a game against you try to tell you that your terminators don't have terminator armor hit them with something heavy and hard and move on but there is no rule that they have terminator armor because under equipment it is not listed.

Posted By mauleed on 04/28/2006 1:54 PM

posted="" by="" snooggums="" on="" 04/28/2006="" 1:34="" pm="">

The rules do not, a fluff description from the main rulebook does.

Which of course would mean you can prove text in the rulebook is not a rule.

Did I miss the "some of the stuff in here is just fluff, not rules" section? What page is that on?

The point is it's a ridiculous argument, that was almost actually technically correct. I happened to find a passage that makes the ridiculous argument false. Accept it, see the comedy in it, and find a new ridiculous argument to harp on.

Back on topic, no. I don't think 99% of us play by RAW 100% of the time (except maybe Ghaz). Not even Ed, though it's a little point he tends to leave out of his posts way too often...

KW

"the rules"
rules, we don need no steeenkin' rules!

" now my assault Terminators will have storm bolters in addition to their lightning claws, because it says they are equipped with stormbolters as well as the Terminator armor."

where in the the "fluff" piece does it even mention lightning claws?

"The point is it's a ridiculous argument, that was almost actually technically correct. I happened to find a passage that makes the ridiculous argument false. Accept it, see the comedy in it, and find a new ridiculous argument to harp on. "

so sayith the mauleed, so sayith the flock!

alarmingrick, I think mauleed was combining the fluf with the codex entry for assault terminators, because if they both counted as rules then that would be possible, because assault terminators are terminators, although I almost dont want to say that, because it is not really written anywhere.

Personally I have very few rule arguments, because, honestly, I rarely play anything but friendly games, however, I definately do not play acording to the rules as written; I generally prefer common sense, as uncommon as it may be, and if there is something irresolvable, there is always a coin toss.

"alarmingrick, I think mauleed was combining the fluf with the codex entry for assault terminators, because if they both counted as rules then that would be possible, because assault terminators are terminators, although I almost dont want to say that, because it is not really written anywhere."

right, and the fluff part quoted above...

"Terminator Squad - Elite Space Marines equipped with the virtually impregnable Terminator armor and carrying the deadly storm bolter. They can teleport directly into the midst of the enemies battle lines."

...says nothing about assault terminators, or lighning claws. that was my point.

No-one plays by the RAW 100% because it's impossible.

A. The rulebook and codexes make no distinction between rules and fluff. Example; in the BGB, the rules are everything from p.2 to p.92.
B. If you follow what seems to be rules, it sometimes makes no sense and is unplayable as written. Example; the Tau Cyclic Ion Blaster.
C. There are places where clearly written rules are "obviously wrong" and spoil the game. Example; the Vespid Teams power of Fleet.

Consequently people have to make the best interpretation they can.

Just to throw fuel on the Terminator armor fire... as if it needs more...

Under the Terminator armor entry, page 25, Space Marine Codex:
"On the other hand, this armor is somewhat cumbersome, so Space Marine Terminators are not able to pursue a more lightly armored foe when they flee. Terminators may not Sweeping Advance."

The wargear entry makes it very clear that a model in terminator armor IS a terminator. Therefore, a terminator must be a model that wears terminator armor, according to the wargear entry. It's either that or Terminator Squads, Terminator command squads and terminator assault squads can sweeping advance.

Ezz

Posted By happypants on 04/28/2006 2:07 PM
@mauleed: I think that using fluff to prove rules is a slippery slope, I think this one is best chalked up to being a stupid misprint that was obviously intended to give terminators terminator armor and all the benefits which go along with that. If you ever have someone that is actually playing a game against you try to tell you that your terminators don't have terminator armor hit them with something heavy and hard and move on but there is no rule that they have terminator armor because under equipment it is not listed.

You're missing my point.

I'm not agreeing that is fluff. The book makes no specific distinction where "parts a,b, and c are rules, and d is fluff and not a rule". It's just a rulebook full of text.

If you can prove that the section I quoted isn't rules, then you're on to something. But if you're simply declaring it to be a given that it isn't a rule, you won't win the argument. By your logic so far I can declare the "skimmers moving fast" section of the rules to be just fluff and insist on penetrating your skimmers, right?

The wargear entry makes it very clear that a model in terminator armor IS a terminator. Therefore, a terminator must be a model that wears terminator armor, according to the wargear entry.

All squares are rectangles. All rectangles aren't squares. This statement is, unfortunately, a logical fallacy.

To be clear, the reason Terminators do not, technically, have terminator armour is not because that quote is fluff. That can't be proven. The reason is because the Codex doesn't allow them to. And that means that that quote is in conflict with what the Codex says.

Simply put, the Codex lists the equipment a unit is allowed to have. If the Codex entry doesn't list it, then the unit doesn't have it, unless there is a more specific or more recent rule that lets them have it. A quote from the rulebook is neither more specific nor more recent. End of story.

That's how we know that Neophytes, for instance, don't have Terminator armour. To whit:

P1. Terminator armour is the best protection a warrior can have. (p25, Codex Marines; 'Terminator armour is the best protection a warrior can be equipped with.')
P2. Neophytes are equipped with the best protection a warrior can have. (p11, Codex Marines; 'A Neophyte... is armoured in the finest protection a warrior can have.')

Conclusion: Neophytes are equipped with terminator armour.

That's how we know that Terminators don't all have teleport homers, like they did in 2nd Ed. Otherwise, if you believe mauleed's claim, they all have teleport homers too, because there's a previous rule that gives it to them, and the Codex doesn't say they don't. That's how we know that Assault Terminators don't have storm bolters - because even though that quote in the rulebook says they do, their Codex entry doesn't say they can. So they don't.

Believing that the rulebook can somehow 'add on' equipment that the Codex doesn't specifically forbid is false. It amounts to believing that you can have equipment just because the Codex doesn't say you can't, and we all know that to be wrong. Mauleed knows it too, which is why he stopped arguing the last time this was brought up, and why he's going to stop now.

I might also add that this thread really wasn't necessary. There isn't a single player in the game anywhere who would actually play it that way. Creating a thread like this is simply inviting argument for argument's sake.

So despite the fact that the wargear clearly identifies a terminator armored space marine as a terminator, you choose to ignore that fact when you come to the terminator squad entry? Suddenly Terminators are something other than a model in terminator armor, despite the fact that the wargear entry clearly states that that's what they are?

Ezz

okay folks, this is just asinine.

Posted By ezzeran on 04/29/2006 12:47 PM
So despite the fact that the wargear clearly identifies a terminator armored space marine as a terminator, you choose to ignore that fact when you come to the terminator squad entry? Suddenly Terminators are something other than a model in terminator armor, despite the fact that the wargear entry clearly states that that's what they are?

Ezz

Scout Marines don't get a scout move, because the Scout special rule isn't in their entry. Terminators don't have Terminator armor listed in their profile, and the unit does not list a 5+ invulnerable save, so unless you assume they have something they aren't listed with, then they just have a better armor save, not the Terminator armor.

I'll repeast again that I will always allow Terminators to have Terminator armor even though scouts don't scout, because the rules are not always clear.

Well, they don't call them Terminators because they are looking for John Connors...

Units with the scout rule are not called scouts.

Models wearing terminator armor are clearly called terminators, according to the wargear entry.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Ezz

"Well, they don't call them Terminators because they are looking for John Connors..."

what about Sarah?

Yeah, what about Sarah?

Leukemia took care of that sticky wicket.

Posted By ezzeran on 04/29/2006 7:41 PM

Models wearing terminator armor are clearly called terminators, according to the wargear entry.

I'm going to ignore the rest of this entire argument, I simply don't care about it, but I must point out the fault in your logic as it is one of the most common logical faults out there.

 

'All models in Terminator Armour are called Terminators' does NOT mean that 'all models called Terminators are in Terminator Armour'.

 

Take Terminators out of the picture and you can easily see the fault in this line of reasoning:

All soldiers who have recieved the Purple Heart have been killed or wounded. This does not mean that all soldiers that have been killed or wounded have recieved the Purple Heart.

Or more simply:

'All cats are mammals' does not mean that 'all mammals are cats'. 

 

When you invert a factual statement, the statement does not usually remain factual.