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.

 Ghaz wrote:
Not saying something is not actively doing anything.

Too true!

Not adding a rule saying a suit of Terminator Armour is Terminator Armour is not the same as actively saying it isn't.

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. 

Firstly who decides what part of the rules is fluff? You've posted no support that the part of the rules that call it TDA can be ignored.

Secondly omission of a statement is not going out of their way to actively do anything. Particularly when that statement is already clear as day in the rules.

Except when you ACTIVELY take additional steps to avoid using specific terminology

 Leth wrote:
Except when you ACTIVELY take additional steps to avoid using specific terminology

You keep saying actively, like you have some insight that they deliberately didn't repeat that it's Terminator Armour.

Mistakenly didn't add it, or just felt that stating it once was enough. These two are far more likely then "they ACTIVELY didn't repeat themselves, it must not be Terminator Armour!! (Even after they say it is)"

So still no evidence you are free to ignore the part of the rules that tells us this is TDA?

Whilst claiming omission of a redundant reminder to use a different redundant reminder is actively telling us that it is not TDA? Stylistically (something GW annoyingly do which often breeds a lack of clarity) repeating the same words doesn't read well so it is unsurprising that instead of repeating it is Terminator armour in the second paragraph of rules they instead list all the relevant TDA rules this is consistent with say the Cuirass in the GK codex where they don't mention it is TDA in the first paragraph so do in the second yet still remind us that all the usual TDA rules apply (along with IWND & FnP).

Well, please show me where in the RULES portion it says it is terminator armor. Regardless of what you argue about the fluff section all that matters is the RULES section. The rules section says nothing about terminator armor. Until you can show that it is terminator armor in the RULES there is nothing to support your argument.

I am simply arguing intent at this point.

Please cite the rule that states that "fluff" text is fluff, and not rules.

Bear in mind that when determining the weapons affected by the U. Plasma syphon "fluiff" plasma text was used, you may have some shaky ground

The usual determinant is: does it have an ingame effect? With drop pods "hatches are blown" can have no in game effect, as models tend not to have explosives inside them. A piece of text stating "htis is a piece of TDA" (or words to that effect) clearly DOES have an ingame effect.

 Leth wrote:
Well, please show me where in the RULES portion it says it is terminator armor. Regardless of what you argue about the fluff section all that matters is the RULES section. The rules section says nothing about terminator armor. Until you can show that it is terminator armor in the RULES there is nothing to support your argument.

I am simply arguing intent at this point.

How do you determine which parts of the rules are fluff? Please quote the page reference that tells you to ignore parts of the rules? Or the part that states the italics section is not rules?

Very well I will go through my books, read the fluff sections and use that to determine how something plays on the table top. Because that is basically what you are saying.

Harald is immune to flickering fire, heldrakes template, most template weapons and anything that sounds like fire because that's what the fluff section says, even though the rules specificly say what flame weapons are counted. Salamanders get re-roll saves against all the same things as well

Yarrick has the rules for Lord Commissar even though it is not listed in his rules anywhere.

You start a dangerous precedent if you actually want to argue that the fluff section can be used as the basis for rules discussion.

I have since dropped the armor since it is not worth the loss of invul for IWND on my guy so I have nothing invested in one way or the other.

This also means that a model with the armor no longer benefits from a teleport homer. Like I said, being consistent.

We don't set a dangerous precedent at all those rules you've listed don't work that way. If you're ignoring stuff that the rules state with no permission to do so how are you claiming RaW?

 FlingitNow wrote:
We don't set a dangerous precedent at all those rules you've listed don't work that way. If you're ignoring stuff that the rules state with no permission to do so how are you claiming RaW?

You were arguing that the italics are part of the rules.

The things I listed above are in the italics above the rules that were mentioned.

No they aren't. Lets look at Harald Deathwolf (as I have that codex in my hand the same is true of the other rules):

"This enchanted cloak shields Harald from fire and flame.

Harald Deathwolf is uneffected by all Pyromancy psychic powers and all flamer weapons as defined in the Warhammer 40,000: The Rules. "

So taking everything in italics into account he is shielded from fire and flame, this means nothing from a rules stand point. Unless you have somewhere where that is defined? Then we are given an immunity to Pyromancy powers and all the flamer weapons in the rulebook. Without the italics it doesn't even make sense as it says only this:

"Harald Deathwolf is uneffected by all Pyromancy psychic powers and all flamer weapons as defined in the"

Stopping mid sentence!

 Leth wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
We don't set a dangerous precedent at all those rules you've listed don't work that way. If you're ignoring stuff that the rules state with no permission to do so how are you claiming RaW?

You were arguing that the italics are part of the rules.

The things I listed above are in the italics above the rules that were mentioned.

Where are flamer weapons defined as being "flame" or "fire"
Page and graph please.

Any weapon that lists flame or fire in its italics section according to your argument would qualify since that is being included for rules now.

You are arguing that because it is described as a set of terminator armor in its italics section that for rules purposes it is treated as a set of terminator armor.

If the italics section is being treated as rules now than ANY weapon that includes flame or fire in its description he is now immune to since in italics it grants him immunity to flame or fire.


You are trying to argue that the italics section qualifies as rules here, but doesnt elsewhere. If you are going to be consistent, than be consistent.

Except his rules actually specify exactly what he is immune to. Specific > general.

Next.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except his rules actually specify exactly what he is immune to. Specific > general.

Next.

And the rules specifically say what the armor does. No where in the rules does it say terminator armor. You are trying to add terminator armor to the listing in the rules section based on the italics.

If you are adding rules to something that are not there based on the italics, then why cant it be done for other things.

Good try with the Next though.

 Leth wrote:
Any weapon that lists flame or fire in its italics section according to your argument would qualify since that is being included for rules now.

You are arguing that because it is described as a set of terminator armor in its italics section that for rules purposes it is treated as a set of terminator armor.

If the italics section is being treated as rules now than ANY weapon that includes flame or fire in its description he is now immune to since in italics it grants him immunity to flame or fire.


You are trying to argue that the italics section qualifies as rules here, but doesnt elsewhere. If you are going to be consistent, than be consistent.

I've quoted the entirety of the rule above which does not say what you are claiming. So we know what you're saying is false unless you have some actual rules support?

 FlingitNow wrote:
No they aren't. Lets look at Harald Deathwolf (as I have that codex in my hand the same is true of the other rules):

"This enchanted cloak shields Harald from fire and flame.

Harald Deathwolf is uneffected by all Pyromancy psychic powers and all flamer weapons as defined in the Warhammer 40,000: The Rules. "

So taking everything in italics into account he is shielded from fire and flame, this means nothing from a rules stand point. Unless you have somewhere where that is defined? Then we are given an immunity to Pyromancy powers and all the flamer weapons in the rulebook. Without the italics it doesn't even make sense as it says only this:

"Harald Deathwolf is uneffected by all Pyromancy psychic powers and all flamer weapons as defined in the"

Stopping mid sentence!

The italics state is a "suit of ancient Terminator armour." Where in the rules is that defined? It's defined in the portion below, which doesn't include that it is a suit of Terminator armor as defined in the SW codex or main rule book. Also, the alleged prohibition is in the "Options" portion, which has a defined reference to "Terminator Armor" above it. That section does not included the armor. It is part of Relics of the Fang/Great Wolf. Which part of the rules says that a Wolf Lord that takes a Relic of the Fang/Great Wolf can't have a Thunderwolf Mount?

Ancient isn't defined so means nothing Terminator armour is...

 Leth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except his rules actually specify exactly what he is immune to. Specific > general.

Next.

And the rules specifically say what the armor does. No where in the rules does it say terminator armor. You are trying to add terminator armor to the listing in the rules section based on the italics.

If you are adding rules to something that are not there based on the italics, then why cant it be done for other things.

Good try with the Next though.

Yes, and note that being Terminator Armour does not contradict anything in the non-italic section. In fact it reinforces it...

Whereas stating you are immune to more weapons than those listed DOES contradict the rule SPECIFYING what you are immune to. Thats what "specific > general" means

This reminds me of the discussion when DA came out, is the lions wrath (or whatever the heck the Bolter relic is called) affected by the SoD?"

IIRC, most were saying no, because it was a Bolter in fluff only.

If someone wants to search for that thread, it would be interesting to see who has changed views.

The rules for Terminator armour call it Terminator Armour by name, but at no point is there a rule stating that Terminator Armour is Terminator Armour.

So if Terminator Armour doesn't need a rule stating that it is Terminator Armour, why would armour described as Terminator Armour need a rule stating it's Terminator Armour?

 grendel083 wrote:
The rules for Terminator armour call it Terminator Armour by name, but at no point is there a rule stating that Terminator Armour is Terminator Armour.

That sentence makes no sense.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Ancient isn't defined so means nothing Terminator armour is...

Now your talking out of both sides of your mouth. Either the italicized portion contains undefined portions which are clarified below, or it doesn't. You've decided to make a claim about "fire and flame" and then totally abandon it altogether when discussing another term. If it's "Terminator Armor" do I have to give up everything as defined in "Options" to get it? Do I get a Storm Bolter and Power Weapon which I can then sub out for a free Storm Shield? Does it cost me 40 points? If your answer is "no" to any of those, why? The very same justification for saying no to any of those is a reason that a Thunderwolf Mount can be taken with it.

Angelic wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
The rules for Terminator armour call it Terminator Armour by name, but at no point is there a rule stating that Terminator Armour is Terminator Armour.

That sentence makes no sense.

Read it a few times. It will sink in

The Armour of Asvald Stormwrack is described as a suit of Terminator Armour. But since no rule says that it is Terminator Armour, some claim it isn't.
Compare that to basic Terminator Armour.
That again has no rule that says it's Terminator Armour. It's only named and described as such.

So to claim that to name it as Terminator armour isn't enough for it to be Terminator Armour, and that it must have a rule stating it. Bear in mind that Standard Terminator Armour also doesn't have a rule stating it's Terminator armour, only a name and a description.


Or in other words: This thread is ridiculous.

 grendel083 wrote:

Angelic wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
The rules for Terminator armour call it Terminator Armour by name, but at no point is there a rule stating that Terminator Armour is Terminator Armour.

That sentence makes no sense.

Read it a few times. It will sink in

The Armour of Asvald Stormwrack is described as a suit of Terminator Armour. But since no rule says that it is Terminator Armour, some claim it isn't.
Compare that to basic Terminator Armour.
That again has no rule that says it's Terminator Armour. It's only named and described as such.

A rule naming it as such is a rule stating it is that thing. "Hit and Run" is a rule that says it is "Hit and Run". "Fight on the Move" is not "Hit & Run", but does include conditions where H&R may be granted.

 grendel083 wrote:

Or in other words: This thread is ridiculous.

You got me there. There probably is no reason to argue further about 50 points simply for IWND.

Your on one hand saying yes GW Writes and edits horrible rules, then on the other hand saying they went out of their way to make it not terminator armor. They never go out of the way. At best they are always in their own way constantly.

If it was so clear you wouldn't need to argue semantics and it would indeed be clear cut. It's TDA nothing else matters.

So... we're done here, yes?