[Rules] Terminator Invulnerable Save

[cfoley]

I was looking at the Terminator entries in Codex Space Marines last night and noticed something very odd:

It appears that Terminator squads don't get a 5+ invulnerable save.

Bear with me. Nowhere does it say that they have Terminator armour. The 2+ is in their profile. The +1A is in their profile. Deep striking is listed as a special rule. No mention of a 5+ invulnerable.

Now, I haven't noticed this before and have been playing that they do have a 5+ save since it was introduced in third edition. I also believe (but obviously can't prove) that the intent is to give them the invulnerable save.

However, how can anyone justify using such an advantageous rule when it isn't listed in the codex?. "Oh, so you want a 5+ inv save on your Terminators. Fine, all my grots are monstrous creatures with lascannons and lightning claws."

[Fixer]

I believe the Terminator 5+ Invulnerable save is under the Wargear description.

[Popsumpot]

In the section under wargear, it states that Space Marine Terminators wears Tactical Dreadnought Suites. (Under the Terminator Armour entry.)

I was surprised at this when I spotted it too.

[cfoley]

After reading the wargear entry (again) I am confused to where it states that Terminators actually have it. Those rules apply to models who buy it from the armoury or are listed as having Terminator Armour.

Terminator squads don't have Terminator Armour as defined by the armoury. They have a series of specific upgrades which are similar, but not identical, to those afforded my the Armoury's Terminator Armour.

I've just noticed that Terminator squads can also make sweeping advances.

[Dark Watcher]

Does this mean that the sergeant of a terminator squad can take any wargear and not just those items marked with a "T"? Terminator sergeant with Plasma pistols!

[cfoley]

Apparently so. Completely ridiculous but also completely legal.

[BrianGeneral]

I guess it's not the case. Terminators are considered to have Terminator Armour and weapons from wargear, obviously, so that line of 5+ Invulnerable should work with them.

However, it's nice to know this to scare others away.:p

[Ap0k]

This is one of the reasons why RAW can be so utterly ridiculous at times.

They don't wear terminator armour. It's not listed in the unit wargear/weapons/items. They don't get the invulnerable save.

Obviously this is not the intent, but until Terminators are listed as wearing termy armour, they don't get any of the advantages (which, I guess would mean no more move and fire assault cannons, hrhr).

Of course, nobody plays it like this, because it's stupid (http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?p=1564126#post1564126). :rolleyes:

[Popsumpot]

Below are some evidence that Terminators are equipped with Terminator Armour.


1st. The Codex says the following under wargear entry of Terminator Armour.

…Space Marines in Terminator armour are capable of moving and firing with heavy weapon. On the other hand, this armour is somewhat cumbersome, so Space Marine Terminators…
By the words “on the other hand”, it shows that this quote refers to one unit, and confirms that “Space Marines in Terminator Armour” are the same as “Space Marine Terminators.”


2nd. The Codex says the following under Land Raider/ Land Raider Crusader entry under army list.

A Land Raider can transport up to *number* Space Marines in power armour, or *number* Space Marine Terminators
By wording of “or”, it shows that this rule express the statement that “Space Marines in power armour” is not the same as “Space Marine Terminators”, and also show that Terminators are larger in size because the Land Raider can carry twice as much Power armoured marines. There is only three kinds of armour available to Space Marines: Scout Carapace, Power Armour and Terminator Armour. By logical reasoning, the rule above states that what ever Space Marine Terminators wear, it is bigger than the Power Armour, hence they must be wearing Terminator Armour.

3rd. The Codex says the following under Aspire To Glory under Disadvantages of the Traits section

…Dreadnoughts and Terminator armour for example require rare artificer skills. A recently founded Chapter may take centuries to acquire such wquipment and, should battle losses be heavy, replacements are not readily available… *the following rules sets limits on Terminator Squads of all kinds and Dreadnoughts*
The first section of this text shows that new chapters are low on Dreadnoughts and Terminator armour, therefore, they are very precious, so the chapter doesn’t have as much of these resources available for battle as other older chapters. The following rules restrict Terminator Squads, showing that there is a connection between the lack of Terminator armour and the lack of Terminator Squads, therefore, by logical reasoning, we arrive at the conclusion that Terminators do indeed wear Terminator Armour.


4th The Codex the following in Captain Lysander’s entry under Special Characters, and the Terminator Armour entry under Wargear.

…Also, any model wearing Terminator armour can be teleported onto the battlefield, and set up using the Deep Strike rule…

Lysander has become adept at leading his company into battle by teleportation…If an Imperial Fist army including Lysander elects to deploying its Terminators by Deep Strike, Lysander will lead the assault…
The above text taking from the Lysander rules states that the methode of deep strike that Terminators use is teleportation, backed up by the fact that the name of that rule is “Teleport Assault”. Combining this information with the entry in the Terminator entry in the army list, and the information under Wargear leads me to believe that Terminators only have the Deep Strike rule because they can teleport. Adeptus Astartes do not use teleportation on any other subject other than Space Marines who are wearing Terminator Armour, this fact backed up by the Wargear entry. Therefore, Terminators deep strike because they can teleport, they can teleport because Terminator Armour enables them to, hence Terminators wear Termiantor Armour.


5th The Codex says the following in the Terminator entry under Army List, and the Armoury Section

Chainfist…(models in Terminator armour only)

Any model with a power fist may replace it with a Chainfist at *more points*
The connection between the above two rules is that Chainfists may only be taken by models wearing Terminator Armour, and for the option of upgrading from a power fist to a Chainfist available to Terminators, it means that Terminators are wearing Terminator Armour.


6th The Codex says the following in the Terminator entry under Army List, and the Cyclone Missile Launcher under the Wargear section.

Up to two Terminators…or may add a cyclone missile launcher to their existing weaponry at *more points*

The Cyclone is a specially designed missile launcher that can be used by Space marines in Terminator armour. The Terminators is equipped with a…
By the wordings of the above rule, we again see a connection between “Space Marines in Terminator Armour” and “Terminators”. Backed up by the entry from the Terminators rules, it supports that Terminators wear Terminator Armour.


With all the above information, I hope I have cleared this issue.

Note: texts between the * are where I censored rules such as points values and other important things so that non-codex-owning persons can take advantage of this post

[Gotchaye]

It's still not there. By the rules as written, Termies don't have Termie armor.

Addressing in order -

1. The quote says nothing of the sort. It only says that Terminator Armor being heavy means that Terminators have a special rule. That in no way means that Terminators wear Terminator Armor. Perhaps Terminators, because they sometimes wear Terminator Armor, constantly carry really heavy weights when outside of Terminator Armor so as to accustom themselves to its limitations. Thus, Terminators are slow because Terminator Armor is heavy, even though they're not wearing it. It's silly, but it's perfectly possible.

2. By that reasoning, Scouts are larger than even Terminators - it can't carry any of them. Perhaps it's simply part of the Codex Astartes that LRs can only carry 5 Termies and can't carry Scouts, and so, while an inefficient way to do things, is the way they're done. Maybe Terminators, as decorated veterans, are less willing to cram in to a LR with 9 of their smelly battle brothers, and so they use their political pull within the Chapter to get better seating.

3. Again, you're assuming direct causation. We can easily construct another indirect chain as in my response to your first statement by claiming that a lack of Terminator Armor for a Chapter results in fewer numbers of Marines bothering to train for the role.

4. This one is rife with assumptions. There's absolutely no rules-based reason to think that Marines only teleport things by using Termie armor.

5. Terminators don't have access to the Armory, so it's unclear whether or not the limitation would even apply to them. Secondly, the rule in the Terminator entry can be read to simply override the Armory limitation.

6. Power Fists can also be used by Space Marines in Terminator Armor. Does that mean that all Marines with Power Fists are wearing Terminator Armor? The fact that CMLs can be used by things in TA doesn't mean that all things that use CMLs are in TA.

Sure, it's a great deal of circumstantial evidence, and, knowing what we do about the fluff and the way GW operates, it's obvious that Termies have TA, but it's utterly against the rules. Heck, I can even provide precedent showing that they don't have it. Just check out the DH Codex and look at GK Termies. Their entry specifically states that they have Terminator Armor. The codex also came out before the new Marine codex. Surely any company that puts the slightest effort into proofreading its rules would have caught that, and the fact that they obviously chose not to include it in the SM entry means that they didn't mean for Termies to have Termie Armor. As well, there's an issue with the extra attack that comes with TA. If you're giving Termies an invulnerable save that's not listed in their profile, it seems that you have to give them an extra attack too, and I certainly wouldn't play against someone trying that (of course, I'd also let someone use the invulnerable save).

[Popsumpot]

Actually, that doesn't make any sense. That's like saying that I can run 20 seconds for 100m whenever I wear a 20kg back pack. But if I take it off, I still only run 20 seconds for 100m because that 20kg back pack is heavy even though I'm not wearing it.

It's not the heavy issue, it's the wording. There is a connection between those two. The words "On the other hand", means that the same sentence refers to the same unit.

The official fluff on the second one says that Scouts are made for inflitrating ahead, and the Codex Arstartes define scouts to fight seperate from the main force, and Transports should be avioded for stealth.

It makes more sense if the Chapter train as many Terminator wearers as possible to ensure that they can get the most out of their already available suits.

The fourth one does make some assumptions, but it is reasonable to assume that.

Actually, the rules does mean that all things that use CML are in TA. It specificly state that the Cyclonic Missile Launcher is specially designed for use by models wearing Terminator Armour. If Terminators have the option to use Cyclonic Missile Launchers, than they has to be wearing Terminator Armour.

Of course, than you might argue that to ensure that Termiantors are wearing Terminator Armour, than you would have to take a Cyclonic Missile Launcher...

[Fixer]

I think I can sum up this entire thread in one sentence.

"I don't want my space marine playing opponents to have 5+ invulnerable saves on their terminator squads because of an obscure wording in the codex" :rolleyes:

Technically Terminators would not be able to move and fire with their assault cannons since they are heavy weapons.

It is a silly thread. I wonder if the eldar had anything to do with it.

Maybe I should force every chaos player to remove his Demon prince from the table since it doesn't match the decription in the Codex that says the miniature must be twelve feet tall.

[AceRimmer]

Maybe I should force every chaos player to remove his Demon prince from the table since it doesn't match the decription in the Codex that says the miniature must be twelve feet tall.

It does say to scale, Fixer. It's also ten feet. :p

Does anyone else feel that the game would be better served if we weren't so anally retentive about it?

[Fey]

I agree with you Rimmer. This is just being too nitpicky. Mind you, I had one of my friend argued with me that Termies are slow and purposeful. Of course he was wrong.

There is one connection that confirms Terminator Armour. In the BT codex, they describe some Sword Brethren squads to train in the use of Terminator Armour. At the side of the unit info, it says Sword Brethren Terminators. A big connection there.

Lastly, its the "what you see is what you get" rule. Characters who have Terminator Armour looks similar to the normal Terminator Armour.

[HopkinsWFG]

I agree with Rimmer too.

There is nothing worse than an opponent who tries absolutly everything in the world to get an advantage, including picking on the wording of the codex books.

[Fixer]

With that statement I link you this picture:
http://www.rpgshop.com/images/uploaded/RulesLawyer.gif

When the Tau first came out a guy played the 'my entire army is behind the invisible stealth team and therefore cannot be shot at' trick. Made no sense, but it was 'rules as written' until they FAQed it.

Somewhere in the front of the Warhammer 40k rulebook i'm sure it says something about common sense.

[Ap0k]

I was going to write a big post that proved you wrong Pop, but I thought I'd do a little research on things before going down that route. As it happens, neither of us is right, nor wrong.

Here (http://www.dakkadakka.com/Default.aspx?tabid=93&view=topic&forumid=15&postid=50921) is argument on Dakka that raged for 5 pages, and still did not come to a conclusion. Both main proponents were wrong in their own way (Relic_OMO had some of his premises wrong, mauleed made assumptions based on fluff).

This is an argument that you can't provide conclusive proof for. It's also why arguing over RAW is completely, and utterly, 100% stupid.

It makes sense for Termies to have terminator armour, so thats the way every player plays it. Doing anything else is just anal, regardless of what evidence there is, or isn't, to back up whether or not they do actually have terminator armour.

[MooFreaky]

I agree that anyone who actually made you play Terminators in such a manner would be pricks. However, that said, they do actually have every right to do so. It's not their fault that GW did a poor job.
It is stated nowhere that Termies actually wear the same Terminator Armour that is described in the armoury. Thus is can be concluded that you must go with their profile.
This means they have a 2+ save and no invulnerable.

It also means they do not always count as stationary when shooting.

It's obviously not what was intended, but there is no case to prove otherwise. As there is absolutely nothing that says Termies actually wear Terminator Armour.
Who knows, maybe they are wearing soemthing that is slightly less advanced than that on offer to the Officers and such.

But, I don't think many people would make you play such rules. And if they did, they would likely get few games. I would never make someone play Termies in such a manner. Whenever I feel a rule has been written poorly, giving it a different outcome to what was obviously intended (Turbo Boosting Bikes vs Psycannons...) then I allow the opponent to play how we feel is is intended.
If for no other reason then to make the game more fun.


Also, I get the feeling some people are actually assuming Cfoley is intending to play like this. Or is very tight on such rules. If that is the case then you guys are very wrong. He's just bringing up a valid point.

[cfoley]

Rimmer, you are exactly right, and I totally accept that this thread is absolutely ridiculous. I also wouldn't even consider denying my opponent a 5+ save in a game. That sort of behaviour would ensure that nobody would ever give me a second game. It would also be really stupid of me as I play Space Marines myself.

The thread was intended to spark debate about the nature of the rules, how easy it is to determine the intent of the games designer, possibly how far you would take the letter of the rules in tournament play and a whole host of relates issues as well as trying to find a way to prove that they actually DO have Terminator armour. I wanted to see how the debate would end up but it looks like it's going to stagnate and get bogged down on in the specific Terminator issue.

[Dooks Dizzo]

Not that I really agree with this but to back cfoley further:

On page 41 of the codex it lists all the stat lines for the various units in the codex. No where does it mark any unit as having an invulnerable save like some codex's do (CSM, Daemonhunters) by showing 2/5+* for example.

Does anyone have a copy of the Wargear book? Does that clarify anything?

RAW is retarded and should only be brought out in times of dire emergency.

Here's another one that burns my ass: Drop Pods.

I have had someone tell me that if your Pod scatters into a FRIENDLY unit it is destroyed. Because the codex only specifies Impassible and enemy units.

I hate rules lawyers.

[Gotchaye]

From what I hear, the Wargear book's no good. While it may or may not give them an Inv save, it also gives them a 3+ regular save. On Drop Pods, I had thought that the Deep Strike rules themselves didn't specify what to do if you scattered into friendly units. It's just a hole in the rules where we're given absolutely no guidance.

Ap0k, that just means that Pop's wrong. You don't have to prove that the rules don't say something; it's the job of those who want to claim that Termies have TA to prove that that's the case, and, as you say, they can't.

[Dooks Dizzo]

You can't prove a negative...

[Brother Wolf]

Here's another one that burns my ass: Drop Pods.What does the rulebook say about friendly vehicles and units? Pretty dure that should cover SOMETHING.

[Dooks Dizzo]

It doesn't because GW hates me.

[cain19822004]

What's the point of this thread?

Honestly, it's stupid, more interesting threads have been closed for less than this.

Of course Space Marine Terminators wear Terminator Armour, the clues in their name, and what does it look like they are wearing? Unless of course you are proxying models, but that's just stupid, if you don't have the models, don't have them in your army.

Anyway, pure and simple, Terminators wear Terminator Armour, I can't believe it even needs discussing.

[DatonKallandor]

The point is, there is no written proof that Terminators do wear Termie armor. Its specified on all other units wearing it - but not on them. Thus, going with what is written down and undisputable, they don't wear it.


Daton

[BL4D3W4LK3R]

I don't think I would play a game with someone who wanted to insist that Terminators don't have Terminator armor. Do people actually play it that way or is this just being argued for entertainment value? If "rules lawyering" of this type is commonplace in the hobby I am glad I only play at home. How is the rule interpreted for GT and other GW sanctioned events?

[Zarathustrian]

It is only argued for "entertainment" value.
So don´t fear arguments like this are not very common.

[MooFreaky]

Cain, are you just looking to pick a fight?
My god, if you don't like it then don't post.

It's actually a very intersting point. So rather than just posting a whinging post, why don't you back up what your saying. It's actually rather clear, from what evidence has been provided, that you could be forced to not claim that save.
There is no other unit that uses wargear from the armoury. Armoury is only available to specific units, and as such, the armoury entry cannot be used. Thus you must go with their profile. And as their profile doesn't state any special rules (and every other unit with special rules has them stated there), then you cannot claim them.
Obviously this is only going to happen against a real wang of a player. But if you are at a tournament you never know who you will be up against.

I mean a contender for the Best General crown, final game, things going against him, he fires some AP2 weapons at your termies. Maybe he will contest as he's desperate to win.

Right now you are simply relying on your own interpretation on the rules. The point of this is to find evidence to prove it either way.
You are also relying on your own interpretation of what is and is not interesting. And as 2 mods have posted in here, you can assume it's of some interest to them too.

[DoomKnights]

If you look at the US space marine online website this is what you get.


Space Marine Terminator Squad



All Space Marine Chapters maintain a number of suits of the revered and rightly feared tactical Dreadnought armour or Terminator armour, as it is more commonly known. The armour is massively bulky and contains a full exo-skeleton arrangement of fibre bundles and adamantium rods to support the heavy gauge plasteel and ceramite plates that form the outer carapace. A wearer of Terminator armour can move and operate with remarkable freedom and agility considering the sheer mass of the actual armour.


There it is writen and now we can stop this thread.

[DatonKallandor]

Fluff =/= Rules.


Daton

[Dooks Dizzo]

I would like to point out that it is clearly stated in the Daemonhunters codex that the 5+ invul and +1 attack are included in their profile.

hence it could be argued that failure to state these things means that they don't in fact get them.

Maybe Grey Knight Terminators have better armor?

I have no idea where I would find it but there was an article written somewhere some time back (begining 3rd ed?) about the Crux Terminatus and that terminator units always benefit from a 5+ save. Though I cannot remember the exact wording. Might have been an ancient chapter approved.

[cain19822004]

I simply meant that in countless places, Terminators have been mentioned as be wearing Terminator Armour, and I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but in the Armoury sections of many Codex's, they have Armoury enteries for items that aren't selectable through the Armoury itself, such as Demolition Charges and such.

Justin.

[MooFreaky]

True. But when a unit has demolition charges it is clearly stated that they have demolition charges.
However, there is NOWHERE that states termies are wearing Termie armour. For all we know these could be Terminators that wear a different class of armour. Still Termie armour, but an older version.
But you can't just use armoury rules when there is nothing in the entry saying they are equipped with it.

Notice the big difference?

And fluff is meaningless in the game. If we used fluff as a basis for whether rules are right or not. Then we could state that marines are soooooooo much tougher than a normal human, thus they should have the entry of "T 4(5)"
They obviously miswrote it...

EDIT : And of all those countless places can you please source one, Cain. Somewhere in the rulebook or an FAQ that states, as a rule (not fluff) that Termies are wearing Terminator Armour.

[Dooks Dizzo]

In reality it doesn't even say that Marines wear Power Armor. Their 3+ save is from tough skin and armored underwear.

[Havock]

if anyone tries to dispute it:
termie squad says that any member can be upgraded with a chainfist, now:
- a chainfist is termie-only
- if they wouldn't be terminators, then there is a serious issue with the codex, "and I am affraid I can't play against you until GW releases a full FAQ cncerning every possible other interpretation...which would be about the same time involving "hell" and "freezing over" :p

[Gotchaye]

I addressed that already, Havock. If Witchblades were 'Farseers only' in the armory, but if Warlocks had, as a special rule, 'may take a Witchblade for 5 points', there's no problem. Warlocks still wouldn't be Farseers, but they'd have a special rule that overrides the more general restriction in the armory. It's the same as the Vindicaire's special rule - Marksman, as a unit special rule, overrides the more general targeting restrictions given in the rulebook.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Is "they very very clearly have Terminator Armour on every model you can possibly buy for them" a good argument? I don't think GW would release a completely illegal model range to accompany their own ruleset.

[Zatrais]

Eh, what you see is what you get (page 22) and as there is one and only 1 suit of terminator armour the squads of terminators has to be wearing the suit of armour described on page 25.

[Cynical Rabbit]

As another example, for Orks Burna's are Mek Only, but you can buy them for squads.

[MooFreaky]

People are trying to use logic here. Logic is useless in this sense, as it is in proving definitions in law. What you need is evidence from official sources.
We all agree it is logical for them to be wearing Termie armour. What we are debating are the rules, and so you can prove Cfoley's statement wrong is by showing where he is wrong in the rules. As he is following the rules to the letter, regardless of whether that is the popular thing to do or not.

As for WYSIWYG. There is nowhere that states they are wearing Termie armour, so it's simply that you are modeling extra items on them (same way I can give my Vet Serg a Missile Launcher, Bolt Pistol, Bolter, CCW, Power Fist and a Standard if I want. Doesn't mean he's using it all.
You could use normal marines, just moddeled to look different as Termies. Are you aren't actually required to model Terminator Armour, as they aren't wearing it.

I would never play anyone who actually tried to enforce such a rule, but that's not the point.

[[Vertigo]]

This may be one off but I have an idea. Check the Chaos Elite entry for Chaos Choosen. Pay close attention to the armour save for the Chosen Terminator and the Chosen Terminator Champion, only 2+; just like the problem we have now. Now compare that entry to the quick reference at the end of the codex! Notice that the Chosen Terminators and Chosen Terminator Champions are listed as having a 2+/5+!

[cfoley]

However, the Terminator entry in the Space Marine summary lists their save as being 2+. Could the difference between this and the CSM entry you cited be taken as a deliberate difference? I doubt it as there are many such inconsistencies in the rules. However, it does discredit your logic.

Chainfists are not necessarily only for models in Terminator armour. The Chainfist rules entry contains the entire set of rules for this weapon. There is no mention of such a restriction. The Armoury restricts them to models in Terminator Armour. However, this only applies when the chainfist is selected from the Armoury. If it is selected via a different mechanism then this restriction does not apply.

In fact, Terminator squads can take chainfists through a different mechanism. Since Terminators don't have Terminator armour (we can assume this is correct because after 42 posts, nobody has provided solid evidence to the contrary) this is a perfect example of a model with different armour having access to chainfists.

Just to preempt the obvious question, Terminators have generic 2+ save armour.

[[Vertigo]]

I wasn't really making a point, Cfoley. The two codex are completely different from each other I know that. This does bring a slightly different angle to the argument though. The Imperial Guard codex has a typo in the quick reference guide at the back of the book. The typo is that the Hellhound has a front AV of 13 contradicting the main entry. This typo was addressed in the Imperial Guard FAQ; though, it does make one question the validity of the CSM quick reference guide.

[cfoley]

There have been quite a few mistakes in the reference sheets. Every FAQ released has ruled in favour of the main body of the book (i.e. the reference sheets were wrong). I suspect that your example is the first one where the reference sheet is right.

[/common sense] Let's get on with the thread.

[[Vertigo]]

The only thing left, Cfoley, is to look for precedence in other publications. I know there are other Space Marine Codex out there what do they do with regardes to Terminators?

[Murphy[Ork]]

Problem with your chaos analogy Vertigo is that it specifically states int he chaos codex that the chosen can be upgraded to wear Terminator Armour.

Looking at all the entries in the SM codex, any point where they have a specific piece of equiptment (like assault squads wearing jump packs) it always states the piece of equiptment.

I think this is quite a big hole and is also pretty bad for new players, alot of new players might not even know they get a +5 save.

Theres a couple of dickheads I might have to try this out on down my local GW, see what happens, ill report back once im banned

[[Vertigo]]

Problem with your chaos analogy Vertigo is that it specifically states int he chaos codex that the chosen can be upgraded to wear Terminator Armour.



Oh my God, I just had the most disgusting idea ever! Normaly, it would state that the benifits of Terminator Armour are all ready added to the unit's profile; it doesn't say anything like that for the Chosen Terminators nor the Chosen Terminator Champions. Which would mean they get +1 attack and a +2/+5 added to their profile. You are correct it does state, you have to read really hard to get it, that they do wear "Terminator Armour".



Character: Chosen in power armour or Terminator armour can further...


Though it doesn't state that they use the Terminator armour from the armory; which would mean they still have to use the stats listed for them. They to, would get only a generic 2+ armour save as a result.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Actually, on the flip side of this whole argument couldn't you stick 10 Terminators in transports as they aren't, technically, wearing Terminator Armour?

[pinkyclown]

15 in a LRC

[Gotchaye]

Why on earth would you think that? To my knowledge, not one of the five transports available to Marines uses 'wears Terminator Armor' as a way of differentiating between unit types. Rhinos and Razorbacks specifically exclude Terminators, and the others all list a specific allowance for certain numbers of Terminators. If anything, you've got to show that your basic Space Marines are wearing power armor if you want to cart them around in a LR or LRC, though the other three don't require the Space Marines riding in them to be wearing power armor.

I also have to wonder why you'd ever have a need to transport more than 5 Terminators.

Just had a quick glance over the Chosen entry in the Chaos codex, and I'm not seeing where it says that you can give any of them Terminator Armor. Granted, it's very much implied that a Terminator is wearing TA, just like in the SM dex, but I'd certainly argue the point if someone tried to claim +1A benefits.

[Murphy[Ork]]

It states any model in power armour can be upgraded to terminators. Then a few lines down it states Every third chosen model in Terminator armour. Then at the transport part it says about if they are wearing termi armour then they count as 2 models when working out how many can fit in a transport.

[cfoley]

I also have to wonder why you'd ever have a need to transport more than 5 Terminators.

because you might have six.

[Exetus]

I'm desperately trying to go through my White Dwarf collection that I have here, because this was brought up once before. Someone had made mention that the Termies didn't have a 5+ save, but they changed it specifically in a chapter approved and FAQ, whatever to make it official that they DID have a 5+ invulnerable save. I'll keep trying to find it, but it was addressed at that time.

What that leads me to believe is that this is a mistake on GW's part as they commonly have mispelled, omitted and incorrectly listed things in ALL of their publications. Someone really should force them to invest in a proofreading department over there.

Note: It's NOT mentioned in US WD 303 Index Astartes: Terminators, but I know the article I'm looking for was from earlier than that...

[cfoley]

Was it a third edition article? I remember something like that.

[el_shaddai]

i am impressed by cfoley's close reading of the rules, but even more impressed by the argument put forward by popsumpot. however, i have to agree that terminator armour is an implied wargear. the reasons are as follows:

the chosen as standard come as power armoured, so termie armour won't be specified under wargear.
additionally, the codex then gives options for chosen "in terminator armour"
finally, as far as fluff can be relied upon, since when did any terminator from any army NOT have a 5+ save? the power armour still functions 100% so you can't even claim the age of chaos wargear.

from all this it can be clearly deduced that the omission of "/5+" is indeed, just an omission.

[MooFreaky]

Regardless of whether it is an omission or not, as it is not stated and their is no official ruling then it must be taken at face value.
Especially as ALL terminators in the SM codex are listed as just 2+

[Dooks Dizzo]

Man, I know there is an article in the index astartes somewhere that talks about the Crux Terminatus giving terminators a 5+ invul save.

[AceRimmer]

Man, I know there is an article in the index astartes somewhere that talks about the Crux Terminatus giving terminators a 5+ invul save.

It was also in Chapter Approved, WD 261.

But really, why continue talking about it if you're not going to enforce it? You are all correct, in that the Terminator entry does not specifically state that the model is wearing terminator armour, but frankly, who will actually take heed?


their is no official ruling

Then post the question on the GW 40K forums and be done with it. The word 'pointless'
comes to mind unless something is done about this.

[Ap0k]

But really, why continue talking about it if you're not going to enforce it?

I believe the point of the discussion is to determine at which point RAW gets stupid. You can't enforce Termies not getting a 5+ invuln. Can you therefore enforce Psycannons vs Turboboost? What about Heed the Wisdom of the Ancients or Be Swift as the Wind?

Is there a line in the sand? And where is it drawn if there is? Is there really any point in trying to play by RAW in such ridiculous (bearing in mind that 'ridiculous' is a relative term) conditions? Especially when it's possible to at least come to a consensus based on intent/fluff/common sense.

As far as I can tell, the point was never whether Termies got invulnerable saves. It was whether people were prepared to play a game useing a ruleset with holes, and just take everything at face value, no matter how completely stupid 'face value' was.

[[Vertigo]]

I just like to argue to sharpen my jagged wit.

[el_shaddai]

hey. just noticed- it's the same with deep strike too

[The_Guardman]

I'm always for the most litteral interpretation of rules, but while I can't arguing whit fact to the terminators having the Terminator armour, I will NEVER say that they have not. This is maybe the only one exeption I do to my own "rule interpretation code".

[Popsumpot]

Actually, believe it or not, the US justice system is alot more logical. When ever there is a loop hole, the judges revert to pass cases of the same nature, and rule according to how it was ruled back than. The first judge of a case of that nature can rule based on the spirit of the Constitution and logic/common sense.

But than again, you might argue GW is a UK based company...

So basically, we end up argueing about - should this be decided in a Europe style "court", which would rule Terminators don't wear Terminator Armour, or US style "court", which would rule Terminators do wear Terminator Armour.

Do the Rulz boy count as official? they did reply yes, all six of them.

[Simsandwich]

Ok.
All Termie Armour is the same.
Same type of construct.
So If we reason that the Terminator Armour in CSM and DH Codex's lists that they gain +1 Attack, a 2+ save and a 5+ Invulnerable. Now the CSMs Termie Armour is old, and it gets a 5+, so thus, the SMs newer Termie armour gets the same benefit.
And also, A Slugga Boy is listed with a Choppa, look in the WARGEAR section, and it tells you that it makes the best save your opponent can make is a 4+, BUT it can still be purchased by Nobz and Warbosses, so using this logic, Terminator Armour for characters is the exact same for Termie armour for units. And you are payin g the points for it anyway. Anyone who disagrees needs to get that brick out their ass and get a life.

[cain19822004]

Thank you Simsandwich, I pretty much made that point, and I got my *ss chewed by MooFreaky, again, AND a warning from Ap0K, which I thought was quite harsh, but there you go.

[cfoley]

A Slugga Boy is listed with a Choppa

And there lies the problem. Terminators aren't listed with Terminator armour. If they were, the Wargear section would be where to look for the rules.

Cain, there is a difference between presenting an argument and calling a thread stupid. If you don't like this thread then stop following it.

[Dooks Dizzo]

So what if I stated that my Terminator squad was from my Chapter's First Company? Under the description of the Fisrt Company it states that they WEAR Terminator Armor.

So if my units are have a numeral 1 painted on them they can be considered to wear the terminator armor right?

[Ciryaquen]

Terminator armour means 'the armour of terminators' therefore if you are a terminator you wear terminator armour. The name of the armour means that it is an integral part of being a terminator. This theory can be reinforced by the description of certain honors as 'terminator honors' indicating that they are an integral part of being a terminator and if you dont have terminator honors you cant be a terminator. In fact it is so obvious and undisputable that terminators wear terminator armour that their armour is called terminator armour. Pompsumpot provided undeniable logical proof that this is the case in his first post, but some deny the validity of more complicated logical explanations of a rules system.

[Dooks Dizzo]

This would be an interesting one to bring up in court. Do we follow the letter or the spirit? I mean why would it say specifically that assault marines are equiped with jump packs? it should be obvious from the picture next to the entry and from the fact that teh box of assault marines comes with jump packs.

EDIT: Proof that Terminators wear Terminator Armor (http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/spacemarines/catalog/spacemarines/sm_terminators_box.htm)

Seriously you're going to have to be pretty obstinant to deny that.

PS: The entry under the box containing a unit of terminators who can be taken as an elite choice clearly states that they wear the armor as well as the name.

Seriously, can I get a cookie or something?

[Ciryaquen]

The difference that I try to bring to your attention is that assault marines are not called jum pack and they can be used without the jump pack. Having a jump pack is not an intrinsical quality of being an assault marine. The case for all these reasons is different to the case of the terminators. The jump pack is a piece of equipment that adheres to general game rules, not specific space marine rules such as is the case with the terminator armour.

Oh, and a cookie for Dooks.

[el_shaddai]

"Now the CSMs Termie Armour is old, and it gets a 5+, so thus, the SMs newer Termie armour gets the same benefit"

actually, you can't assume that- bionics work differently for IG than for chaos as an example.

also, in response to cfoley, the codex does say
"every [number] chosen in terminator armour may exchange their [weapon] for the weapon from the following list"

now, unless you're saying that all text after this in the entry is void because terminators don't wear terminator armour then it'd be a waste of being there, and since when were rules stated without reason to apply to anything.

i mean c'mon... chosen in terminator armour- proposterous!

i think not

[Ap0k]

So, what you guys are saying is that everywhere but the Codex: Space Marines (that thing where you find the rules and stats that you need to use your army) it says that Termies wear Termy armour. So, by that reasoning, the ones listed in the codex must also have terminator armour, because the non-rules related parts of the universe say so.

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong.

The only thing that matters in determining whether Term's get the benefits of the armour in the game (which is governed by the rules), is whether it is listed in their profile. That is the section of the book that details what they are armed with, what they can be armed with, and what their stats are. Unless this is overridden by another rule at another point in the codex, or future publication, that is the determining factor. It doesn't matter what the website says. It doesn't matter what the models look like. It doesn't matter what the fluff says. In a purely rule related sense, it is merely a case of Unit A (terms) having access to Wargear B (term armour).

If there was no models, and no fluff, and no carefully prepared website, and the only thing you had to go on was what was relevant to the discussion, then, by the wording of Unit A's entry in the codex, they do not have access to Wargear B. It's not in the list of items carried into battle, or able to be upgraded. Full Stop. End of story.

I know it's stupid. You know it's stupid. GW probably knows it's stupid. Due to the way the codex was written though, if you are following the rules as written they don't have it.

Face the fact that it's a loophole. One that nobody is likely to ever use (or, if they do, get away with, since something like that would involve a lack of potential future opponents) due to the fact it's stupid. But it exists, and in a situation where the rules were being enforced to the very precise letter. Maybe in a land of logic, for a grand tournament prize of squillions of moneys, and your opponent says 'Your terminators don't get their 5+ invuln, and they can't move and fire heavy weapons, because they don't have termy armour', then thats what happens, because that's exactly what the rules say happens.

I'm not here trying to argue this because I don't let my opponents use their terms based on the intent of the rules. I'm arguing it because a lot of people have just barged into the thread going 'omg that's soooo stupid, it's so fucking obvious they have terminator armour' WHICH IS NOT THE POINT.

Sorry for the lots of italics/bold. I had lots of stuff to emphasize.

[el_shaddai]

P64

[Ap0k]

Care to elaborate? P64 of what? The rulebook? The codex? The bible? The Hobbit?

[el_shaddai]

well given that the thread is about the codex and you were so intently ranting about the codex. try there.

[Ciryaquen]

So, what you guys are saying is that everywhere but the Codex: Space Marines (that thing where you find the rules and stats that you need to use your army) it says that Termies wear Termy armour. So, by that reasoning, the ones listed in the codex must also have terminator armour, because the non-rules related parts of the universe say so.

This probably was not directed to me (and if it was you didnt' understand my post) but you are mistaken in at least one point. The codex is not all you need to use your army.

Don't undermine the value of tacit rules, specially when GW carves up all the features of the units all over the codex to make plagiarism harder, lending itself to this kind of argument that, although justified, has been resolved. Terminator armour means made to be like a terminator, so the explanation of what terminator honors and armour are is the explanation of what terminators are.

[Exetus]

So what about the fact that you can only attach a character wearing the 2+/5+ armor to a squad of terminators. Thereby indicating that the tactical dreadnought armor is the same kinda stuff? I can't attach a guy to a jump pack squad without a jump pack.

And what about the Chaplain? It says he is wearing a rosarius, but it does not give him the 4+ save in his profile either. Are we to then infer that the rosarius he wears is not the same rosarius that confers an invulnerable 4+ save?

[Ap0k]

Cirya, I wasn't addressing you. It was more of a generalisation based on the 'logic' seen so far in the thread.


Terminator armour means made to be like a terminator, so the explanation of what terminator honors and armour are is the explanation of what terminators are.
Yes. Terminators from the fluff, and the background given in the codex. The obvious kinds of terminators. We're talking about the Terminators based in the land of codex rules. The ones that don't have 'Terminator Armour' listed in their unit profile.

I'm aware that GW carves up it's codices, but lets look at what parts we need to solve the problem.
What is terminator armour? The answer to this can be found under the wargear section.
Who can access it? Those described as either having it by default, or those who have the ability to purchase wargear.
Where can you find information on who can purchase it as wargear, or who has it by default? In the unit entries in the relavent section of the codex.
Can terminators buy Terminator Armour? No, unless they have a veteran sergeant, who is capable of buying from the armoury and have taken the trait that allows single wound models to purchase it.
Do terminators have terminator armour? No.



It [the codex, in the Chaplain Wargear section, in his unit profile] says he is wearing a rosarius

It [the codex, in the Chaplain Wargear section, in his unit profile] says he is wearing a rosarius

It [the codex, in the Chaplain Wargear section, in his unit profile] says he is wearing a rosarius

Quoted three times for posterity.

Incidentally, you can attach a character with a jump pack/terminator armour to a unit. It would just be completely pointless.

[Ciryaquen]

Under your logic bikers don't have bikes. their case is identical. not the one of the chaplain (again failed to understand my logic). the nature of the biker is to have a bike, that is implied in their name, however, their wargear does no list a bike (it lists the gear on a bike, which under your reading of the rules does not mean that them and the marines are combined; a logical comparisson can be made with the gear available for individual terminators as implying that they have a termy armour). terminator armour, and i repeat, means 'the armour that terminators have'. in the same way, bikes are what bikers have, or bikers are calle bikers because they have bikes. not comparable at all with assault marines or chaplains.

[Ap0k]

That would make bikers another loophole then, would it not?

I hope you're not going to try and tell me that the Termy example has to be right because the Biker entry is worded the same, and therby (and, as yet, unproven) right.

If bikes aren't listed as having Space Marine Bikes, they don't have the bikes. However, as far as I can recall (since I don't have my codex on hand) the increased Toughness is noted in their profile, and the turbo-boost rules are mentioned in the unit entry. Correct me if I'm wrong.


terminator armour, and i repeat, means 'the armour that terminators have'

If you can point me to where it says that in the rules (whether that be the codex, or the rulebook), then the discussion is ended. If however, you are basing your reasoning off intent and fluff, then you still have no case.

[radical ed]

Ive been reading this thread for ages, with some intrest and amuzement, but i think i have something:

in the entry in the codex it states that only characters that are wearing terminator armour may join a terminoator squad, therefore the squad must be wearing termi armour. (as only simialry armoured charectoers can join a squad)

Also it states that in the wargear/armour section that models wearing termi armour can teleport. The only squad that can are the termies, so again it proofs they are wearing termi armour.

Also it states that a termi squad numbering 5 models or less may be transported in a land raider. And in the entry for the landraider it says (this is the important bit) " A landraider may transport up to 10 space marines in power armour or 5 space marine terminators" there by poofing there not wearing power armour and in fact wearing termi armour.

or am i way off?

[Ciryaquen]

I shall: the turbo boost is not mentioned in their unit entry. however, missing the general point of tacit, implicit and explicit: a tacit rule would be the implication that regular space marines have a power armour, therefore they can ride rhinos and land raiders; an implicit rule is that terminators have terminator armours (it is even sad to say it) and bikers have bikes, because their names imply it and their characteristics and benefits corroborate it; an explicit rule is Rites of Battle for an SM commander.

EDIT: Darquenight, read the thread. all that has been discussed.

[Ap0k]

Not quite darqueknight.

You are correct in what it states under the characters bit, but working on precedent is not grounds for clear interpretation. It doesn't state in the codex that only similarly armoured characters can join a squad. It states that only characters in terminator armour can join a terminator command squad. It's a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.

Your second point again involved precedent. 'Only people who have green eyes can jump off bridges' does not mean that 'All green eyed people jump off bridges'.

The 3rd point simply means that terminators are restricted to only 5 models when travelling in Land Raiders. It could be similar to how only 6 marines can be transported in a Razorback. The fluff reason is that the power cells take up more room, but the game reason is 'Because thats how many it says it can transport'.

[Dooks Dizzo]

No one answered my little ditty however.

Under the SM veterans in the Codex it states that veterans wear terminator armor. So if I make it clear that my Terminators are from the veteran companies then they would in fact be wearing Terminator armor.

You cannot say that the only place you go for rules is the specific entry. If that were the case the special rules for their weapons and such couldn't be taken into consideration because they are not listed in the entry. So, their assault cannons do not rend, chainfists don't get 2d6 and such.

The fact is that you MUST cross reference things in 40k to get the whole picture of how something works.

[Ciryaquen]

The end of the discussion:
Under TERMINATOR ARMOUR in the Space Marine Codex page 25. Paragraph 1, line 3


(...) On the other hand this armour is somewhat cumbersome, so Space Marine Terminators are not able to pursue a foe when they flee.

I correct my previous statement, the fact that Terminators have Terminator Armour is hereby established as an explicit rule.

[Dooks Dizzo]

BOOYEAH sucka's!

So according to RAW they do in fact get an invulnerable save.

[radical ed]

your right i was way off but now i have somthing!!

in the wargear entry for terminator armour it says

Terminator armour

Also known as tactical dreadnaought armour......space marines in terminator armour are capaable of moving and firing.......on the other hand this armour is somwhat cumbersome so Space Marine Terminators are not able to pursue a more lightly armoured foe.......

The Armour entry mentions the unit name that termies are reffered to in the codex under the same rules for that peice of wargear. Therefore they have termi armour


edit: oops took to long writing that.......cyraquen beat me to it......

[Ap0k]

Thats pretty much the missing link Ciryaquen. Assuming the context of the whole paragraph where you extracted it from is fine (and I don't see why it wouldn't be, but sadly, and unable to verify personally at the minute) it looks about as close as we can get to 'Terminators wear Terminator armour'.

In case people missed it, the point I was trying to make is that RAW isn't a solid basis to play the game on. Sometimes it makes things game legal that obviously shouldn't be, and sometimes it just outright confuses matters. Obviously GW can't create their rules like some foolproof legal document, which is why they are as loose (and often abused) as they are.

Much of it relies on inferances, or precedent to develop understanding. This might be some of the reason why brand new players have difficulty picking up the finer points of the game, and/or why people who are capable of dealing with context and precedent find them so utterly pointless as a 'Be-All' guide.

It just took the collective minds of the forum, and 80-something responses to determine, to the point where we are as sure as we can be, that Terminators do, in fact, wear Terminator Armour.

Sorry if I seemed antagonistic, or abrupt, but GW rules have never been foolproof, nor will they ever be. Language loopholes make RAW a near useless tool to base discussions on. Obviously in places where it is blatantly obvious, it can be used, but for cases such as this where there was a strong case that they didn't get the armour (by the letter of the rules) then you need to apply common sense, and determine intent in the best way possible.

In short, as has been mentioned, the game is about fun, and not about rules lawyering. Rules cannot solely be interpreted based on RAW, nor can they be solely interpreted based on intent or fluff. Common sense comes in at this point to fill in the blanks and sort out what should be obvious, in an attempt to make it a cohesive ruleset.

[Ciryaquen]

This is indeed more relevant than we may initially think because it corroborates that denomination in the GW system implies characteristics. The name terminator is so intrinsically related to the sporting of a T-Armour that Terminators are used as examples of the functioning of the Terminator Armour. This indicates that implicit is good enough in the case of entries that describe wargear. After all these contentious points are only in the case of these entries (Terminators, Bikers). This means that if the name of the entry is Space Marine, there is no need to indicate in the entry A-that they wear power armour B-that they shall know no fear, because they are space marines, in the same way that terminators have t-armours because they are terminators.

Apok, I appreciate your comments. The point I was trying to make is that RAW is not the way the rules are meant to be read, because what is written (explicit) should be to clarify what is implicit (what is suggested be it by name, etc.) and what is tacit (things that are not mentioned or suggested in the text at all). The game, as well as every game has some tacit and implicit rules, that exist before the explicit rules exist. There are forms of intelligence that can only adhere to explicit rules and that is why they crash: computers.

[el_shaddai]

most of the text referring to chosen terminators points to them being IN terminator armour. see popsumpots argument for a fuller explanation, but p64 shows that they do indeed get their saves, so the only possible question you could ask really is whether they also deep strike.

the implication is obvious in all the surrounding rules

[Ap0k]

Apok, I appreciate your comments. The point I was trying to make is that RAW is not the way the rules are meant to be read, because what is written (explicit) should be to clarify what is implicit (what is suggested be it by name, etc.) and what is tacit (things that are not mentioned or suggested in the text at all). The game, as well as every game has some tacit and implicit rules, that exist before the explicit rules exist. There are forms of intelligence that can only adhere to explicit rules and that is why they crash: computers.

We were pretty much arguing the same thing, except on opposite sides of the fence :p

I don't disagree with the sentiments above either. People playing by RAW and RAW only are only playing the game in the 'taking advantage of' sense. They'll never see the 'participating in an exercise that leads to enjoyment' aspect of things until they drastically alter their mindset. There probably aren't many people who play by RAW only, but I think we just proved that it's not a suitable tool with which to determine some sort of undisputable outcome in situations where it's not as clear-cut as 'How far do jump packs move'. (jebus, that sentence was huge)

[Dooks Dizzo]

What I am happy about is that there has been another defeat for the forces of RAW. To me that was the whole point of this thread.

Ap0k's stance was crucial to making this happen. without providing both sides of the arguement as accurately and vehemently as possible there would have been no way to come to a 100% correct determination.

[Ciryaquen]

I think Ap0k was to me what Mazer Rackham was to Ender Wiggin. Ap0k, thanks, human kind owes you too.
However I am not satisfied because I, like Ender had to defeat the enemy through complete obliteration instead of negotiation, since in the end my logic was not accepted and only through RAW was I able to appease them.

[Invid]

Wow.. that almos was a "Draw the battle lines and pick sides!"

However this has been an enlightening discussion and would like to thank both sides and all imput for a good debate over RAW.

Cheers y'all! :beer:

[Gotchaye]

I'm wondering who actually espouses RAW to the exclusion of all else? I'm not saying that it's not a valuable thing to understand, but it seems something of a straw man to talk about defeating a viewpoint of which you'd be hard pressed to find a serious disciple. I mean, dakka doesn't even profess to believe that you should play by the RAW (they just feel that the purpose of a rule discussion is to determine RAW), though I understand that they're sometimes thought to do so.

[Ap0k]

Very few people probably Gotchaye. The situation is more relavent to the Psycannon vs Turboboost case, or the Heed the Wisdom of the Ancients/Be Swift as the Wind cases, where the rules are ambiguous, and could be potentially ruled in either sides favour, dependant on just who you are up against.

In cases like that, we've determined that RAW isn't a valid fallback tool. The RAW can't be relied on, because it deals only with a fraction of 'the big picture', and, most notably, leaves out common sense.

[Dooks Dizzo]

I might have mentioned this earlier but the one that burns my ass off is the guy who attaches his Avatar to a 20 man guardian squad and claims he can't be picked out by enemy fire because RAW doesn't state that the Monstrous Creature rules over ride the Independant Character rules.

[el_shaddai]

surely you just assume that you take both characteristics? they're compatible.

this sort of thing does happen and usually it's an attempt to authoritatively cheat rather than actually play a serious game, or so i've found

[nyyti]

Now for this there is the Golden Rule. Do you really have fun when you piss off your gaming partner by that Avatar joins something or the terminators we discussed.
Golden Rule > RAW

(Golden Rule is actually in the rulebook, so playing RAW would mean you also must have fun when you play ;), and termies with no termi armour is not fun.)

[Dooks Dizzo]

Heheh, I personally love th golden rule myself.

[Popsumpot]

I'm sorry, and this may make me sound like an idiot, but what is RAW?

This does make me sound like on e of those SM players.

[Zarathustrian]

RAW= Rules as written. Meaning that you play the rules exatly like they are written.
Just like the "argument" on this thread, Terminator entry doesn´t say terminators have termie armor so by RAW thay don´t have it.

[el_shaddai]

@popsumpot

i was considering asking too

[DoomKnights]

Grey Knights don't state they have terminator armour so lets take away their inv save.

[Invid]

good gawd... dont get them started AGAIN... :hat:

[Ap0k]

Try reading the thread before posting Doomknights. You'll find it won't make you look silly when you post something that has already been discussed, and solved.


Zara, the RAW actually backs up termies having termy armour. Due to the wording of the Terminator Armour entry in the Wargear section, it states as clearly as we can ascertain, that terminators do wear it. It's bloody obscure, but it's there.

[Dooks Dizzo]

Grey Knights don't state they have terminator armour so lets take away their inv save. Actually it does. It also shows them having an invul save in the back of the codex under the unit stat entries. Seriously.

Not to back seat moderate or anything but this thread probably needs a lock. It is still useful for people to read through but I can't think of anything that can really be added constructively.

[DoomKnights]

It was more of a joke then for real. Just kind of find it funny how long this has gone.

[DatonKallandor]

How long it has gone only proves how well GW hid the useable RAW.


Daton

[Ap0k]

Not to back seat moderate or anything but this thread probably needs a lock. It is still useful for people to read through but I can't think of anything that can really be added constructively.

No reason to lock it just because there isn't much to add to it. If it turns into a shit-fest, then I'm sure it'll be nuked quick-fast, but until then, lets just let it run it's course.

There could still be a discussion along the RAW tangent, though chris's most recent thread here covers that somewhat already.

Regardless, we'll see how it goes.

[MooFreaky]

I was away for a few days and a buttload happened.
I don't remember a thread in the rules forum that was ever this interesting, or long.

But I think it was great. Especially as it was people arguing a case they didn't really want to be making. I'm sure Ap0k was extremely unimpressed to be forced into making such an argument, as he doesn't believe that is the way things are/should be.

And, Cira, that was a great find. We must have all read that fricken section about 100 times each (or more), but it was just so easy to overlook.

As for RAW, I can see why some people use the general concept. On the surface it does seem like a logical and straightforward step to take. But when you get into it, it is really one messed up shitball.
I am more than ever in favour of "Spirit of the Game" rulings. I mean, I wouldn't want to win even a GT using such RAW rulings. If you aren't having fun, then what's the point of winning?

It's much like when you get groups of people who work together to advantage themselves in GT scores. Giving everyone else terrible sportsmanship and other ratings. Just so they can give someone in their group the best chance of winning.
Seriously! It's just so Grr!

[cfoley]

We must have all read that fricken section about 100 times each

Too true. However, I think that there are a number of interpretations that can come from it and we have all jumped to the one that we would like to consider correct. Having come this far, it would be a shame to leave the subject unfinished, even if all that is left to do is to quash some bogus interpretations.

We seem to have established that all Marines in Terminator Armour are Terminators but does that mean that all Terminators wear Terminator armour? I put forward the suggestion that characters with Terminator Armour and Terminator squads are both "Terminators" but the latter does not have the armour.

Another interpretation (and one that seems more plausible to me) is that only the models with "Terminator" in their profile are "Terminators". This means that characters with Terminator Armour are not Terminators. Therefore, the 2+/5+ save applies to all of them but the restriction on Sweeping Advances only applies to Terminator Squads since that rule only refers to "Terminators".

There is also a problem with admitting that Terminators do in fact wear Terminator Armour. The armour comes with Terminator Honours, which grants +1A. This would give our Terminators three base attacks (two from the profile, one form the honours).

Refute away.

Oh, and well done Ciryaquen (and darqueknight who was just pipped to the post) for moving the discussion on.

[MooFreaky]

Ahh... that is a little easier.

"Space Marines in Terminator armour are capable of... . On the other hand this armour is somewhat combersome, so Space Marine Terminators are not able to pursue..."

That is saying Terminator armoru is bulky. It re-iterates that it is this armour it is talking about, then says that is why the unit in question cannot pursue.
Meaning that Terminator Squads cannot pursue because they are wearing the armour listed in the Codex.

[Zambayoshi]

I think that the guys who write the fluff for the codices are the same guys that write the rules : they are writers/gamers, not lawyers. A lawyer would make sure that everything is defined to death and ambiguities are squashed into oblivion. A writer is plagued by the concern that what he is writing is boring, so he tries to make it as interesting to read as possible, even when he shouldn't (i.e. when clarity and precision is needed).

We were having an argument over chaplains and lightning claws. Just look at how many ways the SM codex writers use to say what is essentially "this model may replace it's existing weapon with X" : "may replace with", "may be upgraded to", "may select", "may be given", "can be given", "may be armed with".

It just goes to show, we need to ask the question "what was the writers' intent" when we come across an ambiguous situation. I think most people do this, and it is just those who are naturally argumentative (or bastards) who nit-pick over what is sometimes an obvious answer, despite the textual difficulties.

Unfortunately, the RAW was introduced as a quick way of settling arguments, but there is also the suggestion that you role a D6 to determine whose interpretation takes precedence for the duration of the game.

Never forget, the object is to have fun ;-)
(It's just that to some of us, arguing is fun!)

[cfoley]

This thread came to a conclusion about six months ago. Terminators DO have Terminator Armour. Common sense has always said this and after eight pages of discussion, we concluded that RAW agrees.

This was a debate about RAW: an exercise in rules interpretation and logic. Nobody ever intended to play Terminators without the Terminator armour. The ultimate goal was to reconcile RAW with the obvious intent of the rules.

I've deleted all of the points brought up today since they have been covered elsewhere in the thread. If you want to find out more, you have eight pages of pedantic detail to sift through. We're not going to rehash it. Exceptionally, I've left Zambayoshi's post. It offers a valid point not often considered in anti-Games Workshop rants and rules debates. It's a fitting conclusion for a debate like this.