Brother Captain Matthias Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Ah, I stand corrected. I don't have the 5th ed Codex yet. ;) I apologize for shooting my mouth off. EDIT: Typo's are a problem with me as well, it seems. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatWhichIsWhole Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Basically, Legatus believes that HIS reasons for saying that termie characters can't have grenades are more valid than those who say they can. Basically, the rules say you can. Fluff reasoning need not be involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Haven't touched fluff yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldenhaller Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 If we're looking at precidents within the 40kniverse then I believe 1st ed space hulk had a mission with terminators carrying melta charges. Hope this muddies the water some more ;) ~O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praeger Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Im going to say this once, and once only, and then iwill be deleting posts and issuing warnings. Capitals to hopefully get the point across. OLD RULES ARE JUST THAT - OLD NEW RULES ARE JUST THAT - NEW WE HERE TALK ABOUT THE RULES AS THEY ARE TODAY, NOT IN THE PAST, BUT WHAT THEY ARE IF YOU GO INTO A GAMES WORKSHOP TODAY AND HAVE NEVER PLAYED THE GAME BEFORE IN YOUR LIFE. ANY MORE TALK ABOUT OLD EDITIONS, FLUFF, ETC WILL HAVE A WARNING ISSUED. Now, hopefully that is clear. If you are going to discuss the rules, then do so, but provide proof from the current rule set. I personaly dont care if anyone beleives something they dont like is a typo or not, if its in the rules its a rule. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 No one ever mentioned fluff. The stronges argument are the current rules for Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Chaos Space Marines and the current Codex Space Marines where equiping any character with terminator armour will take away all of the grenades he normally comes equipped with. Why does equipping a character with terminator armour take away his frag and krak grenades? A character in terminator armour has just as much use for S6 against Vehicles and attacking units in cover at initiative order as a model with power armour. Ask anyone who has played Marines longer than when the current codex was released why the character loses the grenades, and he will most likely tell you without having to think about it that it is because a model in terminator armour cannot use grenades. There is no reason to let them use the much more powerful melta bombs but not the basic krak grenades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nighthawks Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 characters equipped with TDA loose their grendades (offensive and krak) but are still able to take a auxiliary "grenade launcher" or melta bombs. the AGL does not use "grenades" in the same sense - more like missiles. this is an unfortunate correlation between game mechanics for "grenades" and the understood real-world weapon "grenade launcher" which uses the game mechanics of ranged "shooting" weapons. loosing one does not forbid nor logically prevent the character from posessing the other. Other published non-codex marines (BA/DA/SW/BT) don't even HAVE the AGL, and they aren't allowed to cary melta bombs when in TDA. sucks to be them. codex marines don't get meltabombs on a squad-level basis like they used to or the DA/BA/SW/BT marines do. thus they are rare in vanilla lists as a rule (only certain upgrade, HQ, and named characters may have them, maybe a command squad or something else that is elite). what's the issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 The auxiliary grenade launcher is not in question. It is a ranged weapon attached to the terminator armour or a limb. It is not more using "grenades" than the use of a stormbolter is. The issue is that the terminators inability to use grenades is still visible in the Codex Space Marines by the loss of frag and krak grenades. It is indicative as a contradiction to the notion that terminators are now allowed to use grenades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praeger Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 The strongest argument are the current rules for Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Chaos Space Marines and the current Codex Space Marines where equiping any character with terminator armour will take away all of the grenades he normally comes equipped with. Sorry - but we are dealing with the current SPACE MARINE codex only here correct? So stop mentioning other codex's. We are not discussing Chaos, or Orks, or Tau, or Blood Angels - all of which have seperate stand alone codex's that have nothing to do with the Space Marine codex. So please, if you wish to keep discussing the rules for a unit in the SPACE MARINE codex then please only discuss said codex. It is a ranged weapon attached to the terminator armour or a limb. It is not more using "grenades" than the use of a stormbolter is. The issue is that the terminators inability to use grenades is still visible in the Codex Space Marines by the loss of frag and krak grenades. It is indicative as a contradiction to the notion that terminators are now allowed to use grenades. This is FLUFF. You have said you would not talk about fluff. Im leaving this here only as an example of what fluff is. RULES tell you what to do - fluff is text descibing the WHY behind the rules. Plus in this case there isnt even any real fluff to back your argument. If a unit can purchase something, it can use it. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 It is indicative as a contradiction to the notion that terminators are now allowed to use grenades. This is FLUFF. You have said you would not talk about fluff. Im leaving this here only as an example of what fluff is. No, actually I don't think the FLUFF reason behind why Terminators could not previously get grenades was because they were not allowed to use them. The fluff would be that they are incapable to use them. Not being allowed is RULES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nighthawks Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 well, they are allowed them now. at least melta bombs are. which aren't thrown, but placed. fits rules, fluff, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I thought we weren't talking about fluff. And no. All grenades have to be placed in combat against vehicles according to their rules on page 63 of the rulebook, which is why models using grenades against vehicles can allways only make a single attack. That goes for frag and krak grenades as well as for melta bombs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Regardless, a model in terminator armor can take meltabombs in this edition, but not frag or krak. Contradiction or not, the option is still there and thus still available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angronn Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I don't see what the problem is here. As far as I can see, Legatus isn't denying that the rule isn't in effect, so much as arguing that it wasn't meant to be in effect (RAI vs. RAW and all that). He's further supplementing his argument with other rules examples, both past and present, that would support the RAI interpretation. All the responses to him seem to be "ah, but the rules say you can". Which would be true, but irrelevant. For myself, I agree. I think the use of meltabombs for Terminator characters is a mistake, for the reasons Legatus has claimed. It doesn't mean I'll stop opponents using them - after all, it IS in the rules - but that doesn't stop me thinking it's silly RAW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpawn Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 OK, so we are all pretty much in agreement then that they can have meltabombs by RAW. Beyond that, whilst perhaps an interesting discussion, this is a bit of a pointless argument. First of all, we are talking about a book that has discarded so many conventions and changed stats and rules, just because the author felt like it. This seems like a pretty minor change in comparison to improved storm shields and the landraider capacity increase and therefore seems petty to argue it. Previous editions, really are totally irrelevant and I do not want to continue down that path in any detail. I suspect this thread may be locked before long anyway and I hope to avoid adding reasons to do so. The simple fact however, is that there is historical precedent (as I already discussed) for terminator characters to be denied standard issue stuff, yet be allowed to loot the collection of rare and exotic grenades at will. The new codex is strict in comparison to what they could have in the past, even if not as strict as the last one. Finally, I for one can’t say as I care one way or the other whether it is intentional or not. Can anyone here honestly say it is a game breaking option? I’m not even convinced it is a good one. I know weapons that preserve the initiative value have their uses but, if I really wanted 8 + 2D6 armour penetration that badly, I believe I would give him a chainfist and be done with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angronn Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Can anyone here honestly say it is a game breaking option? I’m not even convinced it is a good one. I know weapons that preserve the initiative value have their uses but, if I really wanted 8 + 2D6 armour penetration that badly, I believe I would give him a chainfist and be done with it. I'm with you there. There's no reason to need an initiative-based Armour Penetrating attack in the form of a meltabomb, as the only vehicles it would be relevant against are walkers, and you don't really want to try and use grenades on walkers (at least 90% of the time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpawn Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I was actually thinking more in terms of preserving initiative with a power weapon or lightning claws, then using the bombs to provide some anti-tank. I don't personally consider it to be all that good an option but I guess it could have it's uses on occasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.