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.

Rules seem pretty clear to me. Any unit going out in Terminator Armour CAN NOT USE SWEEPING ADVANCE.

I find it interesting upon reading the codex that everywhere a limitation is placed on terminators, it specifically says, "Terminators" or "Space Marine Terminators," and everywhere it grants abilities to the owner, (a 2+/5++ or relentless) it says "models in terminator armor."

Whether or not you agree with either side of this argument, people should be aware of what follows from BOTH conclusions. (Argument A is pro-sweep, B is against)

If you agree with A, characters upgraded to terminator armor only take up one slot in a transport vehicle. Some space marines that have "combat shields" aren't getting 3+ invulnerables.

If you agree with B, Leman Russ Battle Squadrons can be taken in inquisitorial armies.

How does B follow?

What Orkeosaurus said, and adding: How does A follow?

Also, combat shields confer a Iv6+.

As a purist, this is really wack. I dont even understand how someone could even let their brain wonder enough to even think this would be allowed....*sigh*...

To add to that, if you were to try this in a game against someone...I'm pretty sure you would get laughed at.

ShawnSum wrote:As a purist, this is really wack. I dont even understand how someone could even let their brain wonder enough to even think this would be allowed....*sigh*...

To add to that, if you were to try this in a game against someone...I'm pretty sure you would get laughed at.

Again, I have not ever tried this in a game against someone. This is the rules forum, where we discuss rulings and such.
Unless you want this forum to be 200 posts of what a space marine needs to roll to score a hit.

Again your attacking me by saying you don't understand how anyone could even think this would be allowed. Yet you obviously haven't read any of mine or anyone elses arguments on topic.

If you have nothing constructive to contribute please don't post.

If you think by what I am saying is attacking you, you my friend have a lot to learn. I just dont see how you can take something so simple completely out of context and manipulate it the way you are doing.

The other day I was playing a game, I dropped in my Terminator Assault Squad Supported by my Chaplian in Terminator, I destroyed a group of people and they failed their morale, I was UNABLE to do a sweeping advance BECAUSE THE RULES STATE THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO IN TERMINATOR ARMOUR.

I have read through this entire thread, that is why I am getting envolved now.

Timmah wrote:
Again, I have not ever tried this in a game against someone. This is the rules forum, where we discuss rulings and such.
Unless you want this forum to be 200 posts of what a space marine needs to roll to score a hit.

Again your attacking me by saying you don't understand how anyone could even think this would be allowed. Yet you obviously haven't read any of mine or anyone elses arguments on topic.

If you have nothing constructive to contribute please don't post.

Timmah wrote:
(I might just have to bust out my librarian in terminator armour for fun at our next RTT)

Makes sense to me. . .

ShawnSum wrote:If you think by what I am saying is attacking you, you my friend have a lot to learn. I just dont see how you can take something so simple completely out of context and manipulate it the way you are doing.

I do not see how I have taken anything out of context. Rules exist by themselves in a vaccuum, you cannot take them out of context and change the meaning. Show me one that you can (whole sentences obviously, no cutting and pasting half sentences)

ShawnSum wrote:
BECAUSE THE RULES STATE THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO IN TERMINATOR ARMOUR.

As I have said before the rules never explicitly state this. So we cannot assume this. If you have to assume anything than you are not following RAW.

ShawnSum wrote:The other day I was playing a game, I dropped in my Terminator Assault Squad Supported by my Chaplian in Terminator, I destroyed a group of people and they failed their morale, I was UNABLE to do a sweeping advance BECAUSE THE RULES STATE THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO IN TERMINATOR ARMOUR.

Hah! An actual example of begging the question! (As opposed to how people usually use the term.)

We are currently discussing whether or not Space Marine characters who have upgraded to terminator armor can or cannot sweeping advance. Your statement of cause already assumes that they can't without demonstrating why.

Really, we are discussing whether wearing terminator armor makes you a Terminator, or merely means you are a model/unit wearing terminator armor.


Also, I would point out that you are commiting another fallacy without realizing it, probably because pretty much everyone here does it as well, which is attacking the motive for Timmah bringing this up. Saying that he is twisting the rules is in fact attacking his motives, not his argument.

Wow, WOW, WOW! If you are unable to read the rules about SM Terminator Armour in the SM:C and realize that the "no sweeping advance" rule applies to anyone that is in Terminator Armour then something is wrong man.

On top of all that, if your only reason for debating all of this is because their isn't a few extra sentences in their that explicitly states that this applies to IC wearing Terminator Armour then I would have to assume you are just manipulating the rules for the sake of your own benefit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wehrkind wrote:Really, we are discussing whether wearing terminator armor makes you a Terminator, or merely means you are a model/unit wearing terminator armor.
.

Whether is makes you a "Terminator" or makes you a "Model wearing Terminator", the rules still apply.

Or "a Terminator" refers to a suit of terminator armor.

"Terminator armour" is never written as "Terminator Armour" so the word "armour" is apparently describing what "a Terminator" can be catagorized as. (Outside of headings which have their own rules of formatting)

Or maybe not.

Not sure that helps, but it seems like I am not in a very helpful mode today. Carry on . . . this is a fun read.

ShawnSum wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wehrkind wrote:Really, we are discussing whether wearing terminator armor makes you a Terminator, or merely means you are a model/unit wearing terminator armor.
.

Whether is makes you a "Terminator" or makes you a "Model wearing Terminator", the rules still apply.

And there is where you make your critical mistake which prevents you from understanding why anyone even cares. The text differentiatess between "Terminator" and "models in Terminator armor". It specifies that Terminators can not sweeping advance, while in other places saying models in Terminator armor do X.

So again, the question really is "Are all models in Terminator armor Terminators in the full titular sense, or are they merely models wearing Terminator armor?"

Also, I play Witch Hunters and can't even take terminator armor on Inquisitors, so it is unfortunate that your assumption that I am manipulating the rules for my own benefit is what you have to assume. It is further unfortunate that you can not look at the rules in a detached manner that allows you to objectively examine how they actually work.

All references to Terminators in the Wargear section are to models wearing/in/equipped with Terminator Armour. If you want the rules for the Terminator unit, you should look in the Forces of the Space Marines section.

Nurglitch wrote:All references to Terminators in the Wargear section are to models wearing/in/equipped with Terminator Armour. If you want the rules for the Terminator unit, you should look in the Forces of the Space Marines section.

which proves that all terminators wear terminator armour.

It however does not prove:

That all things wearing terminator armour are terminators.


In a simple example
All water is wet.
Everything wet is water.
(pretty sure everyone would agree this logic is wrong)

You are unreal. I am done with this thread.

Orkeosaurus wrote:How does B follow?

What Orkeosaurus said, and adding: How does A follow?

B follows because that side of the argument makes the assumption that things that are "close enough" to the actual definition of a term are what they actually mean.

As for Nurglitch, I missed the combat shields thing. I was trying to find an example but accidentally found one that didn't exist.

As for A following, it says that Terminators take up the space of 2 models, not models in terminator armor, so falls right in line with the pro-sweep argument.

Timmah:

No, what proves all Terminators wear Terminator Armour is the wargear reference to Terminator Armour in the Terminator Squad entry in the Army List section of the book.

The Terminator Armour entry in the Wargear section of the book proves that all models wearing Terminator Armour are Terminators for the purpose of the wargear rules.

Nurglitch wrote:
The Terminator Armour entry in the Wargear section of the book proves that all models wearing Terminator Armour are Terminators for the purpose of the wargear rules.

No, it does not. It does not once state that all models wearing terminator armour are terminators.

As my example I gave:
All water is wet
everything wet is water

This is a logical fallacy. You can go read wikipedia on it.
That is what you are trying to argue.

Kaaihn wrote:

kirsanth wrote:"Terminator" is used three times in the actual rules.

Exactly the same number of times as "models in Terminator armor"

"Tactical Dreadnaught Armor" is used once, and "Space Marine Terminator" once also.

Which ones do we ignore?

You ignore none of them. Any model equipped with Wargear: Terminator Armour is now associated to all the descriptors given to it in the Wargear: Terminator Armour rules.

This means that where a rule states "terminators, "space marine terminators", and "tactical dreadnought armor", it applies to any model that is equipped with the wargear of Terminator Armour.

Simple language tells us that models equipped in Terminator armour are indeed "Terminators", because that descriptor is associated in the rules for that particular wargear. See Nurglitch's nice language lesson above for details.

You should just quote yourself too, since changing the text is not happening anyway.

Timmah:

Are you familiar with the predicate calculus?

Timmah is right, even though it is likely no one would ever play it that way successfully in any tournament. ICs in terminator armor are not terminators, or they would be called (insert IC type here) Terminators.

Really it boils down to GW not being clear enough yet again. If they did more entries like the one from the DH codex that defines demons, except for wargear and other options like this, there wouldn't be a problem.

Kitzz wrote:B follows because that side of the argument makes the assumption that things that are "close enough" to the actual definition of a term are what they actually mean.

The B side of the argument isn't saying that something is something else if it's close enough, they're saying that something is something else if the context of where it is written makes it clear that they are the same.

0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank is clearly up to one Leman Russ Battle Tank. There's no implication you get a whole squad. If there was an entry for Leman Russ Battle Tank Squads and it called the tanks "Leman Russes" (which I believe the Imperial Guard codex actually does) that would mean that the Leman Russes are Leman Russ Battle Tanks. This is because it would be clear from the context of the entry.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Kitzz wrote:B follows because that side of the argument makes the assumption that things that are "close enough" to the actual definition of a term are what they actually mean.

The B side of the argument isn't saying that something is something else if it's close enough, they're saying that something is something else if the context of where it is written makes it clear that they are the same.

0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank is clearly up to one Leman Russ Battle Tank. There's no implication you get a whole squad. If there was an entry for Leman Russ Battle Tank Squads and it called the tanks "Leman Russes" (which I believe the Imperial Guard codex actually does) that would mean that the Leman Russes are Leman Russ Battle Tanks. This is because it would be clear from the context of the entry.

But the context doesn't make it clear that they are the same. So that is exactly the sort of thing that they're doing. I know about the 0-1 restriction, I was referring to all the different options and types available to the squadron if the tank is an Exterminator or Punisher for example.

"Terminator" and "Space Marine Terminator" are used specifically in the rules for Wargear: Terminator Armour to describe and provide rules for Wargear: Terminator Armour.

Any model wearing Wargear: Terminator Armour has those specific phrases applied to them via their Terminator Armour. A model wearing Terminator Armour becomes referred to as both a "Terminator" and a "Space Marine Terminator" by the rules for Terminator Armour.

It really is that simple folks.

Kaaihn:

Very well put.

Kitzz wrote:But the context doesn't make it clear that they are the same. So that is exactly the sort of thing that they're doing.

I disagee.

I know about the 0-1 restriction, I was referring to all the different options and types available to the squadron if the tank is an Exterminator or Punisher for example.

Correct me I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure Leman Russ Battle Tank is the full name of the basic, battlecannon carrying Leman Russ.

I would understand if it said "0-1 Leman Russ", where there are many different types of tanks that are Leman Russes.

Kitzz:

Maybe start a new thread about it?

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Kitzz wrote:But the context doesn't make it clear that they are the same. So that is exactly the sort of thing that they're doing.

I disagee.

I know about the 0-1 restriction, I was referring to all the different options and types available to the squadron if the tank is an Exterminator or Punisher for example.

Correct me I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure Leman Russ Battle Tank is the full name of the basic, battlecannon carrying Leman Russ.

I would understand if it said "0-1 Leman Russ", where there are many different types of tanks that are Leman Russes.

You are correct, there is a Leman Russ Battle Tank. But there are also other tanks listed in the codex entry for Leman Russ Battle Tank (the Punisher, for example). If we are saying that Terminator Armor = Tactical Dreadnought Armor = Terminator = Space Marine Terminator, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to say Leman Russ Battle Tank = Leman Russ Exterminator = Leman Russ Demolisher etc.

@ Timmah: If you want to use the IG LRMBT as an example then we need to look at the IG Codex. IIRC the Heavy Support title is for a LRBT Squadron (be it 1, 2, or 3 tanks). If we're going to waive our RAW E-penises about then Daemonhunters cannot even use LRMBT because the LRMBT is a secondary option of the Squadron main selection.

This is rules-lawyering in the extreme. To me this is along the lines of Digital Lasers and Drop Pod and Rhino for one squad of Tact marines. Not trying to be jerk, but there is some major stretching going on in this thread.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kitzz wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Kitzz wrote:But the context doesn't make it clear that they are the same. So that is exactly the sort of thing that they're doing.

I disagee.

I know about the 0-1 restriction, I was referring to all the different options and types available to the squadron if the tank is an Exterminator or Punisher for example.

Correct me I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure Leman Russ Battle Tank is the full name of the basic, battlecannon carrying Leman Russ.

I would understand if it said "0-1 Leman Russ", where there are many different types of tanks that are Leman Russes.

You are correct, there is a Leman Russ Battle Tank. But there are also other tanks listed in the codex entry for Leman Russ Battle Tank (the Punisher, for example). If we are saying that Terminator Armor = Tactical Dreadnought Armor = Terminator = Space Marine Terminator, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to say Leman Russ Battle Tank = Leman Russ Exterminator = Leman Russ Demolisher etc.

No, you can't claim that LRBT equals the Exterminator. If were going hardcore RAW then LRBT cannot equal an Exterminator or Demolisher. Personally I would be down with that, but since we are in a thread that argues that an IC in Termie armor can sweeping advance then we are dividing by 0 anyways.