[Rules] Terminator Invulnerable Save

[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

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

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!

[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.)