Jump to content

Terminator Sergeants and Identical Wargear


LardO'Blood

Recommended Posts

Quite simply, if I have a terminator squad and I give the sergeant a chainfist and a regular terminator a chainfist, do they count as two wound allocation thingys? Or if I take 5TH/SS terminators does the sergeant count separately? Or if I give my Deathwing sergeant a TH/SS as well as another squad member?
The Sergeant with a Power Fist and the Terminator with the Power Fist would have identical stat lines, special rules, wargear and equipment - so would form a single Wound Allocation group.

This was the assessment my group had with Vanguard and Sternguard where you can get the same situation.

The Sergeant with a Power Fist and the Terminator with the Power Fist would have identical stat lines, special rules, wargear and equipment - so would form a single Wound Allocation group.

 

The name is technicly part of the stat line I beleive, the sergent will always be a seperate wound allocation group

The name is technicly part of the stat line I beleive, the sergent will always be a seperate wound allocation group

lol, You're kidding, right?

By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear.
The characteristics are: Weapon Skill (WS), Ballistic Skill (BS), Strength (S), Toughness(T), Wounds (W), Initiative (I), Attacks (A), Leadership (Ld), and Armour Save (Sv).

Name is not included in the profile of characteristics.

 

Edit: as highlighted by thade : my intent was not to come off as snarky - it was meant to be teasing.

Eh ... Wiggle room here in my opinion a sarge is a sarge and a termy is a termy, despite sharing identical stats thry are clearly defined as separate model types in the army list. If they were not to be considered separately why would have they been listed as a separate entry in the army list?

A sergeant is distinguished from the rest of the squad members due to different equipment options. There are some options that are for the sergeant only, some options for regular squad members only, and some options for any model of the squad.

 

However, when it comes to game play, it does not matter whether a terminator model with thunderhammer and storm shield is a sergeant or a regular squad member. They have the same stats, rules and equipment, and it does not matter either way which of the models is removed as a casualty.

It matters in a tactical squad, because that sergeant has a different stat line. But in the case of a Terminator sergeant with the same equipment, there is no difference.

Legatus has it right. It is models with exactly the same statlines and weapons/wargear that are grouped for wound allocation purposes. The name (Terminator or Terminator Sergeant) is irrelevant if they are both armed with the same weapons. And as their statlines are the same and they are not differentiated by any special rules – in "game terms" – they are exactly the same.

If assault terminators and terminators sargeants models are the same game wise, then why did they even include a Terminator Sargeant in the codex?

Another argument that the models are different is the fact that in the unit composition it is crearly stated:

1 Terminator Sargeant, 4 Terminators.

 

This means that in a unit of assault terminators we have two different types of models.

If assault terminators and terminators sargeants models are the same game wise, then why did they even include a Terminator Sargeant in the codex?

Because for virtually every squad in the Codex there are different weapon options for the Sergeant and the rest of the squad. For every squad except for assault terminators. But instead of using a different squad profile just for this one unit they just used the same profile (squad leader + squad members) they used for every other squad.

I agree with Isiah and the others here, the name is absolutely irrelevant, rather it is the statline and wargear that counts. The term in the rulebooks is 'different in gaming terms'. Names are not gaming terms, they are names. Statlines and equipment are gaming terms. Therefore, in the situation of all Assault Terminators having thunder hammers and storm shields, and all Sternguard being armed with boltguns, you roll them in batch as there is nothing to distinguish any one individual model in gaming terms.
I totally agree that by looking only in the rulebook, just the statline, wargear and rules matter to diferentiate the models. But I believe the issue at hand is a matter of Codex trumps Rulebook. When determninig wether ot not you have different models in a unit I believe first step is to check your codex and look at the unit composition below each unit entry. After that you check wargear, stats and rules. Most codexes have options to upgrade models to squad sargeants, C:SM does not. Hence, by checking unit compoition you identify in almost every squad (exept attack bikes) a sarge model and a trooper model i.e. two different models - which is step one of identification process. After that you look for wargear etc.
I totally agree that by looking only in the rulebook, just the statline, wargear and rules matter to diferentiate the models. But I believe the issue at hand is a matter of Codex trumps Rulebook. When determninig wether ot not you have different models in a unit I believe first step is to check your codex and look at the unit composition below each unit entry. After that you check wargear, stats and rules. Most codexes have options to upgrade models to squad sargeants, C:SM does not. Hence, by checking unit compoition you identify in almost every squad (exept attack bikes) a sarge model and a trooper model i.e. two different models - which is step one of identification process. After that you look for wargear etc.

As with any such statment - "prove it". Where in the BRB or Codex does it state that the name of a model is an overriding means by which you compare difference between two models, or that you check the Unit Composition first? Please post the quote or a Book/Pg.number reference (good luck finding such a quote).

I totally agree that by looking only in the rulebook, just the statline, wargear and rules matter to diferentiate the models. But I believe the issue at hand is a matter of Codex trumps Rulebook. When determninig wether ot not you have different models in a unit I believe first step is to check your codex and look at the unit composition below each unit entry. After that you check wargear, stats and rules. Most codexes have options to upgrade models to squad sargeants, C:SM does not. Hence, by checking unit compoition you identify in almost every squad (exept attack bikes) a sarge model and a trooper model i.e. two different models - which is step one of identification process. After that you look for wargear etc.

As with any such statment - "prove it". Where in the BRB or Codex does it state that the name of a model is an overriding means by which you compare difference between two models, or that you check the Unit Composition first? Please post the quote or a Book/Pg.number reference (good luck finding such a quote).

 

Unit composition shows which models are allowed in a unit. Unit compositions shows you that you are not allowed to take terminators in a unit o tactical marines or scouts in a unit of terminators. Checking the unit composition is the first step you undetake when you intend to field a unit.

 

Please read page 128 C:SM codex point no. 2:

"Unit composition: where applicable, this entry lists the number and type of models that make uo a basic unit. For example....."

 

"Type of models" is key here. Reading the above paragraph and the unint entry for the Assault terminator squad we deduct that the terminator sargeant is a different model type than a terminator. Codexes trump rulebook, and this means that you have o allocate woulds separetely to a sarge because the codex sais it is a different model.

Unit composition shows which models are allowed in a unit. Unit compositions shows you that you are not allowed to take terminators in a unit o tactical marines or scouts in a unit of terminators. Checking the unit composition is the first step you undetake when you intend to field a unit.

 

Please read page 128 C:SM codex point no. 2:

"Unit composition: where applicable, this entry lists the number and type of models that make uo a basic unit. For example....."

 

"Type of models" is key here. Reading the above paragraph and the unint entry for the Assault terminator squad we deduct that the terminator sargeant is a different model type than a terminator. Codexes trump rulebook, and this means that you have o allocate woulds separetely to a sarge because the codex sais it is a different model.

I can understand why you might interprete it this way, but the "unit composition" is mainly for purposes of equipping the unit. A tactical squad consists of one 'Space Marine Sergeant' and between 4 and 9 'Space Marines'. This is important because the 'Space Marine Sergeant' has certain wargear options in the army list entry, whilesome of the 'Space Marines' can get a special or a heavy weapon which the Sergeant cannot take. The distinction is made because the models have different equipment options.

 

However, these 'types of models' as you call them are not distinguished between 'Space Marine with plasma gun' and 'Space Marine with boltgun', are they? But that is what is important for wound allocation. For wound allocation, in a typical Tactical squad you would have 1 'sergeant with power weapon', 1 'marine with flamer', 1 'marine with missile launcher' and 7 'marines with boltguns'. But in the army list entry these are 1 Sergeant and 9 Space Marines.

 

In a normal Terminator squad, you would have 1 'Sergeant with power weapon', 1 'Terminator with chainfist', 1 'Terminator with assault cannon' and 2 'Terminators with powerfist and stormbolter' for wound allocation purposes. But for unit composition purposes as on page 64 of the Codex Space Marines these are 1 Terminator Sergeant and 4 Terminators.

 

The unit composition is important mainly for equipping the squad. It does not represent the model groups for wound allocation purposes.

@ Meatball, I agree with Legatus. If we did it your way then people could legitimately roll all their specials and boltguns under one wound allocation group, and that isn't the idea of wound allocation. The rulebook clearly states 'gaming terms', and gaming terms include things like weapon equipment and different stat profile, but not names. Nowhere in the rulebook does it ask you to look at squad composition in respective Codices, and C:SM does not tell you to look at squad composition when doing wound allocation. Therefore, it cannot override the rulebook as it just doesn't in anyway.

 

Legatus is correct when he says the reason for the Sergeant and rest of the squad being distinguished is that normally the Sergeant has different gear (power sword on Terminators), can take different options (relic blade on Vanguard, combat weapons on Sternguard) or has a completely different statline (Tactical, Assault and Dev squads), sometimes many of the above. This makes it easier for the player to identify the models and wargear associated with each. For the few cases where there is no different wargear, options or statline, such as the Terminator Assault squad, I can only guess the Sergeant is still listed to keep things fluffy and consistent across the entire Codex.

Just to clarify my above posts. I meant to say that I wiew model diferentiation as a step by step procedure. First see the models that make up the unit then check diferent wargear and stats for each models. Since C:SM says that in the unit composition you find different unit types it kinda enforces the ideea that sargeants are different from average troops. Kinda like a tree structure for example:

Level 1:............................tacticals.........................................../.............sargeant

Level 2: tactical with special weapon, tactical with bolters....../...........sargeant with fist.

 

I acknowledge the fact that your arguments are valid and as a matter of fact this is how I use would alocation (as per rulebook) in my games. I have a unit of sternguards all with bolters and consider the sarge as a normal vet when rolling saves.

 

I am just trying to point out that there might be some other way to look at the model differentiation process.

This is quite similar to the combi-wound debate. Some people will believe the path the model used to get to where he is now qualifies as a difference (for the purposes of wound allocation) if it's not the same as his neighbors.

 

TDA Sgt with TH&SS with TDA marines with TH&SS

 

or

 

Combi-melta spent marine with bolter marines.

 

 

Each set is identical in gaming terms. QED.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.