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.

 Hellebore wrote:


Yes but by not mentioning the type of armour or dice it opens the whole argument up. Especially for caos Terminators where their standard baked in armour is terminator so applying the mark over the top makes it very hard to parse it not applying because it specifically says the armour they are wearing morphs into chaos armour which increases the save to 2+. Which so far parses across both armour types because it functionally works for both.

Abaddon isn't the best example unfortunately because although the entry says his marks are unusual, it actually lists the lack of frenzy specifically as an example..which requires that the +1 is the normal part of the mark. And as this shows that terminator armour can go to 2+ with a make, it makes the argument against it even harder to accept.

You see, this is exactly what I was talking about. It says Chaos armor gets a 2+ save, which absent any other information means a d6. There is zero ambiguity. One may as well say it doesn't preclude using 3 or 4 dice.

"Chaos armor provides a 2+ save for both power armor and Terminator armor alike" would appear on the page if that was the designer's intent.

Abaddon is completely irrelevant to the discussion. He's unique, which means he's not the template for choices by other units.

This kind of rules interpretation fueled many a debate back in the day, and the only way to resolve them is to go with the written text, not try to draw analogies, or try to intuit a new rule based on other rules elsewhere. That way lies madness.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:


Yes but by not mentioning the type of armour or dice it opens the whole argument up. Especially for caos Terminators where their standard baked in armour is terminator so applying the mark over the top makes it very hard to parse it not applying because it specifically says the armour they are wearing morphs into chaos armour which increases the save to 2+. Which so far parses across both armour types because it functionally works for both.

Abaddon isn't the best example unfortunately because although the entry says his marks are unusual, it actually lists the lack of frenzy specifically as an example..which requires that the +1 is the normal part of the mark. And as this shows that terminator armour can go to 2+ with a make, it makes the argument against it even harder to accept.

You see, this is exactly what I was talking about. It says Chaos armor gets a 2+ save, which absent any other information means a d6. There is zero ambiguity. One may as well say it doesn't preclude using 3 or 4 dice.

"Chaos armor provides a 2+ save for both power armor and Terminator armor alike" would appear on the page if that was the designer's intent.

Abaddon is completely irrelevant to the discussion. He's unique, which means he's not the template for choices by other units.

This kind of rules interpretation fueled many a debate back in the day, and the only way to resolve them is to go with the written text, not try to draw analogies, or try to intuit a new rule based on other rules elsewhere. That way lies madness.

You say to go with the written text, but the written text says 'their armour becomes 2+'. You're inserting the notion that that means it has to be a 1D6 armour suit. The words as written are, the unit's armour goes to 2+. therefore if the unit has terminator armour, power armour, exo armour, flak armour or whatever, it goes to 2+.

Where are you drawing the conclusion that 'absent information' that means a 1D6 save? It doesn't need more information to tell you any armour turns into a 2+, because it says "whose armour grows to be part of their bodies so they can never remove it. This chaos armour gives the chaos champion an armour saving throw of 2+'.

That description applies to whatever armour the model is wearing, it just say 'whose armour'. Terminator armour is 'whose armour' of a terminator squad. There's no real ambiguity there. you're inserting an assumption that it means a d6 save when there is no way you can draw that conclusion.

My argument isn't whether that's what it SHOULD say, or whether that's a good idea. Only what the words say.

And the daemon world army list has chaos warriors in carapace armour that can take this mark, so their armour goes from 4+ to 2+. But the dice value is not relevant to this conversation, because it's only talking about the save value.

You'll have to justify why you think statement 'this chaos armour gives the champion an armour saving throw of 2+' can only apply to 1d6 save armour, and not any other kind. because it just says armour.

That comes from the basic rules for armour saves, which specify that you roll a single D6. Terminator armour specifies that it rolls 2D6. Chaos armour does not... it just says that it has a 2+ save. So by default, that is a 2+ save on 1D6, because that's how the rules work. For 2D6, the rules would have to explicitly say that's what it gets, as it does for Abaddon.

If it was explicitly just a +1 to their armour save, then they would still get 2D6... and the Chaos Warriors with Marks would only get a 3+ save.

 Hellebore wrote:
You'll have to justify why you think statement 'this chaos armour gives the champion an armour saving throw of 2+' can only apply to 1d6 save armour, and not any other kind. because it just says armour.

Rulebook, p. 33, second paragraph: "To see if armour successfully stops damage roll a D6."

That is the default. Special armors like Terminator and Exo-armor have their own rules and absent a specific reference, that is the rule.

Neither of those contradict this point though.

It just says the armour goes to 2+.

you have to argue that terminator armour isn't armour for this to apply. There is no way to split that from the text.

It says the armour worn. Terminator armour is armour and it is worn. I'm failing to see what connection these have.

It's not referring to a generic armour or a hypothetical armour, it's referring to the armour the model that has the mark is wearing. Terminator squads list terminator armour as their armour. applying a mark to that unit says that the armour they wear goes to 2+. They are wearing terminator armour. it doesn't matter what the 'default' armour save is, because the mark specifies the armour worn.

The only way I can see this precluding terminator armour, is if you can define it as not armour, or not being worn by a unit.


I'm really not trying to be contrary, but the language in the mark of khorne doesn't have anything to do with what the rules for armour say, it has to do with what armour the model is wearing.

I dunno. It seems that, as written, you would get a 2+ armor save. Terminator Armour lets you roll 2d6, but that doesn't remove the 2+. It is ambiguous, however.

There's plenty of room to argue that that's too powerful and shouldn't be the case, though. But I don't see the argument that the actual words HAVE to mean it's 2+ on 1d6.

 Hellebore wrote:
Neither of those contradict this point though.

It just says the armour goes to 2+.

you have to argue that terminator armour isn't armour for this to apply. There is no way to split that from the text.

No, you just have to argue that Terminator armour isn't Chaos armour.

And that 'a 2+ save' and 'a 2+ save on 2D6' are not the same thing.

Both of which are true.

It's not referring to a generic armour or a hypothetical armour, it's referring to the armour the model that has the mark is wearing.

It's referring to the Chaos armour that the model with the mark is wearing.

...applying a mark to that unit says that the armour they wear goes to 2+.

No it doesn't. It has a fluff bit that says that their armour fuses to their body, and then it has a rules bit that says that they are wearing Chaos armour that conveys a 2+ save.

 insaniak wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Neither of those contradict this point though.

It just says the armour goes to 2+.

you have to argue that terminator armour isn't armour for this to apply. There is no way to split that from the text.

No, you just have to argue that Terminator armour isn't Chaos armour.

And that 'a 2+ save' and 'a 2+ save on 2D6' are not the same thing.

Both of which are true.

It's not referring to a generic armour or a hypothetical armour, it's referring to the armour the model that has the mark is wearing.

It's referring to the Chaos armour that the model with the mark is wearing.

...applying a mark to that unit says that the armour they wear goes to 2+.

No it doesn't. It has a fluff bit that says that their armour fuses to their body, and then it has a rules bit that says that they are wearing Chaos armour that conveys a 2+ save.

Well the disagreement comes down to whether you consider the text describing where the armour comes from to be relevant or not, so I can see better where your argument is coming from now.

2nd ed had a bad habit of running fluff into rules quite a lot. I liked it from an atmospheric perspective as it tangibly linked the mechanic to the thing it was simulating in a satisfying way.

But just to challenge this somewhat, we can break down the mark like so:

Khorne
Champions that bear the Mark of the God Khorne are savage fighters whose armour grows to be part of their bodies so they can never remove it.

This chaos armour gives the chaos champion an armour saving throw of 2+.

So, the argument that it's a fluff bit is actually not that simple. Because the 'fluff' bit starts with using the rule name capitalised (Mark of the God Khorne), then gives some flavour in savage fighters whose armour grows etc.

But THEN, the ostensibly 'rules' bit of this paragraph, starts with 'This', assigning the rule ownership of the fluff, which tangibly ties its description of 'armour grows to be part of their bodies'.

So i don't think you can dismiss the descriptor when the rule itself is relying on it to determine what the rule is applied to.


Now I could see an argument for this turning terminator armour into 2+ on 1D6 chaos armour and thus a downgrade, or 2+ on 2D6 and thus an upgrade, but I can't see this mark not interacting with a unit's armour at all.

 insaniak wrote:
It has a fluff bit that says that their armour fuses to their body, and then it has a rules bit that says that they are wearing Chaos armour that conveys a 2+ save.

To my mind the fluff bit is one of the reasons I lean towards the 2+ on 2d6, honestly. The fluffy and natural assumption is that Terminator Berzerkers are fused with their armor just like Champions and normal Berzerkers. It'd be weird if they weren't. (And it also follows the Rule of Cool).

Another clue to me is that an Aspiring Champion model with the same stats as a Terminator/Veteran buys the Mark of Khorne for 15 points, yet it's 20 for a Terminator. It seems unlikely that a Terminator would pay more for the Mark if the Mark is losing half its benefit, and it makes sense that a Terminator would pay more for it because of their Armor.

Unless I'm mistaken, having just gone back and looked at the book, RAW Terminators shouldn't get any bonus from any Mark since the section on Marks is explicity about Champions/Characters, which the Terminators are not. Imo getting super hung up on technical reading to find the answers just isn't that reliable in the environment of 2nd. There's a good deal of sloppiness.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Well, it was pretty hard to run away from the faster Assault units in 2nd too. And in 3rd I definitely had battles where I dodged incoming assaults by hopping into transports and just driving away. I found 3rd to feel more fluid in general because of the simplified shooting and CC rules, lack of game-interrupting overwatch, plus cover rules and shorter ranges incentivising Marines to move around more.

Pretty hard is still better than impossible. Besides, one didn't have to fully escape, just delay the impact for another turn of shooting.

For the lack of time I'm just going to respond to this bit for now. You used the word "impossible" and I gave you an example why it wasn't (transports). I used the phrase "pretty hard" because I don't like using absolute terms regarding systems woth many variables, but in reality it sure seems impossible for a model with a move of 4" to get away from a Jump Pack or Bike model with a move of 18-30", even if they have the benefit of being able to run a whole 8". I think you're trying to find a difference that isn't there. Fast units can run down slower units in either system, likewise it's possible in both systems to backpedal and shoot.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Another clue to me is that an Aspiring Champion model with the same stats as a Terminator/Veteran buys the Mark of Khorne for 15 points, yet it's 20 for a Terminator. It seems unlikely that a Terminator would pay more for the Mark if the Mark is losing half its benefit, and it makes sense that a Terminator would pay more for it because of their Armor.

The problem with this argument is that the Champion pays 15pts compared to Termies 20... but pays 10 instead of 20 for the Mark of Nurgle, and 5 instead of 10 for the Mark of Slaanesh. So Terminators pay twice as much for the two marks that they gain full benefit from, but only 25% more for the MoK... which would seem to support them not getting the full benefit from it.


For what it's worth, it's most definitely sloppy writing, and I can see the argument for the 2+... I just don't think it's the intention. I also don't think the studio noticed that it was unclear, because there were no cult terminator models being used when the rules were written.

And that being said, as I mentioned earlier, Cult Terminators are a bit awful generally in 2nd ed... so in my 'theoretically in progress' rewrite version, I would make the MoK explicitly a +1 to armour save, but I would also most likely be going with Terminators rolling a D12 instead of 2D6, which makes a 2+ save a little less silly and makes terminators of all flavours slightly less durable across the board.

 insaniak wrote:

No, you just have to argue that Terminator armour isn't Chaos armour.

And that 'a 2+ save' and 'a 2+ save on 2D6' are not the same thing.

Both of which are true.

Correct.

It's Chaos armor, which like all other armor uses a D6. It says right there in the main rule book that saves use a D6. If an additional die is rolled, it should specify in the description.

It does not.

It is really quite simple. You can have Terminator armor or Chaos armor. There is no cost given for Chaos Terminator armor, and the only example is a unique special character whose very description highlights its uniqueness and how its rules are NOT normal rules.

Why is Terminator Armour more specific than Mark Of Khorne?

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Another clue to me is that an Aspiring Champion model with the same stats as a Terminator/Veteran buys the Mark of Khorne for 15 points, yet it's 20 for a Terminator. It seems unlikely that a Terminator would pay more for the Mark if the Mark is losing half its benefit, and it makes sense that a Terminator would pay more for it because of their Armor.

The problem with this argument is that the Champion pays 15pts compared to Termies 20... but pays 10 instead of 20 for the Mark of Nurgle, and 5 instead of 10 for the Mark of Slaanesh. So Terminators pay twice as much for the two marks that they gain full benefit from, but only 25% more for the MoK... which would seem to support them not getting the full benefit from it.

Fair point, fair point.

 insaniak wrote:
For what it's worth, it's most definitely sloppy writing, and I can see the argument for the 2+... I just don't think it's the intention. I also don't think the studio noticed that it was unclear, because there were no cult terminator models being used when the rules were written.

And that being said, as I mentioned earlier, Cult Terminators are a bit awful generally in 2nd ed... so in my 'theoretically in progress' rewrite version, I would make the MoK explicitly a +1 to armour save, but I would also most likely be going with Terminators rolling a D12 instead of 2D6, which makes a 2+ save a little less silly and makes terminators of all flavours slightly less durable across the board.

If you say that Cult Terminators were a bit awful, why would you decrease their armor effectiveness for a rewrite?

 Insectum7 wrote:
If you say that Cult Terminators were a bit awful, why would you decrease their armor effectiveness for a rewrite?

Because the change to armour doesn't just affect cult terminators, but all terminators, and is overall an improvement (IMO, obviously).

Cult Terminators should be paying at most the same as an Aspiring Champion for their Marks.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why is Terminator Armour more specific than Mark Of Khorne?

The Mark of Khorne specifies a new type of armor, Chaos armor. It does not say that all armor worn gets a 2+ save.

Part of this is how GW designers were often too clever by half, but this is a prime example of people reading stuff that simply isn't there.

"Here is a new kind of armor, gives a 2+ save."

"Oh, so it affects Terminator armor?"

"Where did that come from?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

The problem with this argument is that the Champion pays 15pts compared to Termies 20... but pays 10 instead of 20 for the Mark of Nurgle, and 5 instead of 10 for the Mark of Slaanesh. So Terminators pay twice as much for the two marks that they gain full benefit from, but only 25% more for the MoK... which would seem to support them not getting the full benefit from it.

Dissertation-length posts have been written at how awful GW point calculations were (and maybe still are).

If anything, it argues against the notion because since when has GW points ever made sense?

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
If you say that Cult Terminators were a bit awful, why would you decrease their armor effectiveness for a rewrite?

Because the change to armour doesn't just affect cult terminators, but all terminators, and is overall an improvement (IMO, obviously).

I'm confused. You wrote that changing to a 2+ on a D12 makes them slightly less durable across the board, which I would read as not an improvement.

Cult Terminators should be paying at most the same as a Champion for their Marks.

If they share the same stats but Terminators have better armor I'm not sure that's a sound limitation.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
If you say that Cult Terminators were a bit awful, why would you decrease their armor effectiveness for a rewrite?

Because the change to armour doesn't just affect cult terminators, but all terminators, and is overall an improvement (IMO, obviously).

I'm confused. You wrote that changing to a 2+ on a D12 makes them slightly less durable across the board, which I would read as not an improvement.

Cult Terminators should be paying at most the same as a Champion for their Marks.

If they share the same stats but Terminators have better armor I'm not sure that's a sound limitation.

An improvement, I assume they meant, to the game overall. Not a buff to Terminators, but a way to make the game flow better.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm confused. You wrote that changing to a 2+ on a D12 makes them slightly less durable across the board, which I would read as not an improvement.

Yeah, I can see how that was unclear... Terminators saving on a D12 instead of 2D6 would be an improvement to the game, not an improvement of Terminators.

If they share the same stats but Terminators have better armor I'm not sure that's a sound limitation.

Champions pay the same for the mark regardless of whether they are in Power or Terminator armour. The difference is that Terminator armour is itself really expensive.

Re improvement: Gotcha

Re Mark costs: Imo it's more context dependent, but often close enough.

I think if nothing else this conversation is the posterchild of 'what was wrong with 2nd ed 40k?'


Yet the blending of fluff and rules is partly why I loved it so much - which you could still do with more precise wording.

I find it so much more evocative and immersive when it's all meshed together, like the rules are almost just mathematical descriptors of the fluff itself, rather than an abstract concept applied alongside it.

The modern game is very much more precise if wordy, but I just lose that evocative connection to the rules. So many units now have special rules that have no actual fluff basis, or are representing anything about the unit specifically.

Basically, I would find a novel written using the special rules of the current game as real abilities highly cringe - intercessor john, using his special target elimination skills, shoot more at the enemy. his friend, sternguard joe could only fire at normal speed, but he could decide to target specific locations on the carnifex to wound it easier. Alas for intercessor john, he hadn't learned how to target the eyes of the enemy and so was relegated to spraying all his bullets. Luckily because he was near a building that was important to his captain in orbit, the enemy were going to lose by not standing closer to it.

While in 2nd ed a frenzied berserker could absolutely be described slashing with such skill he could still parry the enemy.

The 2nd ed rules for me are too dense, especially the CC ones, but the high level of simulation made it far more emotionally enjoyable.

I'm just not as invested in measuring OC values and trying to find the best attack combo

 Hellebore wrote:
I think if nothing else this conversation is the posterchild of 'what was wrong with 2nd ed 40k?'

I was thinking exactly the same thing...

So many rules arguments in 2nd ed that boiled down to 'which bit is fluff and which bit is rules?' ... Although, to be fair to the writers, some of us were definitely taking the rules far more seriously than they ever intended us to.

For what it’s worth, the Terminator save question was addressed in a White Dwarf FAQ, they remain at a 3+ on 2D6 as ‘Chaos Armour is not Terminator Armour’.

Luke82 wrote:
For what it’s worth, the Terminator save question was addressed in a White Dwarf FAQ, they remain at a 3+ on 2D6 as ‘Chaos Armour is not Terminator Armour’.

Sounds great. But which White Dwarf? I have most from that era but could not find it.

 insaniak wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
I think if nothing else this conversation is the posterchild of 'what was wrong with 2nd ed 40k?'

I was thinking exactly the same thing...

So many rules arguments in 2nd ed that boiled down to 'which bit is fluff and which bit is rules?' ... Although, to be fair to the writers, some of us were definitely taking the rules far more seriously than they ever intended us to.

It's been a general constant since GW started writing rules

Part of the reason it never really goes away is that every time they do a new edition they re-write everything. If anything it makes it worse because they do often change fundamentals whilst keeping the same names so its very easy to slip into playing "how it was last edition" without realising.
Layer on top when you used to get a lot of "Well my codex is 2 editions behind so some bits of it are entirely different to a new one and don't work quite right".

There's also clearly a push toward things like "every unit must have a special ability" and "ever ability must be uniquely named" which results in lots of non-standard terms being used for the same thing. A lot of "gets +x armour save" abilities which can't be countered or changed (and thus technically would just work being put on the profile armour save itself); but all under different names.



One constant has always been GW's rather casual approach to writing rules layered with issues. My feeling is that modern GW keeps trying to tackle this by making rules simpler and simpler; but never really addressing the fundamental problems which are the scattershot style of how information is presented and how it layers up and all. So they keep simplifying to make it easier to play; but not resolving the core problems. Honestly is you look at the future I can see a time where GW is going to have to make some really crunchy complicated core rules because they'll have diluted so much it turns the playerbase away

It's been fascinating reading through the thread.

I was in my last year of secondary school when 2nd edition came out, and at the time RT/40k was really popular at the school's wargaming club, especially when White Dwarf began publishing army lists.

My memory is a bit hazy on specifics, but I remember 2nd edition was deeply unpopular with everyone when it came out, with complaints about it being both dumbed down in places, and overcomplicated in others. The character/hero stuff annoyed people, along with changes to established army lists.

Some of us stuck to 1st edition, while others moved over to Adeptus Titanicus which was gaining traction at the club for those wanting to fight bigger battles on the cheap.

In fairness 1st to 2nd was probably one of the biggest shifts in the games history in terms of style/structure and focus of the rules.

I'm still of the mind that 2nd edition core rules were pretty solid, all things considering. What made the game a mess were redundant table checks and the lack of tweaks to the wargear and some units, which created beardy/cheesy combos that got out of hand by the players leaning into them. With a bit of FAQery, dialing down on them table checks and some TLC to the wargear & datasheets, the edition could have been superb.

Certainly 3rd Ed cut much too deep. But, if we also look at Epic 40,000? That seems to have been the studio approach at the time.

3rd Ed is a more accessible game. But too much of the nuttiness was removed.

For instance? Sure, 2nd Ed Ork Artillery was daft in terms of rules, with often multiple rolls needed to work out a single shot. And 3rd Ed was just…not very good heavy weapon teams.

One was too much, the other too little. And there’s a lot of design space between the two.

Which is a hallmark of GW rules design.

Identify a problem

Fix by overcompensating way way too much

Create a new problem



Rinse and repeat the above. Part of it is clearly driven by the "change for the sake of change every edition" system; which in itself leans well into overcompensating so that you're not refining the rule, but changing it outright so its different.

I used to really enjoy 2nd ed, especially once you'd gotten to a point where you weren't having to check charts for weapon modifiers all the time.

It was just the time a game took for me; a 2000 point game always seemed to take hours, and close combat took forever if you had a melee army, which I did. I preferred it to 3rd ed, but when that came out I did enjoy being able to get 2-3 games in in an evening, rather than just 1 that sometimes didn't finish.