RAI, the captain is suppose to be in Terminator armor that precludes him from taking jump packs of any kind if I remember.
However I also remember that RAW dropped the ball hard and Cataphractii armor isn't technically Terminator armor, which means the exceptions that usually restricts items from being taken with Terminator armor doesn't actually apply to him.
Most people have a gentleman's agreement to adhere to the spirit of the word, even if the actual word is poorly written, so don't try forcing this on people if they don't wish to play against it. However if you are up front with your opponent, you can sometimes be surprised at the response.
I would not recommend trying this at a tournament though. Tournament opinions can vary wildly and generally their rule is the last word on things. Trying to rule-lawyer with them never ends well. If possible, check beforehand and be polite if they turn you down.
A model wearing Cataphractii Terminator armour counts as wearing Terminator Armour for the purposes of embarking within Transport vehicles, the use of teleport homers, and for the purposes of Formation Restrictions.
Looks like it's pretty clear that they did not intend for the Cataphractii Terminator armour to count as Terminator Armour for the purpose of Special Issue Wargear restrictions.
The Angel of Death supplement has been out for a while so it's been deemed acceptable as-is by the GWFAQ team since no FAQ has been written for it.
Giving the Cataphractii Captain a jump pack or a bike is perfectly legal according to the rules and intended.
A model wearing Cataphractii Terminator armour counts as wearing Terminator Armour for the purposes of embarking within Transport vehicles, the use of teleport homers, and for the purposes of Formation Restrictions.
Looks like it's pretty clear that they did not intend for the Cataphractii Terminator armour to count as Terminator Armour for the purpose of Special Issue Wargear restrictions.
The Angel of Death supplement has been out for a while so it's been deemed acceptable as-is by the GWFAQ team since no FAQ has been written for it.
Giving the Cataphractii Captain a jump pack or a bike is perfectly legal according to the rules and intended.
No, it is not. You cannot buy Cataphractii Captains a bike or a jump pack. Not because of any restriction, mind, but simply because the option is not available for them - Cataphractii Captains are a seperate, unique unit from regular Captains, that do not get access to most gear options that regular Captains do. They can't even be Chapter Masters! All they can really do is buy different weapons and relics.
The Raven's Fury creates the conflict since, while regular Termie armor cannot buy Jump Packs and thus cannot buy the Raven's Fury (which counts as a Jump Pack,) Cataphractii armor has no such restriction - They didn't bother adding one, because they never made normal Jump Pack access possible.
A model wearing Cataphractii Terminator armour counts as wearing Terminator Armour for the purposes of embarking within Transport vehicles, the use of teleport homers, and for the purposes of Formation Restrictions.
Looks like it's pretty clear that they did not intend for the Cataphractii Terminator armour to count as Terminator Armour for the purpose of Special Issue Wargear restrictions.
The Angel of Death supplement has been out for a while so it's been deemed acceptable as-is by the GWFAQ team since no FAQ has been written for it.
Giving the Cataphractii Captain a jump pack or a bike is perfectly legal according to the rules and intended.
No, it is not. You cannot buy Cataphractii Captains a bike or a jump pack. Not because of any restriction, mind, but simply because the option is not available for them - Cataphractii Captains are a seperate, unique unit from regular Captains, that do not get access to most gear options that regular Captains do. They can't even be Chapter Masters! All they can really do is buy different weapons and relics.
Did you actually read the Army List Entry for the Terminator Captain in the Angels of Death supplement?
Spoiler:
A Terminator Captain can be included in any Space Marines Detachment or Formation that lists 'Captain' as part of its composition, subject to the Formation Restrictions.
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
May replace Terminator armour with Cataphractii Terminator armour (pg 57) ..............free
May take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics lists (see Codex: Space Marines.
The Terminator Captain who replaces his Terminator armour for Cataphractii Terminator armour can clearly access Special Issue Warger without the Terminator armour restriction.
So according to the rules you can give a Cataphractii Captain a bike or jump pack.
Terminator armour is terminator armour no matter which version it is. If there is a restriction on terminator armour then it also applies to cataphracti "terminator armour"
Did you actually read the Army List Entry for the Terminator Captain in the Angels of Death supplement?
Yes, I did!
But I forgot to go back and check under the main codex, I spaced out and thought that bikes and Jump Packs were listed individually, I forgot they were under the 'Special Issue Wargear' umbrella.
As it's written, it's actually allowed.
Nothing in the wording prevents this.
Which really is an oversight on GWs part.
Cataphractii is a heavier pattern of terminator armour.
So if a bike or pack can't take the weight of a regular one, it really won't hold a cataphractii.
Nearly every tournament I've seen though has corrected this and prevented them from using bikes/packs.
Also, because a book has been out for a while does not mean they don't think it needs a FAQ.
It just means they haven't done one yet.
There are quite a few issues raised with the book people are waiting on answers for.
rawne2510 wrote: Terminator armour is terminator armour no matter which version it is. If there is a restriction on terminator armour then it also applies to cataphracti "terminator armour"
Unfortunately in this case, RAW does say it is possible because Cataphractii Armor is never refered to in the rules as being equivalent to Terminator Armor for the purposes of item selection. However, given that even Cataphractii armor is refered to as "Cataphractii Terminator Armor", the two units associated with it are named "Terminator Captain" and "Terminator Squads", the captain himself is restricted to picking weapons from the "Terminator Weapons list" rather than the normal list, and that everything else outside the rules references it as a type of Terminator Armor, it stands to reason that the writers intended for it to be synonymous with Terminator Armor in every form.
Again, this is why it's a gentleman's agreement. There is absolutely nothing in the rules stopping you from doing so, but the general consensus is that it's inappropriate. If you played 8th edition Warhammer Fantasy, this is very much like the Ogre Ironfist on a Slaughtermaster letting him take magic armor (at least until we get a FAQ about it).
Also they gathered the questions for the faq a month before AOD came out. Don't let this last round fool you, it tolk ten years for the last FAQs to come out. At this point they'll most likely make 8th instead of fixing it.
You are saying a heavy bolt gun is not a bolt type gun because it has an additional word.
Further claiming that a model has general access to special issue wargear gives them specific access to every special issue wargear on the list is really...Not logical in any regard.
The problem was that Cataphractii armor specifically refers to itself as being treated as Terminator armor for the purposes of counting for transports, which means that the rules themselves recognize that "Cataphractii Terminator Armor" is technically a different term from "Terminator Armor".
It's that one line that kills it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in the camp that says that it is Terminator armor and should be subjected to the same restrictions thereof, but this time RAW dropped the ball.
He means the "Terminator Weapons" list in the Space Marine Armory.
The weapons themselves aren't terminator-exclusive, but only characters in terminator armor have the option to select from the list (this is because the cost for those weapons are adjusted to account for the storm bolter and power weapon terminator armor usually comes with).
The weapons themselves aren't terminator-exclusive, but only characters in terminator armor have the option to select from the list (this is because the cost for those weapons are adjusted to account for the storm bolter and power weapon terminator armor usually comes with).
Actually they are Terminator excuse from that list, as the list specifies models in Terminator armor may replace x item for y item at z cost.
If Cataphracti Terminator armor is not Terminator armor they can't upgrade any of their items from that list per the RAW people are stating allows them to use the Ravens fury jump pack.
I.e. a model in Cataphracti Terminator armor has no option to take items from that list by the logic that they can take Ravens fury, so storm bolter and power sword as weapons for cataphracti captains, outside of relics.
I completely skimmed over that and I'll hold my hands up there.
I see the point completely.
The wargear states a model in terminator armour can select the weapons etc, thus giving the wording it is terminator armour.
It's a vicious back and forth because there exists evidence for both arguments since technically it means by RAW he can't swap out his weapons (he doesn't have to select anything from the list, just has permission) but isn't counted as having terminator armor (the cataphractii armor's own rules has to say it counts as terminator armor for various purposes, and specifically did not include item selection restrictions). Note that the Captain starts with normal Terminator Armor, so by a strict reading of RAW he is either choosing Cataphractii armor OR the ability to swap his weapons (he gets the option regardless of which armor he's wearing).
Again, that's just what RAW states, and we all know RAW can be obtuse at times. I full heartly agree that it SHOULD be that Cataphractii Armor = Terminator Armor in terms of wargear selection, but RAW is decidely non-cooperative in this respect.
Which, again, is why I say it's a Gentleman's Agreement to treat it as Terminator Armor. And we should probably just leave it here before we say some unkind words and the mods have to be involved.
EDIT: When I said "not terminator exclusive" I meant that having terminator armor isn't a requirement for using those weapons, as they can appear on other lists and options (this is because in older editions, there were some weapons that were terminator exclusive, like the thunder hammers). You still need terminator armor to even get access, let alone select anything.
FWIW I didn't think there was any hostility in the thread
I'm just of the opinion that Cataphracti Terminator armor is Terminator armor, of course the RAW could be that it's not, I understand that for example a power weapon can be on both lists, just that the Terminator weapons list has the stated requirement of having Terminator armor makes the idea that Cataphracti Terminator armor is not Terminator armor very restrictive in options.
There wasn't any hostility, but it was starting to retread on something that already generated something like 10 pages of discussion (which did devolve into namecalling if I remember, and didn't get anywhere), which is not something the mods look kindly upon. Not to mention most people are already in agreement that it's a poorly written example of RAW so there's not much to be had other than repeat what has already been said.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: When I said "not terminator exclusive" I meant that having terminator armor isn't a requirement for using those weapons, as they can appear on other lists and options (this is because in older editions, there were some weapons that were terminator exclusive, like the thunder hammers). You still need terminator armor to even get access, let alone select anything.
That's a good point. One could argue that he doesn't get weapon options from the terminator list.
...except the stock model has a terminator armor-only weapon. That's a pretty clear sign that he's wearing terminator armor. If you want to get really fiddly with the rules, the unit entry gives him access to terminator weapons, but the weapons list specifies that (once you have access to the list) you can only swap gear if in terminator armor.
The thing with the stock model is that it technically was not made for 40k. It's made for 30k (and technically for Betray at Calth), which I assume that it has no such conflicts in those books. It is simply repurposed for 40k use. This wouldn't be the first time that a model had equipment it wasn't suppose to (although I forget who the last example was).
However in all cases where a model has a piece of wargear it's not suppose to, it's treated as if that wargear doesn't exist. In essence, the rules restrict what the model has, but the model never restricts what the rules can do.
Once again, we all know it's suppose to be Terminator Armor and there are numerous references to this (the most obvious one is the name is Cataphractii TERMINATOR Armor, not "Cataphractii Armor"). But the rules were poorly written so going *strictly by the word of the rules*, if he has Cataphractii Terminator Armor, he has permission to the list of Terminator Weapons, but cannot actually select anything. He can then select any Relic or Special Issue Wargear he wants, unless a piece of wargear requires Terminator Armor. This is all because the Cataphractii Terminator Armor's own rules says that it's treated like Terminator Armor for the purposes of boarding transports and Relic Terminator Armors all having the line "this is a suit of Terminator Armor" rather than trying to reproduce the wording of Terminator Armor. Since Cataphractii Terminator Armor doesn't have a blanket statement like Relic Armors, but still makes a distinction for a very specific situation, it means that it is indeed treated as a completely different entity. Or at least this is the case until a FAQ can come.
Again, we all know what it's meant to be, which is why I keep referencing the "gentleman's agreement". But if someone really wants to, you can be shouting at him with all the evidence to the contrary till your blue in the face, but nothing written in the rules forbid it.
spiralingcadaver wrote: If you want to get really fiddly with the rules, the unit entry gives him access to terminator weapons, but the weapons list specifies that (once you have access to the list) you can only swap gear if in terminator armor.
Incorrect. The general permission allows him to swap a Melee Weapon for one of the weapons on the list Ranged Weapons or a Melee Weapon for one of the weapons on the list of Melee Weapons.
Spoiler:
A model may replace his boltgun, bolt pistol and/or Melee weapon with one of the following:
He is stuck with the stormbolter however. Although that can be swapped for a Chapter Relic.
If you really want to split hairs like that, nothing in the rules says that thing is a chain fist (in fact in most descriptions of Chainfists, they're suppose to be a chainsword attached to a Power Fist, and that ain't no power fist on his hand). It could be a really weird looking relic blade and he's holding the Betrayer's Bane Relic.
Again, we all know the intent, but the rule written in the rulebook does not agree.
@ col_impact: The Terminator Captain entry doesn't give him access to the standard Melee Weapons or Ranged Weapons list in the armory. The only ones he gets access to is Terminator Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and Chapter Relics. He does, however, have an option in his entry to take a Relic Blade instead of a Power Sword.
I'm sorry, are you really arguing WYSIWYG rules don't apply because it might not be a chainfist, despite it being listed as one on the BAC rules and on the FW site with the same style as one?
And is that gun he's got maybe a regular combi bolter? Because RAW he's also not allowed access to either gun list.
No I think he is making a valid counter to people saying it isn't Terminator armour so can take jump packs and bikes which would means he can't exchange weapons in the terminator only list
spiralingcadaver wrote: I'm sorry, are you really arguing WYSIWYG rules don't apply because it might not be a chainfist, despite it being listed as one on the BAC rules and on the FW site with the same style as one?
And is that gun he's got maybe a regular combi bolter? Because RAW he's also not allowed access to either gun list.
Yes actually, because BaC and the FW rules have no bearing the Angels of Death codex. You seem to be unable to differentiate between when people are talking about RAW and RAI.
RAW, quite literally (as in the literal words written down on the page) if he takes Cataphractii Armor, he still has access to the Terminators Weapons list, but cannot actually buy anything because he technically isn't wearing Terminator Armor. The reason for this is that if you look at the Cataphractii Terminator Armor entry in the rules section, it says it counts as Terminator Armor for Transport purposes, Teleport Homers and Restrictions for Formations, but not Wargear Selection. And this is weird because if you look in the Grey Knight Codex, one of the relics (Cuirass of Sacrifice I think?) Says, in the first line, that it's a suit of Terminator Armor, rather than listing the specifics of what it would count as a suit of Terminator Armor. Since the Cataphractii Terminator Armor does not include this line, and curiously leaves out Wargear selection, then by the words Written On The Page, it is not the same as Terminator Armor.
RAI, like you said, every instance of it appearing in any form of media says it can only be Terminator Armor. It's in the name, it's in the supposed model's equipment loadout, it's even got it in the fluff where it's described as being one of the precursors to the existing Terminator Armor. It is *Suppose* to be Terminator Armor, but due to the above mentioned writing booboo, it technically isn't. Which is why people have generally agreed upon that it /Should/ be treated as Terminator Armor during equipment selection, in spite of what the rules say, because that's the obvious intent. Note that most people do in fact treat it as Terminator Armor, I do too. But this is for arguing the specific wording of it in the book, and I'm afraid no amount of minute detail contradictions will be able to change that, because none of those contradictions exist in hard, written rules.
I'm not blind to this, I think the situation is stupid too. But until GW comes out with a FAQ officially correcting this, unfortunately this is what the rules say. If I had to guess, the writer of this book did it that way because he was afraid if he said "it's a suit of Terminator Armor" then it might end up like the Gargantuan Creature rule, where if they didn't specifically mention something as an exception, people would go apeshit over the smallest details. And yes, I am fully aware of the irony that the writer, in trying to prevent it, instead caused it to happen anyways because he didn't make it completely waterproof by saying "For Wargear selection". I am a firm believer that if/when a FAQ does come out for Angels of Death, they will state the obvious and say "Cataphractii Terminator Armor is treated as Terminator Armor for the sake of wargear selection". But again, until that happens, this is the only result we can conclude to.
Also if you want an example of a model with wargear he's not suppose to have, look at the Warsmith (not Warpsmith, WARsmith). He has a Servo Arm on his back that does absolutely nothing now. it was because in one edition of the book he was allowed to have it. But in the current rules, he doesn't get it, and no amount of WYSIWYG will make someone let you count it as a servo arm. He also technically only have a Combi-Flamer for a weapon; that claw of his isn't a weapon in the books either, no matter which edition (although it's meant to be treated as a Power Fist).
EDIT: You know what, I don't even know why I'm arguing this. I think it should be treated as Terminator Armor too.
Basically for anyone that's reading this, just know that the wording in the rules IS that bad. But as long as you have some common sense and make sure your opponent isn't an ass, this shouldn't be a problem. Just don't be surprised that if you decide to abuse this oversight, people might not be willing to play with you, and you will probably not get any sympathy from bystanders either.
No, I can clearly understand the difference, I just can't believe anyone is interpreting this as anything other than RAI. GW has never been very good at rules clarity, and in such an obvious RAI situation, I don't there should be any question.
I guess I basically agree with you, but this is one of few places, specifically because of company history, where I'd argue that RAI takes precedent. There have been some extremely stupid loopholes in GW rules if you read them literally, and others that basically just soft lock the game.
With a company that has a history of precise language, I'd always argue RAW until corrected, but not here.
Hence, why I say it's a Gentleman's agreement to treat it as Terminator Armor.
If you're using the RAW interpretation in this case, it's pretty clear you just want the rules advantage. There is no way someone could legitimately misunderstand this that badly otherwise.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Hence, why I say it's a Gentleman's agreement to treat it as Terminator Armor.
If you're using the RAW interpretation in this case, it's pretty clear you just want the rules advantage. There is no way someone could legitimately misunderstand this that badly otherwise.
You are not being very fair at all to someone who reads the rule as-is. It's very straightforward that the Cataphractii armour only counts as Terminator armour in certain aspects and not all aspects.
Spoiler:
A model wearing Cataphractii Terminator armour counts as wearing Terminator Armour for the purposes of embarking within Transport vehicles, the use of teleport homers, and for the purposes of Formation Restrictions.
A person playing it according to RAW could simply be respecting the fairness of playing according to the rules in the book and not the rules as filtered by a whiny opponent who is seeking to deny what is rightfully his. A Cataphractii captain on a bike isn't any better than what the Space Marine codex already provides.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Hence, why I say it's a Gentleman's agreement to treat it as Terminator Armor.
If you're using the RAW interpretation in this case, it's pretty clear you just want the rules advantage. There is no way someone could legitimately misunderstand this that badly otherwise.
You are not being very fair at all to someone who reads the rule as-is. It's very straightforward that the Cataphractii armour only counts as Terminator armour in certain aspects and not all aspects.
Spoiler:
A model wearing Cataphractii Terminator armour counts as wearing Terminator Armour for the purposes of embarking within Transport vehicles, the use of teleport homers, and for the purposes of Formation Restrictions.
A person playing it according to RAW could simply be respecting the fairness of playing according to the rules in the book and not the rules as filtered by a whiny opponent who is seeking to deny what is rightfully his. A Cataphractii captain on a bike isn't any better than what the Space Marine codex already provides.
Must you argue with me even when I'm in agreement with you and simply am expressing my opinion?
Also are you implying that the 8/10 other people who participated in the discussion here (who think this is merely a typo) are "whiny"? Because you're suppose to debate against another person's argument, not attack an opponent directly with an insult.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Hence, why I say it's a Gentleman's agreement to treat it as Terminator Armor.
If you're using the RAW interpretation in this case, it's pretty clear you just want the rules advantage. There is no way someone could legitimately misunderstand this that badly otherwise.
You are not being very fair at all to someone who reads the rule as-is. It's very straightforward that the Cataphractii armour only counts as Terminator armour in certain aspects and not all aspects.
Spoiler:
A model wearing Cataphractii Terminator armour counts as wearing Terminator Armour for the purposes of embarking within Transport vehicles, the use of teleport homers, and for the purposes of Formation Restrictions.
A person playing it according to RAW could simply be respecting the fairness of playing according to the rules in the book and not the rules as filtered by a whiny opponent who is seeking to deny what is rightfully his. A Cataphractii captain on a bike isn't any better than what the Space Marine codex already provides.
Must you argue with me even when I'm in agreement with you and simply am expressing my opinion?
Also are you implying that the 8/10 other people who participated in the discussion here (who think this is merely a typo) are "whiny"? Because you're suppose to debate against another person's argument, not attack an opponent directly with an insult.
I am not calling you whiny at all. I am just pointing out that there are two sides in a rules discussion which you seem to be overlooking. You are jumping to the characterization that someone who reads the rules as-is is just looking for rules advantage. Keep in mind the person that is complaining about an opponent playing plainly stated rules as they are is also looking to disadvantage his opponent by taking away what is rightfully his.
The gentlemen way to handle things is to follow the rules unless the rule in question actually is a problem and breaks something. In this case, following the rules doesn't break anything. So no need to do anything except follow the rules.
I don't even play Space Marines. But there is no way I would deny a player who wanted a Cataphractii captain on a bike. The rules clearly support it.
Frankly, I'm halfway expecting every IOMIC to have a 2+ armour anyway. It's not like artisan/runic/excuse gear doesn't exist already as a perfectly useable workaround for the bike/jump restrictions. Ok, you don't get a 5++ with that, but surely there will be a 4++ optional item or even a 3++ somewhere if you really look? If that doesn't give you FNP already, surely you can tack that on somehow.
I hope that 8th Edition brings something that kills the multi-faction IC deathstar builds.
Again, we are all in agreement in RAW, the rules debate has long since ended.
I had a long speech prepared but I remember how our last argument ended so all I'm gonna say is remember that we are in agreement in what the RAW says, while HIWPI is up to the individual and we are allowed to retain whatever we think of the actual rules, and if someone is openly in disagreement with the rules, you shouldn't guilt trip them into playing a game under those circumstances. Just pick up and walk away.
Frankly, I'm halfway expecting every IOMIC to have a 2+ armour anyway. It's not like artisan/runic/excuse gear doesn't exist already as a perfectly useable workaround for the bike/jump restrictions. Ok, you don't get a 5++ with that, but surely there will be a 4++ optional item or even a 3++ somewhere if you really look? If that doesn't give you FNP already, surely you can tack that on somehow.
I hope that 8th Edition brings something that kills the multi-faction IC deathstar builds.
I am actually kinda salty about that because I remember a time when 2+ armor was more widespread. I think short of the Eldar and Dark Eldar (who had a 2++ anyways), everyone else had some way of getting 2+ armor. Also it actually meant something back then. Now it's a minor roadbump with all the AP2 Grav running around.
Also the 4++ doesn't really matter since the only character that can take Cataphractii armor is the Captain, who comes with an Iron Halo (grants a 4++) base anyways. The only bonus is that the two apparently stack (in this VERY specific case, as it's listed in the Cataphractii's rules) and grants a reroll of a 1.
impact, yeah, I am saying they're gaming some bad rules. I don't think anyone who knows the setting well would argue that isn't an error. And that leaves a small amount of new players who are new to the setting and not aspiring power gamers. If it seemed like a completely innocent mistake, I probably wouldn't give them any trouble over it, but I think the natural assumption would be that cataphractii terminator armor, described and appearing and mostly mechanically terminator armor, is terminator armor unless you were looking for loopholes.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Hence, why I say it's a Gentleman's agreement to treat it as Terminator Armor.
If you're using the RAW interpretation in this case, it's pretty clear you just want the rules advantage. There is no way someone could legitimately misunderstand this that badly otherwise.
You are not being very fair at all to someone who reads the rule as-is. It's very straightforward that the Cataphractii armour only counts as Terminator armour in certain aspects and not all aspects.
Spoiler:
A model wearing Cataphractii Terminator armour counts as wearing Terminator Armour for the purposes of embarking within Transport vehicles, the use of teleport homers, and for the purposes of Formation Restrictions.
A person playing it according to RAW could simply be respecting the fairness of playing according to the rules in the book and not the rules as filtered by a whiny opponent who is seeking to deny what is rightfully his. A Cataphractii captain on a bike isn't any better than what the Space Marine codex already provides.
I think it's more he's pointing out that if someone is going to play by strict RAW, as you're suggesting, if they buy the bike then by the very same RAW they better not by any of the terminator weapons that require having terminator armor in order to purchase. If the person wants to play by strict RAW on this for purposes of getting the bike, he should play by the same RAW for not getting to change out weapons.
spiralingcadaver wrote: impact, yeah, I am saying they're gaming some bad rules. I don't think anyone who knows the setting well would argue that isn't an error. And that leaves a small amount of new players who are new to the setting and not aspiring power gamers. If it seemed like a completely innocent mistake, I probably wouldn't give them any trouble over it, but I think the natural assumption would be that cataphractii terminator armor, described and appearing and mostly mechanically terminator armor, is terminator armor unless you were looking for loopholes.
It's pretty darn clear in the rules that Cataphractii armour is not terminator armour for all intents and purposes.
Spoiler:
A model wearing Cataphractii Terminator armour counts as wearing Terminator Armour for the purposes of embarking within Transport vehicles, the use of teleport homers, and for the purposes of Formation Restrictions.
Cataphractii armour is terminator armour for only some purposes, and wargear selection is clearly not one of them.
It is simply not fair to try and guilt trip or otherwise malign someone who is legitimately playing according to the rules. If you try to guilt trip or malign them then it's you who is being the bad player.
A Cataphractii captain on a bike isn't better than what the Space Marine codex already provides. So why make much ado over nothing?
spiralingcadaver wrote: impact, yeah, I am saying they're gaming some bad rules. I don't think anyone who knows the setting well would argue that isn't an error. And that leaves a small amount of new players who are new to the setting and not aspiring power gamers. If it seemed like a completely innocent mistake, I probably wouldn't give them any trouble over it, but I think the natural assumption would be that cataphractii terminator armor, described and appearing and mostly mechanically terminator armor, is terminator armor unless you were looking for loopholes.
It's pretty darn clear in the rules that Cataphractii armour is not terminator armour for all intents and purposes.
Spoiler:
A model wearing Cataphractii Terminator armour counts as wearing Terminator Armour for the purposes of embarking within Transport vehicles, the use of teleport homers, and for the purposes of Formation Restrictions.
Cataphractii armour is terminator armour for only some purposes, and wargear selection is clearly not one of them.
It is simply not fair to try and guilt trip or otherwise malign someone who is legitimately playing according to the rules. If you try to guilt trip or malign them then it's you who is being the bad player.
A Cataphractii captain on a bike isn't better than what the Space Marine codex already provides. So why make much ado over nothing?
Would you let the Cataphractii captain buy terminator weapons despite the page with the listing for them saying they are for models in terminator armor? I would think you would have to say no, since if it's not terminator armor for buying a bike, it's not terminator armor for buying terminator weapons.
Would you let the Cataphractii captain buy terminator weapons despite the page with the listing for them saying they are for models in terminator armor? I would think you would have to say no, since if it's not terminator armor for buying a bike, it's not terminator armor for buying terminator weapons.
Sure. The Option says he "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list. That's self-contained specific permission.
impact, if you're really anally and literally reading the rules as you are choosing to, you should just as anally and literally read the wargear rules. Having access to the terminator gear (as the unit entry says) gives you access to a list entitled "terminator weapons" or something like that, which then specifies that you're required to have terminator armor to use things in the list (so if you don't have terminator armor, which you're arguing you don't, you have access to none of those options). It's the same as specialist gear which you have access to, which then says you can't use certain combinations, the argument you're using to allow bikes or w/e since it's not terminator armor. Normally those sentences about wearing terminator armor are purely clarification/flavor text, but if you're going to nit pick like that, that redundant text suddenly becomes relevant.
spiralingcadaver wrote: impact, if you're really anally and literally reading the rules as you are choosing to, you should just as anally and literally read the wargear rules. Having access to the terminator gear (as the unit entry says) gives you access to a list entitled "terminator weapons" or something like that, which then specifies that you're required to have terminator armor to use things in the list (so if you don't have terminator armor, which you're arguing you don't, you have access to none of those options). It's the same as specialist gear which you have access to, which then says you can't use certain combinations, the argument you're using to allow bikes or w/e since it's not terminator armor. Normally those sentences about wearing terminator armor are purely clarification/flavor text, but if you're going to nit pick like that, that redundant text suddenly becomes relevant.
The Option says he "may take items" so you have to respect that specific permission. If there is a conflict with a more basic rule the advanced rule wins out. This captain is given specific permission to take items from the Terminator armour list.
As you say, "wearing terminator armour" is purely clarification/flavor text. That text is simply overridden by the specific permission provided by the Army List Entry option to actively take items on that list.
...And how is deciding which part of the sentence to pay attention to not your bizarre version of RAI? Should I assume that "replace" is also flavor text so I can take both weapons? Or maybe should I assume that the weapon being replaced is optional? Or is the "may" in fact flavor text and I'm required to buy an upgrade? Because I'm certainly playing it wrong if I 'm forced to take 2 additional weapons rather than had the option to replace either or both.
Or if unit entry > item list, the restrictions in the item lists are meaningless if the unit entry overrides them anyways.
For anyone following without the book, "Terminator weapons (break) A model wearing terminator armor may replace his storm bolter with one of the following" (BTW, strictly RAW storm bolter is also not something that can be swapped out since the model doesn't have one)
spiralingcadaver wrote: ...And how is deciding which part of the sentence to pay attention to not your bizarre version of RAI? Should I assume that "replace" is also flavor text so I can take both weapons? Or maybe should I assume that the weapon being replaced is optional? Or is the "may" in fact flavor text and I'm required to buy an upgrade? Because I'm certainly playing it wrong if I 'm forced to take 2 additional weapons rather than had the option to replace either or both.
Or if unit entry > item list, the restrictions in the item lists are meaningless if the unit entry overrides them anyways.
For anyone following without the book, "Terminator weapons (break) A model wearing terminator armor may replace his storm bolter with one of the following"
The Army List Entry provides specific permission to that model in that supplement. That permission is going to override any directly contradicting lines in the text of the Space Marines Wargear List in the Space Marines codex. There isn't an issue here. Any true conflicts get resolved in favor of the specific permission. That's how 40k rules work by design.
Spoiler:
Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.
spiralingcadaver wrote: (BTW, strictly RAW storm bolter is also not something that can be swapped out since the model doesn't have one)
Not sure how you are coming up with this. Are you looking at the Army List Entry? The wargear lists storm bolter and power sword.
This is the Armor of Asvald Stormwrack argument all over again, albeit that armor didn't force a change to Terminator weapons. It had all the rules for Terminator armor and irrc it even called it terminator armor in the fluff piece, yet some players decided they wanted to toss it on a IC who would then either ride a thunderwolf.
Got a FAQ detailing that it is effectively terminator armor and thus could not be used with a TWC. But before that FAQ dropped, most SW players basically called BS on those that tried to use it in that role anyway.
spiralingcadaver wrote: ...And how is deciding which part of the sentence to pay attention to not your bizarre version of RAI? Should I assume that "replace" is also flavor text so I can take both weapons? Or maybe should I assume that the weapon being replaced is optional? Or is the "may" in fact flavor text and I'm required to buy an upgrade? Because I'm certainly playing it wrong if I 'm forced to take 2 additional weapons rather than had the option to replace either or both.
Or if unit entry > item list, the restrictions in the item lists are meaningless if the unit entry overrides them anyways.
For anyone following without the book, "Terminator weapons (break) A model wearing terminator armor may replace his storm bolter with one of the following"
The Army List Entry provides specific permission to that model in that supplement. That permission is going to override any directly contradicting lines in the text of the Space Marines Wargear List in the Space Marines codex. There isn't an issue here. Any true conflicts get resolved in favor of the specific permission. That's how 40k rules work by design.
Spoiler:
Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.
spiralingcadaver wrote: (BTW, strictly RAW storm bolter is also not something that can be swapped out since the model doesn't have one)
Not sure how you are coming up with this. Are you looking at the Army List Entry? The wargear lists storm bolter and power sword.
This is not a case of basic versus advanced.
In fact nothing being quoted is an advanced rule, which are actually defined in the BRB.
If the RAW is that it is not a Terminator, then it cannot take any options from Terminator weapons as the general permission in the unit entry is modified by the specific rules of the wargear list, otherwise options such as jump pack with the number denoting they cannot be taken by Terminator armor would have no meaning. Just as having specific restrictions on special issue wargear or relics would have no meaning if the general permission to select from this lists was all that is needed to take anything from them.
Either RAW Cataphracti Terminator armor is Terminator armor, or raw it loses it's general permission to take anything on the Terminator weapons list because the Terminator list specifies models in Terminator armor may replace x for y at z cost.
Cataphracti Terminator armor is not quantum Terminator armor based on your wishes, it's either Terminator armor or not Terminator armor.
In fact nothing being quoted is an advanced rule, which are actually defined in the BRB.
If the RAW is that it is not a Terminator, then it cannot take any options from Terminator weapons as the general permission in the unit entry is modified by the specific rules of the wargear list, otherwise options such as jump pack with the number denoting they cannot be taken by Terminator armor would have no meaning. Just as having specific restrictions on special issue wargear or relics would have no meaning if the general permission to select from this lists was all that is needed to take anything from them.
Either RAW Cataphracti Terminator armor is Terminator armor, or raw it loses it's general permission to take anything on the Terminator weapons list because the Terminator list specifies models in Terminator armor may replace x for y at z cost.
Cataphracti Terminator armor is not quantum Terminator armor based on your wishes, it's either Terminator armor or not Terminator armor.
There is not a choice here. RAW is RAW.
RAW the Cataphractii terminator armour does not count as terminatour for all purposes. Wargear selection is one of the purposes excluded. Therefore a Cataphractii captain can take a bike.
RAW the Terminator Captain "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list. If that specific permission in the Army List Entry conflicts with the more general flavor text of the Terminator Weapons list then the specific permission wins out. There is no choice but to adhere to the Terminator Captain being able to take items for the Terminator Weapons list.
col_impact wrote: Wargear selection is one of the purposes excluded. Therefore a Cataphractii captain can take a bike.
RAW the Terminator Captain "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list. If that specific permission in the Army List Entry conflicts with the more general flavor text of the Terminator Weapons list then the specific permission wins out.
And for some mysterious reason, we should ignore parts of sentences in the wargear sections?
col_impact wrote: Wargear selection is one of the purposes excluded. Therefore a Cataphractii captain can take a bike.
RAW the Terminator Captain "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list. If that specific permission in the Army List Entry conflicts with the more general flavor text of the Terminator Weapons list then the specific permission wins out.
And for some mysterious reason, we should ignore parts of sentences in the wargear sections?
Anything in the general Terminator Weapons list that conflicts with the specific permission granted to the Terminator Captain model on his Army List Entry gets overridden and is for all intents and purposes ignored.
No. By that logic ANY terminator character may take bikes or a jump pack. They all have permission to take items from the SIWG list and the SIWG list has exceptions for terminators. Since we're IGNORING any exceptions they can grab any item that in the list.
As an added bonus to this rule, Blood angel terminator may take grav cannons, Techmrines can grab a jetpack on top of their servo harness or conversion beamer, and any model with a bike can make it jump because they may also select a jump pack.
MattKing wrote: No. By that logic ANY terminator character may take bikes or a jump pack. They all have permission to take items from the SIWG list and the SIWG list has exceptions for terminators. Since we're IGNORING any exceptions they can grab any item that in the list.
As an added bonus to this rule, Blood angel terminator may take grav cannons, Techmrines can grab a jetpack on top of their servo harness or conversion beamer, and any model with a bike can make it jump because they may also select a jump pack.
Incorrect. You misunderstand how overrides work. Overrides are specifically applied to text that directly conflicts.
There is a specific rule on the Army List Entry that the captain may take items from the Terminator Weapons list.
There is some descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour") that prevents the captain from taking any and all items for the Terminator Weapons. Text that makes it impossible for the captain to take any item at all directly conflicts with the line "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list.
So, there is a direct conflict between a specific permission granted to the captain model and a general description.
The specific permission ("may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list) granted to that exact model (the captain) wins out over the general descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour")
MattKing wrote: No. By that logic ANY terminator character may take bikes or a jump pack. They all have permission to take items from the SIWG list and the SIWG list has exceptions for terminators. Since we're IGNORING any exceptions they can grab any item that in the list.
As an added bonus to this rule, Blood angel terminator may take grav cannons, Techmrines can grab a jetpack on top of their servo harness or conversion beamer, and any model with a bike can make it jump because they may also select a jump pack.
100% with you on "if A, then also B". It's pretty remarkable how bizarre a double standard he's manufacturing in order to allow something so clearly unintended.
MattKing wrote: Kind of like: "may take models from the special issue warear list" would override "may not be selected by a model wearing terminator armor"
Does wearing terminator armour prevent the purchase of all items in the special issue wargear list? Nope. Then it does not conflict with "may take items". "May take items" is logically satisfied just fine with the ability to take some but not all items on the list.
Again, overrides are applied over direct conflicts.
MattKing wrote: No. By that logic ANY terminator character may take bikes or a jump pack. They all have permission to take items from the SIWG list and the SIWG list has exceptions for terminators. Since we're IGNORING any exceptions they can grab any item that in the list.
As an added bonus to this rule, Blood angel terminator may take grav cannons, Techmrines can grab a jetpack on top of their servo harness or conversion beamer, and any model with a bike can make it jump because they may also select a jump pack.
100% with you on "if A, then also B". It's pretty remarkable how bizarre a double standard he's manufacturing in order to allow something so clearly unintended.
What double standard? This is simply the application of Rules As Written and RAW is a single standard that I apply to all rule interactions.
Col, if a model says "May take items from X list", but X list has restrictions preventing them from taking items, are they allowed to take items or not?
JNAProductions wrote: Col, if a model says "May take items from X list", but X list has restrictions preventing them from taking items, are they allowed to take items or not?
Yes. If that model has specific permission to take items from a general list then it can indeed take items from that list.
If that list has a general condition that would be directly violated by that specific permission then the specific permission wins out.
You cannot ignore the model's specific permission "may take items from Terminator Weapons" list.
Iron Priests may take items from the Special Issue Wargear list
That does not mean they make take all items from the Special Issue Wargear list.
The specific restriction that Iron Priests may not take jump packs (which is only one item on a list of many) is not in direct conflict with "may take items from the Special Issue Wargear" list. The Iron Priest can still take melta bombs, digital weapons, and/or a bike. That satisfies "may take items".
A blanket restriction that prevented the Iron Priests from taking any items on the Special Issue Wargear list would be in direct conflict with a rule permitting the Iron Priest to take items from the Special Issue Wargear list.
You have a model that can draw from a list, but some items on the list are restricted. So, they cannot take restricted items.
It just so happens in the Captain's case that ALL items are restricted, but the fundamental issue is the same.
Either a Cataphractii Captain is in Terminator Armour, and may take Terminator Items but not stuff like Jump Packs, or he is not in Terminator Armour, and may take stuff like Bikes, but cannot take Terminator Items.
You have a model that can draw from a list, but some items on the list are restricted. So, they cannot take restricted items.
It just so happens in the Captain's case that ALL items are restricted, but the fundamental issue is the same.
Incorrect. The issue is not the same. There is in this case a DIRECT CONFLICT. A model cannot be in the position of being able to take items and not being able to take any items at the same time.
In the cases of direct conflict specific permission statements override more general rules statements.
Either a Cataphractii Captain is in Terminator Armour, and may take Terminator Items but not stuff like Jump Packs, or he is not in Terminator Armour, and may take stuff like Bikes, but cannot take Terminator Items.
There is no either or. There is only one way of reading the Rules As Written.
Spoiler:
A model wearing Cataphractii Terminator armour counts as wearing Terminator Armour for the purposes of embarking within Transport vehicles, the use of teleport homers, and for the purposes of Formation Restrictions.
Well, at least all but one of us are in agreement with what's the case if you strictly read as written. BTW, fun avatar, JNA, just got in to the series.
spiralingcadaver wrote: Well, at least all but one of us are in agreement with what's the case if you strictly read as written. BTW, fun avatar, JNA, just got in to the series.
Yeah, it's great! No spoilers, but hot DAMN is Nox a good villain!
Anyway.
A model wearing Cataphractii Terminator armour counts as wearing Terminator Armour for the purposes of embarking within Transport vehicles, the use of teleport homers, and for the purposes of Formation Restrictions.
Notice how nowhere does it state that it counts as Terminator Armour for the purposes of selecting equipment. There is no conflict here-there is a list that is restricted, causing him to not be able to select anything from the list. It's badly written, if you adhere to the belief that this Captain can take bikes and such, but it's not a contradiction. Just dumb writing.
spiralingcadaver wrote: Well, at least all but one of us are in agreement with what's the case if you strictly read as written. BTW, fun avatar, JNA, just got in to the series.
I am the only one strictly adhering to the Rules As Written.
Spoiler:
A model wearing Cataphractii Terminator armour counts as wearing Terminator Armour for the purposes of embarking within Transport vehicles, the use of teleport homers, and for the purposes of Formation Restrictions.
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
may take items from the Terminator Weapons [list]"
No, you are ignoring the part where it says models in Terminator Armour may take those items.
If you have 20$, and you walk into a store where the cheapest item is $30, you are able to select whatever you like from the store. You just can't afford it.
Likewise, he is given access to that list, but separately, there are restrictions that prevent him from actually taking anything.
JNAProductions wrote: No, you are ignoring the part where it says models in Terminator Armour may take those items.
If you have 20$, and you walk into a store where the cheapest item is $30, you are able to select whatever you like from the store. You just can't afford it.
Likewise, he is given access to that list, but separately, there are restrictions that prevent him from actually taking anything.
Does the permission say "may take items" or "may ponder items"?
Again, by your logic, Iron Priests get to take Jump Packs.
Incorrect. And I have proven this.
An Iron Priest permission to "may take items" is only violated if he cannot take any items, not if his selection is partially limited. The Iron Priest can still satisfy "may take items" by being able to take the non-jump items.
You are making a bad strawman argument.
Feel free to continue pushing the strawman argument. It only makes your argument look weak.
JNA, just don't bother. He's clearly not listening. Everyone else gets it.
And yeah, it's just one of the most well-made just-plain-fun series I've seen in some time. Another french series in a similar quality and style (and some of the same VO IIRC) though notably more serious tone is The Long, Long Vacation.
No It doesn't. If you are at a restaurant and the server tells you "we have no icecream today" and you demand a vanilla shake because it's a specific type of icecream and therefore not subject to the waiter's general provisions. You still won't get any icecream.
MattKing wrote: No It doesn't. If you are at a restaurant and the server tells you "we have no icecream today" and you demand a vanilla shake because it's a specific type of icecream and therefore not subject to the waiter's general provisions. You still won't get any icecream.
What does any of this have to do with anything?
Keep in mind tenet #3 of YMDC.
Examples need to be directly relevant to 40k.
We are talking about the specific permission granted to a specific model to take items overriding a general restriction to not take any items. This is a permissive ruleset not a restaurant.
JNAProductions wrote: There is no conflict here-there is a list that is restricted, causing him to not be able to select anything from the list.
If he can't take ANY items from the list then there is a conflict with a rule that grants permission to "may take items".
You aren't adhering to the Rules As Written.
This is an entirely bogus line of thought.
When we were talking about RG you freely made any assumption you wished and stated you were allowed to do so.
You assumed what you were permitted to do before, and now you claim you are explictly permitted, there is no common stance in your arguments.
Now you are taking the exact opposite approach, you interpret the rules in the most exploitative manner possible, every time.
You can open any codex for SM, Deathwatch, GK, this supplement is worded the same, EVERY SINGLE ONE is worded the same. ALL OF THEM.
It states...
"Captain, Librarian, Chaplain etc etc ....IN Terminator armor MAY take items from...
You are required to be IN Terminator armor before you are allowed to take those items, the may is predicated upon being in Terminator armor.
This other armor only COUNTS AS Terminator armor for transportation and formation purposes, it does not state it is permitted to count as for wargear purposes.
By the logic you are using any model can buy any terminator weapons they wish because it says MAY even if they are wearing PA, in this circumstance by the wording the unit is wearing some type of armor other than "Terminator Armor" and actually paying the point cost for the armor is something you can choose to ignore.
As was stated before there are only two options.
1. Either a Cataphractii Captain is in Terminator Armour, and may take Terminator Items
or
2. He is not in Terminator Armour, and may take stuff like Bikes, and may not take Terminator Items.
You can open any codex for SM, Deathwatch, GK, this supplement is worded the same, EVERY SINGLE ONE is worded the same. ALL OF THEM.
It states...
"Captain, Librarian, Chaplain etc etc ....IN Terminator armor MAY take items from...
What does this particular supplement (Angels of Death) say?
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
May take items from the Terminator Weapons [list]"
So the Terminator Captain model has specific permission to take items from the Terminator Weapons list, irrespective of whether or not that model swaps its terminator armour for Cataphractii armour.
It's not really worth arguing with col_impact about this. No one has ever been able to convince them of being wrong about a matter before no matter how hard they try even if it's obvious and the conversation always ends up going around it circles.
JNAProductions wrote: It may take any item from the list, following the usual restrictions. Nothing in the text indicates that it bypasses restrictions.
The specific permission granted to the model states that captain may take items from the list. A more general rule that prevents it from taking any item from the list is in direct conflict with that specific permission, correct?
That is an example of a case that is NOT in direct conflict. The Iron Priest is able to take meltabombs and digital weapons and/or a bike and therewith satisfy being able to take items.
It's only if the Iron Priest could not take any items from the Special Wargear list would there be a case of direct conflict.
Terminator Captain in the Angel of Death supplement "may take items in the Terminator Weapons [list]", yes or no?
Yes.
However you seem to be forgetting that Terminator armor is a piece of wargear,
Terminator weapons states a model WEARING "Terminator Armor"
If you choose to take the other armor you are REPLACING "Terminator Armor" if you are not wearing that wargear because you replaced it, you are not permitted to take items.
Now if we agree that it is "Terminator Armor" and he is wearing it, then he cannot ride a bike or take a jetpack.
It also says MAY, MAY means it is a possibility, an option, it does not say CAN take, or MUST take, it says MAY.
"May" asserts that there is a stipulation, as with every other case of "May".
Ceann wrote: Terminator Captain in the Angel of Death supplement "may take items in the Terminator Weapons [list]", yes or no?
Yes.
However you seem to be forgetting that Terminator armor is a piece of wargear,
Terminator weapons states a model WEARING "Terminator Armor"
If you choose to take the other armor you are REPLACING "Terminator Armor" if you no wear that wargear because you replaced it, you are not permitted to take items.
Now if we agree that it is "Terminator Armor" and he is wearing it, then he cannot ride a bike or take a jetpack.
The Terminator Captain has the permission to take items from the Terminator Weapons list, irrespective of whether or not he is in Terminator armour or Cataphractii armour.
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
may take items from the Terminator Weapons [list]
That permission granted to the specific captain model overrides any directly conflicting general restriction, such as "wearing Terminator armour"
Cataphractii armour does not count as terminator armour for all purposes, only some.
Spoiler:
A model wearing Cataphractii Terminator armour counts as wearing Terminator Armour for the purposes of embarking within Transport vehicles, the use of teleport homers, and for the purposes of Formation Restrictions.
Those purposes doe not include Special Wargear selection, so the Cataphractii captain can choose a bike.
The rules indicate he is not wearing terminator armour. He is wearing Cataphractii armour that only counts as terminator armour for certain purposes.
Spoiler:
A model wearing Cataphractii Terminator armour counts as wearing Terminator Armour for the purposes of embarking within Transport vehicles, the use of teleport homers, and for the purposes of Formation Restrictions.
Space Marine Bike "footnote 3"
May not be taken by models wearing Terminator Armor.
The captain is in Cataphractii armour which does not count as terminator armour for the purpose of Special Issue Wargear so he may purchase a bike no problem.
Ceann wrote: Terminator Weapons:
A model wearing Terminator Armor may replace...
The purposes you listed does not include purchasing wear gear.
The captain model has specific permission to take items from the Terminator Weapons list
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
may take items from the Terminator Weapons [list]
That permission granted to the specific captain model overrides the general descriptive text "wearing Terminator Armor" that is in direct conflict with that specific permission.
Spoiler:
Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.
Luckily for us, it says "See Codex: Space Marines"
Also luckily for us, Codex: Space Marines is not a basic rule.
So there is no contradiction, it DEFERS to the Codex: Space Marines by telling us to consult those rules. In fact the entire page for the Terminator Captain essentially has "See Codex: Space Marines" rubber stamped all over it. All the war gear, tactics etc all contain the same direction.
Ceann wrote: Luckily for us, it says "See Codex: Space Marines"
Also luckily for us, Codex: Space Marines is not a basic rule.
So there is no contradiction, it DEFERS to the Codex: Space Marines by telling us to consult those rules.
The captain model has specific permission to take items from the Terminator Weapons list.
The permission granted to the specific captain model overrides the general descriptive text "wearing Terminator Armor" that is in direct conflict with that specific permission.
I would like know how a basic option on a basic unit supercedes the wargear restrictions. Clearly the wargear list has extra restrictions and thus could be ruled as more advanced rule.
Imho wargear rules are more advanced rules as they are applied after getting the unit. It is hopefully clear to everyone that unit needs to be bought before getting wargear. So in this manner clearly in the order of list building ( has gw given any other orders?) the wargear specific rules and restrictions are more advanced than the basic unit options.
Ceann wrote: There is no rule that says that.
Advanced rules dictate that a codex takes precedence, the entry in the supplement book directs us to the codex.
No rule needs to say it. In logic, specific overrides general.
Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.
The Ambulance driver can go over the speed limit even though that contradicts the general restriction to drivers. The ambulance driver has a more specific permission than the general restriction.
The captain model is specifically given permission to take items from the Terminator Weapons list. That overrides the general statement "a model wearing terminator armor".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghorgul wrote: I would like know how a basic option on a basic unit supercedes the wargear restrictions. Clearly the wargear list has extra restrictions and thus could be ruled as more advanced rule.
Imho wargear rules are more advanced rules as they are applied after getting the unit. It is hopefully clear to everyone that unit needs to be bought before getting wargear. So in this manner clearly in the order of list building ( has gw given any other orders?) the wargear specific rules and restrictions are more advanced than the basic unit options.
The specific model is given the permission to take items from the Terminator Weapons list. That specific permission overrides any general restriction that a model not wearing Terminator armour cannot. The rules have specifically indicated that that particular captain model can indeed take items from the Terminator Weapon list.
No, he does not have specific permission to WEAR it, he has permission to ACCESS that gear, He MAY, not CAN, not MUST, he MAY, it is then followed by directions on where to look at the war gear. The criteria states that he must be wearing terminator armor to use said wargear.
If he is wearing terminator armor, then he may purchase those items. The entry you reference for the unit refers to the entry of the codex, it is directing you to the rules.
At this point in order to purchase those items he MUST be wearing terminator armor, if he is wearing terminator armor then he cannot ride a bike.
If there was any truth to your statement that you were "just honestly following the rules" the same train of thought you are putting forth applies to relics also, if we can ignore the prerequisite text for a grouping of wargear, then clearly he can take as many relics as he wishes also instead of just one.
If you are asserting that, then you are asserting that this same exact line of text "may take from X" that is on nearly every single SM character in existence may also ignore the prerequisites of relics and take as many as they want as well.
Ghorgul wrote: I would like know how a basic option on a basic unit supercedes the wargear restrictions. Clearly the wargear list has extra restrictions and thus could be ruled as more advanced rule.
Imho wargear rules are more advanced rules as they are applied after getting the unit. It is hopefully clear to everyone that unit needs to be bought before getting wargear. So in this manner clearly in the order of list building ( has gw given any other orders?) the wargear specific rules and restrictions are more advanced than the basic unit options.
Actually codices and supplements are equally "advanced" with neither having clear primacy over the other.
-------------------------------------------------
BTW, if we are able to ignore restrictions in the Wargear List, then Codex Tacticals, Devastators and Crusaders can take Heavy Flamers! Not to mention we can ignore the restrictions listed for Terminators to be on Bikes and take Jump Packs, or any combination! So, have fun with your Librarian riding a Bike in Terminator Armor with a Jump Pack.
As if anyone would seriously allow that to happen that had any grasp of basic English, context, and grammar.
But then, almost anything's possible in Col_ignored's esoteric grammar dictionary.
Ceann wrote: No, he does not have specific permission to WEAR it, he has permission to ACCESS that gear, He MAY, not CAN, not MUST, he MAY, it is then followed by directions on where to look at the war gear. The criteria states that he must be wearing terminator armor to use said wargear.
If he is wearing terminator armor, then he may purchase those items. The entry you reference for the unit refers to the entry of the codex, it is directing you to the rules.
At this point in order to purchase those items he MUST be wearing terminator armor, if he is wearing terminator armor then he cannot ride a bike.
If there was any truth to your statement that you were "just honestly following the rules" the same train of thought you are putting forth applies to relics also, if we can ignore the prerequisite text for a grouping of wargear, then clearly he can take as many relics as he wishes also instead of just one.
If you are asserting that, then you are asserting that this same exact line of text "may take from X" that is on nearly every single SM character in existence may also ignore the prerequisites of relics and take as many as they want as well.
Is that what you are saying?
Don't straw man my argument.
The captain model is given specific permission to take items from the Terminator list. That permission supersedes any more general statement that would say he may not take items from the Terminator weapons list.
Specific > general.
In logic, specific overrides general.
1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.
The Ambulance driver can go over the speed limit even though that contradicts the general restriction to drivers. The ambulance driver has a more specific permission than the general restriction.
BTW, if we are able to ignore restrictions in the Wargear List, then Codex Tacticals, Devastators and Crusaders can take Heavy Flamers! Not to mention we can ignore the restrictions listed for Terminators to be on Bikes and take Jump Packs, or any combination! So, have fun with your Librarian riding a Bike in Terminator Armor with a Jump Pack.
As if anyone would seriously allow that to happen that had any grasp of basic English, context, and grammar.
But then, almost anything's possible in Col_ignored's esoteric grammar dictionary.
That is not what is being discussed at all. Nobody is saying to ignore the restrictions in the Wargear list. Why do you even bother chiming in on discussions about my arguments when you refuse to actually read my arguments first hand?
No rule needs to say it. In logic, specific overrides general.
The captain model is specifically given permission to take items from the Terminator Weapons list. That overrides the general statement "a model wearing terminator armor".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghorgul wrote: I would like know how a basic option on a basic unit supercedes the wargear restrictions. Clearly the wargear list has extra restrictions and thus could be ruled as more advanced rule.
Imho wargear rules are more advanced rules as they are applied after getting the unit. It is hopefully clear to everyone that unit needs to be bought before getting wargear. So in this manner clearly in the order of list building ( has gw given any other orders?) the wargear specific rules and restrictions are more advanced than the basic unit options.
The specific model is given the permission to take items from the Terminator Weapons list. That specific permission overrides any general restriction that a model not wearing Terminator armour cannot. The rules have specifically indicated that that particular captain model can indeed take items from the Terminator Weapon list.
Specific model is given a general permission to take items from the Terminator Weapons list. The general permission does not override any specific restrictions in Terminator Weapons list. The rules have only generally indicated that this particular captain model can take items from the the Terminator Weapons list and thus dont override specific restrictions.
You are, by your own choosing, setting rules and restrictions in order of superiority, or order of advanced rule. I provided earlier arguments, why I consider wargear restrictions to be more advanced rule. You did not provide structured arguments or GWfaq quotes on this matter. You just state an opinion that one permission supercedes a restriction based on your own choice.
Specific model is given a general permission to take items from the Terminator Weapons list. The general permission does not override any specific restrictions in Terminator Weapons list. The rules have only generally indicated that this particular captain model can take items from the the Terminator Weapons list and thus dont override specific restrictions.
You are, by your own choosing, setting rules and restrictions in order of superiority, or order of advanced rule. I provided earlier arguments, why I consider wargear restrictions to be more advanced rule. You did not provide structured arguments or GWfaq quotes on this matter. You just state an opinion that one permission supercedes a restriction based on your own choice.
Which is the more specific statement?
1) The Terminator Captain model may take items from the Terminator Weapons list.
How am i straw manning your argument, are you daft?
Terminator Weapons, Special Wargear and Relics are ALL UNDER THE SAME SENTENCE.
You assert that the "may take" part on the front of said sentence, permits Terminator weapons to be taken regardless of the prerequisite text under said Terminator weapons.
That must obvioulsy apply to relics as well, they have a prerequisite text that states you can only take one of them, we can ignore that also right?
And as nearly every single SM captain and librarian has the same line of text you are referencing then this must apply to all of them.
It sounds like you are saying your own argument fails.
Good thing the end of the sentence states "see Codex: Space Marines" which clearly has all the valid rules for the wargear it is referencing.
Ceann wrote: How am i straw manning your argument, are you daft?
Terminator Weapons, Special Wargear and Relics are ALL UNDER THE SAME SENTENCE.
You assert that the "may take" part on the front of said sentence, permits Terminator weapons to be taken regardless of the prerequisite text under said Terminator weapons.
That must obvioulsy apply to relics as well, they have a prerequisite text that states you can only take one of them, we can ignore that also right?
Is the relic text in direct conflict with the permission granted elsewhere? No.
That is why you are strawmanning my argument. I am presenting a case of direct conflict. There is a specific permission and a more general restriction that are in direct conflict. The specific permission only overrides exactly what it is in direct conflict with in the general statement in order for the more specific permission to be true. That enables the ambulance driver to drive above the speed limit when drivers are not allowed to drive above the speed limit.
1) The Terminator Captain model may take items from the Terminator Weapons list.
2) A model wearing terminator armour may . . .
They are both quite specific, and clear, what you are allowed to do. To me the restriction is clear, you need to be wearing terminator armour to use the options. And wargear listed restrictions still claim superiority, please refer to my argument about the order of superiority earlier. And then counter my argument instead of skirting around it.
Well specific and general have nothing to do with RAW, they are not elements of RAW. You have a nasty habit of tunnel visioning on 3 or 4 words and repeating them like a mantra. We do not get to do that in RAW, we have to read the entire sentence, the entire lines of rules and then take action based on the their entirety.
We read the words and do exactly what they tell us to do, in order.
We read that we may access terminator weapons, when we get to the terminator weapons section, we now either do or do not have terminator armor in order to proceed.
We may access relics, when we get to the relic section we now either do or do not already have a relic, if we do not have one then we can proceed.
We may access the special wargear, we may ride a bike if we do not have terminator armor.
May is contingent upon something else.
All of these choices have a prerequiste and the line of text you are attempting to manipulate is essentially universal in every single SM,GK,DW codex.
Those are the options the rules give us, we are told to go to the space marine codex and the space marine codex tells us what to do. Anything else you are doing is playing with words or using semantics to make the words mean what you want them too.
Ceann wrote: Well specific and general have nothing to do with RAW, they are not elements of RAW. You have a nasty habit of tunnel visioning on 3 or 4 words and repeating them like a mantra. We do not get to do that in RAW, we have to read the entire sentence, the entire lines of rules and then take action based on the their entirety.
We read the words and do exactly what they tell us to do, in order.
We read that we may access terminator weapons, when we get to the terminator weapons section, we now either do or do not have terminator armor in order to proceed.
We may access relics, when we get to the relic section we now either do or do not already have a relic, if we do not have one then we can proceed.
We may access the special wargear, we may ride a bike if we do not have terminator armor.
May is contingent upon something else.
All of these choices have a prerequiste and the line of text you are attempting to manipulate is essentially universal in every single SM,GK,DW codex.
Those are the options the rules give us, we are told to go to the space marine codex and the space marine codex tells us what to do. Anything else you are doing is playing with words or using semantics to make the words mean what you want them too.
I think this is a well reasoned argument, and this is also the only way we can consider which permission or restriction = rule, claims superiority over another.
They are both quite specific, and clear, what you are allowed to do. To me the restriction is clear, you need to be wearing terminator armour to use the options. And wargear listed restrictions still claim superiority, please refer to my argument about the order of superiority earlier. And then counter my argument instead of skirting around it.
1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.
Can the ambulance driver go over the speed limit?
If yes, explain how it can do so even though it is breaking the restriction in statement 1.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: Well specific and general have nothing to do with RAW, they are not elements of RAW. You have a nasty habit of tunnel visioning on 3 or 4 words and repeating them like a mantra. We do not get to do that in RAW, we have to read the entire sentence, the entire lines of rules and then take action based on the their entirety.
We read the words and do exactly what they tell us to do, in order.
We read that we may access terminator weapons, when we get to the terminator weapons section, we now either do or do not have terminator armor in order to proceed.
We may access relics, when we get to the relic section we now either do or do not already have a relic, if we do not have one then we can proceed.
We may access the special wargear, we may ride a bike if we do not have terminator armor.
May is contingent upon something else.
All of these choices have a prerequiste and the line of text you are attempting to manipulate is essentially universal in every single SM,GK,DW codex.
Those are the options the rules give us, we are told to go to the space marine codex and the space marine codex tells us what to do. Anything else you are doing is playing with words or using semantics to make the words mean what you want them too.
There is direct conflict between a specific permission granted to the Terminator Captain ("may take items in the Terminator weapons" list) and a general description that would preclude him from taking any items. The two statements cannot both be true.
The direct conflict is resolved in favor of the more specific statement. This is a simple quality of logic and statements in general.
Overrides are specifically applied to text that directly conflicts.
There is a specific rule on the Army List Entry that the captain may take items from the Terminator Weapons list.
There is some descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour") that prevents the captain from taking any and all items for the Terminator Weapons. Text that makes it impossible for the captain to take any item at all directly conflicts with the line "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list.
So, there is a direct conflict between a specific permission granted to the captain model and a general description.
The specific permission ("may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list) granted to that exact model (the captain) wins out over the general descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour")
Logic is not RAW. I am sorry.
There is no line nor logic section in the BRB that says "apply professors col_impact's logic to the rules".
There is not a direct conflict, it states explicitly "see Codex: Space Marines" which clearly defines the critera upon which you can and cannot use the gear,special, relics.
There is no such thing as a "direct conflict" that is not in the BRB. It is stated that when a datasheet breaks a rule then you follow that datasheet.
The supplement's datasheet TELLS US, directs us, SPECIFICALLY, to the Codex: Space Marines.
If your argument held water, it would be true for anything that use Codex: Space Marines.
RAW are also not logic puzzles, so the other words you put about drivers mean nothing. I could not find a drivers section in the BRB.
Rules As Written carries with it that the rules are WRITTEN in a language. Language carries with it grammar, syntax, semantics, mathematics, and logic.
If you don't allow these implicit and attending things, then you cannot even add two die together. Nor could you follow any instruction since the instructions are in a language. To play 40k you must recognize the English language (or whatever language it has been translated to for your use).
So considering that discussions of logic are fully allowed by YMDC then kindly answer the following . . .
1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.
Can the ambulance driver go over the speed limit?
If yes, explain how it can do so even though it is breaking the restriction in statement 1.
In summary
Spoiler:
The specific permission granted to the Terminator Captain overrides the more general description text that precludes the permission.
Overrides are specifically applied to text that directly conflicts.
There is a specific rule on the Army List Entry that the captain may take items from the Terminator Weapons list.
There is some descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour") that prevents the captain from taking any and all items for the Terminator Weapons. Text that makes it impossible for the captain to take any item at all directly conflicts with the line "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list.
So, there is a direct conflict between a specific permission granted to the captain model and a general description.
The specific permission ("may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list) granted to that exact model (the captain) wins out over the general descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour")
The specific permission granted to the Terminator Captain overrides the more general description text that precludes the permission.
Overrides are specifically applied to text that directly conflicts.
There is a specific rule on the Army List Entry that the captain may take items from the Terminator Weapons list.
There is some descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour") that prevents the captain from taking any and all items for the Terminator Weapons. Text that makes it impossible for the captain to take any item at all directly conflicts with the line "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list.
So, there is a direct conflict between a specific permission granted to the captain model and a general description.
The specific permission ("may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list) granted to that exact model (the captain) wins out over the general descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour")
You keep arguing the same thing, that permission on unit entry is somehow gains superiority over wargear restrictions. Earlier I presented an argument and explanation why I consider wargear and wargear restrictions to be more advanced, more specific, rule, and thus should claim superiority over any unit entry permissions. You sir still are not responding to my argument.
That ambulance example is hardly relevant example of the rules question we are arguing about in here imho.
In general, your example of direct conflict is somewhat a valid argument. This argument however does breakdown, as the direct conflict is caused by player choice. As you do you have a choice to have only the standard terminator armor. The direct conflict arises only after choosing the cataprachtii armor. Thus the direct conflict is self-inflicted by your own choice, as you could always choose the option that does not result in direct conflict. This is why I am of the opinion that your direct conflict argument does not hold in this particular case.
it's totally legit. it's a relic, not wargear... people get their panties in a ruff because they think wargear restrictions apply to it. But the truth is, it isn't wargear....the notation next to the special issue wargear just doesn't apply....it's from a different list of options. Also, if you need a second point, it's technically not Terminator Armor... it's Catapharctii Terminator Armor, which is a different Proper Noun. Also, if you check the wargear entry for Jumppack, because the relic is a jumppack.... it has no restrictions for Terminator armor.
anywho... check out mine! If it looks this dope, its definitely allowed in play.
poolatka wrote: it's totally legit. it's a relic, not wargear... people get their panties in a ruff because they think wargear restrictions apply to it. But the truth is, it isn't wargear....the notation next to the special issue wargear just doesn't apply....it's from a different list of options. Also, if you need a second point, it's technically not Terminator Armor... it's Catapharctii Terminator Armor, which is a different Proper Noun.
anywho... check out mine! If it looks this dope, its definitely allowed in play.
That's a pretty cool conversion!
I think we have reached consensus, that RAW a Cataprachtii Captain can have bike or jump pack. Also a rough consesus has been reached that RAW the Cataprachtii Captain cannot take any wargear from terminator weapons as he is not wearing terminator armor.
This would make your conversion tabletop illegal as per RAW, because you have combi-melta and chainfist. Although in your case you can get around this by just using standard terminator armor, I think.
personally... I don't mind it... because it's a relic... it's only one guy in the army.... it's not as bad as spamming flying tyrants or something...
plus, it ain't smashfucker without iron hands...and he's no Khan on a bike... It's kinda a unique thing for ravenguard... you forget. if this is The One Thing that Ravenguard get despite having one of the weaker tactics, it's a fair trade off.... granted, if you play their strike force, you are now forced into over 50% of your list not really being what you want...but their strike force is pretty damned good.
I'd just like to see Imperial Fists or Ultramarines Reroll a Reroll...... then things would start evening up.
Rules As Written carries with it that the rules are WRITTEN in a language. Language carries with it grammar, syntax, semantics, mathematics, and logic.
If you don't allow these implicit and attending things, then you cannot even add two die together. Nor could you follow any instruction since the instructions are in a language. To play 40k you must recognize the English language (or whatever language it has been translated to for your use).
So considering that discussions of logic are fully allowed by YMDC then kindly answer the following . . .
1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.
Can the ambulance driver go over the speed limit?
If yes, explain how it can do so even though it is breaking the restriction in statement 1.
In summary
Spoiler:
The specific permission granted to the Terminator Captain overrides the more general description text that precludes the permission.
Overrides are specifically applied to text that directly conflicts.
There is a specific rule on the Army List Entry that the captain may take items from the Terminator Weapons list.
There is some descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour") that prevents the captain from taking any and all items for the Terminator Weapons. Text that makes it impossible for the captain to take any item at all directly conflicts with the line "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list.
So, there is a direct conflict between a specific permission granted to the captain model and a general description.
The specific permission ("may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list) granted to that exact model (the captain) wins out over the general descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour")
I hope you get this framed and put it next to your screen. I recall when you were ignoring "these weapons" for RG because there was nothing in the rules that defined what the term explicitly meant, now you are doing the exact opposite by demanding that every word be thought of and accounted for. Yet another instance of hypocritical arguments based on the interpretation that best suites your intentions.
There is no such thing as permission for gear, there is access to gear, the data sheet tells us all of the potential things something can access and he does have access however it is contingent upon something else. A restriction specific to that wargear, just like the what the make says is even more specific. Units are the least specific, followed by models, then by wargear, each of these things is progressively more narrow.
You have a silly logical fallacy you are trying to use to make your point while ignoring the fact that the very line you are trying to use as justification directly deferred itself, to Codex: Space Marines.
As for your drivers nonsense complete your assertion rather than asking me to complete your attempt at an argument for you. Your premise is false because MAY denotes a possibility both of your provided subjects can perform either action making any conclusion false. Present a full argument.
Ceann wrote: There is no rule that says that.
Advanced rules dictate that a codex takes precedence, the entry in the supplement book directs us to the codex.
No rule needs to say it. In logic, specific overrides general.
Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.
The Ambulance driver can go over the speed limit even though that contradicts the general restriction to drivers. The ambulance driver has a more specific permission than the general restriction.
The captain model is specifically given permission to take items from the Terminator Weapons list. That overrides the general statement "a model wearing terminator armor".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghorgul wrote: I would like know how a basic option on a basic unit supercedes the wargear restrictions. Clearly the wargear list has extra restrictions and thus could be ruled as more advanced rule.
Imho wargear rules are more advanced rules as they are applied after getting the unit. It is hopefully clear to everyone that unit needs to be bought before getting wargear. So in this manner clearly in the order of list building ( has gw given any other orders?) the wargear specific rules and restrictions are more advanced than the basic unit options.
The specific model is given the permission to take items from the Terminator Weapons list. That specific permission overrides any general restriction that a model not wearing Terminator armour cannot. The rules have specifically indicated that that particular captain model can indeed take items from the Terminator Weapon list.
So you are saying a Ambulance driver no matter what he is driving can ignore the speed limit!!!!
MattKing wrote: No It doesn't. If you are at a restaurant and the server tells you "we have no icecream today" and you demand a vanilla shake because it's a specific type of icecream and therefore not subject to the waiter's general provisions. You still won't get any icecream.
What does any of this have to do with anything?
Keep in mind tenet #3 of YMDC.
Examples need to be directly relevant to 40k.
We are talking about the specific permission granted to a specific model to take items overriding a general restriction to not take any items. This is a permissive ruleset not a restaurant.
What is this hypocritical nonsense about an ambulance?
MattKing wrote: No It doesn't. If you are at a restaurant and the server tells you "we have no icecream today" and you demand a vanilla shake because it's a specific type of icecream and therefore not subject to the waiter's general provisions. You still won't get any icecream.
What does any of this have to do with anything?
Keep in mind tenet #3 of YMDC.
Examples need to be directly relevant to 40k.
We are talking about the specific permission granted to a specific model to take items overriding a general restriction to not take any items. This is a permissive ruleset not a restaurant.
What is this hypocritical nonsense about an ambulance?
Guess this is an open and shut case, thanks Matt for your contributions.
1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.
Can the ambulance driver go over the speed limit?
If yes, explain how it can do so even though it is breaking the restriction in statement 1.
The answer you are looking for is yes, but that is because you've not put in the required restrictions in when an ambulance driver can break the spead limit. They may not do so while driving their own vehicle, for example, it is not carte blanche.
Your question should have read
1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit in an emergency
Can an ambulance driver break the speed limit whenever they want?
As to models having access to a list they cannot take items from see space marine bikes and special weapons in the previous codex, this required a specific errata as having access to the list did not mean they could actually take anything as it required giving up a weapon they didnt have.
There is no such thing as permission for gear, there is access to gear, the data sheet tells us all of the potential things something can access and he does have access however it is contingent upon something else. A restriction specific to that wargear, just like the what the make says is even more specific. Units are the least specific, followed by models, then by wargear, each of these things is progressively more narrow.
Does the option say "May access items from the Terminator" list or "may take items from the Terminator" list?
"May take items" is permission to "take items". That permission is granted to a specific Terminator Captain model.
In general, your example of direct conflict is somewhat a valid argument. This argument however does breakdown, as the direct conflict is caused by player choice. As you do you have a choice to have only the standard terminator armor. The direct conflict arises only after choosing the cataprachtii armor. Thus the direct conflict is self-inflicted by your own choice, as you could always choose the option that does not result in direct conflict. This is why I am of the opinion that your direct conflict argument does not hold in this particular case.
The direct conflict is there because Army List Entries have no history or preference. The option "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list is just as valid for the Terminator Captain in terminator armour as it is for the Terminator Captain in Cataphractii armour.
1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.
Can the ambulance driver go over the speed limit?
If yes, explain how it can do so even though it is breaking the restriction in statement 1.
The answer you are looking for is yes, but that is because you've not put in the required restrictions in when an ambulance driver can break the spead limit. They may not do so while driving their own vehicle, for example, it is not carte blanche.
Your question should have read
1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit in an emergency
Can an ambulance driver break the speed limit whenever they want?
As to models having access to a list they cannot take items from see space marine bikes and special weapons in the previous codex, this required a specific errata as having access to the list did not mean they could actually take anything as it required giving up a weapon they didnt have.
Ambulance drivers can go over the speed limit because they have specific permission that logically overrides the general restriction.
Similarly
1) Pitbulls are dangerous
2) My girlfriend's pitbull is not dangerous
Is my girlfriend's pitbull dangerous or not dangerous?
The specific truth statement overrides the more general truth statement.
The Terminator Captain has specific permission to "take items from the Terminator Weapons" list which logically overrides any more general restriction that blanket removes his ability to take any items at all.
Ceann wrote: So he can also take as many relics as he wishes because he may take items from...? Correct?
There is no direct conflict in the case of relics. There would only be a direct conflict if there was some general blanket statement preventing the Terminator Captain from purchasing any relics. There is no such general blanket statement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: The exact same text is used for a Space Wolves Iron Priest. Why can't they take a Jump Pack?
There is no direct conflict. The Iron Priest can still take items. Only if all items on Special Issue Wargear list were forbidden to the Iron Priest would the Iron Priest not be able to take items and in that case there would be a direct conflict.
So a restriction on just one item (e.g. a jump pack) in the Special Issue Wargear list is perfectly okay and does not present a case of direct conflict.
Again you have no clue how to make a logical statement.
What is 3.? All pit bull are dangerous? What assertion are you trying to make. You keep using two statement examples and then leaving a hanging open field.
Provide your THEREFORE assertion if you are going to bother to make a feeble attempt at using a logical model.
If your girlfriends pit bull isn't dangerous then clearly not all pit bull are dangerous, so your premise is wrong from the start. You are creating a trap answer to your hanging question that immediately becomes a logical fallacy and because you pose these silly two step statements based on an inaccurate premise without completing it then any response you are given by a responder is automatically wrong.
Present your own argument if you cannot create one on your own then clearly none of your arguments have any merit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The text states at the end. See codex space marines.
Anything else you have to talk about from the supplement is irrelevant.
Ceann wrote: If your girlfriends pit bull isn't dangerous then clearly not all pit bull are dangerous, so your premise is wrong from the start creating and answer to your hanging question to immediately be a logical fallacy and because you pose these silly two step statements based on an inaccurate premise without completing then any response you are given by a responder is automatically wrong.
Present your own argument if you cannot create one on your own then clearly none of your arguments have any merit.
No. The first statement was presented in "as a general rule" format so it is not a faulty premise.
Consider:
1) Women have ovaries.
2) My sister [who is a woman] does not have ovaries.
Statement 2's specificity overrides the "as a general rule" statement in #1.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: So, just to be clear-because it says "May take", he can take any item he wishes from the lists he has access to, regardless of restrictions?
Nope. Not at all. The only restriction that has been removed is the general one that is in direct conflict with the specific "may take items" permission granted to the model. Any other restrictions that are not in direct conflict are still present.
1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit in an emergency
Can an ambulance driver break the speed limit whenever they want?
Ambulance drivers can go over the speed limit because they have specific permission that logically overrides the general restriction.
You didnt answer the question, "Can an ambulance driver break the speed limit whenever they want?" Yes or No?
I answered the question you posed, incomplete as it was, please do me the respect of answering my counterpoint.
The Terminator Captain has specific permission to "take items from the Terminator Weapons" list which logically overrides any more general restriction that blanket removes his ability to take any items at all.
GW disagress, they specifically created an errata in the 6th edition space marine codex to allow space marine bikes to change their bolt pistol to a close combat weapon to allow them to take special weapons from the special weapons list, they already had an option stating that "up to two Space Marine Bikeers may each take one item from the Special Weapons list" but were unable to select a special weapon because they could not meet the critera to select any item from the list. In this case this caused what you call a "direct conflict", you state this means that they could select the items, GW (and people with a grasp of logic) realised it mean the opposite and had to be corrected.
1.If it rains, the street will be wet.
2.The street is wet.
3.Therefore, it rained.
Although it is possible that this conclusion is true, it does not necessarily mean it must be true. The street could be wet for a variety of other reasons that this argument does not take into account. However, if we look at the valid form of the argument, we can see that the conclusion must be true:
1.If it rains, the street will be wet.
2.It rained.
3.Therefore, the street is wet.
This argument is valid and, if it did rain, it would also be sound.
A sample because you clearly do not understand. When you are ready to join the rest of the class let us know. You are posting half formed p and q statements and expecting us to fill in the blank you leave.
GW disagress, they specifically created an errata in the 6th edition space marine codex to allow space marine bikes to change their bolt pistol to a close combat weapon to allow them to take special weapons from the special weapons list, they already had an option stating that "up to two Space Marine Bikeers may each take one item from the Special Weapons list" but were unable to select a special weapon because they could not meet the critera to select any item from the list. In this case this caused what you call a "direct conflict", you state this means that they could select the items, GW (and people with a grasp of logic) realised it mean the opposite and had to be corrected.
This proves my point. The Space Marine Bikers had specific permission and GW intended for them to have that permission. For the original rule writers the specific pemission was logically sufficient to override the general restriction. Those players who recognized that logically specific overrides general played it the way GW intended. GW released errata to make it patently clear.
If the scenario played out the opposite way it would prove your point.
Ceann wrote: 1.If it rains, the street will be wet.
2.The street is wet.
3.Therefore, it rained.
Although it is possible that this conclusion is true, it does not necessarily mean it must be true. The street could be wet for a variety of other reasons that this argument does not take into account. However, if we look at the valid form of the argument, we can see that the conclusion must be true:
1.If it rains, the street will be wet.
2.It rained.
3.Therefore, the street is wet.
This argument is valid and, if it did rain, it would also be sound.
A sample because you clearly do not understand. When you are ready to join the rest of the class let us know. You are posting half formed p and q statements and expecting us to fill in the blank you leave.
Do you understand what "as a general rule" statements are in the English language? It seems like you don't.
GW disagress, they specifically created an errata in the 6th edition space marine codex to allow space marine bikes to change their bolt pistol to a close combat weapon to allow them to take special weapons from the special weapons list, they already had an option stating that "up to two Space Marine Bikeers may each take one item from the Special Weapons list" but were unable to select a special weapon because they could not meet the critera to select any item from the list. In this case this caused what you call a "direct conflict", you state this means that they could select the items, GW (and people with a grasp of logic) realised it mean the opposite and had to be corrected.
This proves my point. The Space Marine Bikers had specific permission and GW intended for them to have that permission. For the original rule writers the specific pemission was logically sufficient to override the general restriction. Those players who recognized that logically specific overrides general played it the way GW intended. GW released errata to make it patently clear.
If the scenario played out the opposite way it would prove your point.
RAI it proves your point.
RAW it proves the opposite, hence the change.
You were discussing RAW were you not?
You are asserting that a supplement that has specific wording declaring subservience to another codex, which inside said codex explicitly states what the requirements are, takes precedence.
He may take items from the list because he is already wearing terminator armor. If you choose to have him wear other armor then he is no longer wearing terminator armor.
You want to talk about logic?
1. Bob is wearing terminator armor.
2. Bob is not wearing terminator armor.
One of these is true and one is not, they both cannot be true.
The specific permission is only going to remove restrictions that are in direct conflict.
An Iron Priest may take items from special wargear. A model in terminator armor may not take a bike. That restriction is in direct conflict with the permission to take special wargear, going by the reasoning you are employing.
Or, if you prefer, let's just stick with the Captain.
A Captain may take terminator weapons. He has termiator armor. Terminator weapons require you to have terminator armor. We know this is not a conflict.
A Captain may take special wargear. He has terminator armor. He wants to take a bike. Is that a direct conflict between the terminator armor (instead of taking cataphractii armor, which he had the choice to take) and taking the bike?
A captain may take terminator weapons. He chose to take Cataphractii armor instead of terminator armor. Terminator weapons require terminator armor to take, not cataphractii armor. Is it a direct conflict between cataphractii armor which he chose and the terminator weapons statement?
Those two questions should have the same answer, not a different one. Presently, you are selectively applying some RAW while ignoring other RAW to come up with a different answer for the two questions.
RAI it proves your point.
RAW it proves the opposite, hence the change.
You were discussing RAW were you not?
Nothing can be asserted either way about RAW in that case. I would have to review the case and see if a specific statement overrode a more general statement. If that were the case then RAW the bikers could get their gear.
Errata can be produced to clarify what was previously written (to remove the possibility of ambiguity) or to assert the opposite of what was previously written. Errata is simply a change in the written word.
The specific permission is only going to remove restrictions that are in direct conflict.
An Iron Priest may take items from special wargear. A model in terminator armor may not take a bike. That restriction is in direct conflict with the permission to take special wargear, going by the reasoning you are employing.
Or, if you prefer, let's just stick with the Captain.
A Captain may take terminator weapons. He has termiator armor. Terminator weapons require you to have terminator armor. We know this is not a conflict.
A Captain may take special wargear. He has terminator armor. He wants to take a bike. Is that a direct conflict between the terminator armor (instead of taking cataphractii armor, which he had the choice to take) and taking the bike?
A captain may take terminator weapons. He chose to take Cataphractii armor instead of terminator armor. Terminator weapons require terminator armor to take, not cataphractii armor. Is it a direct conflict between cataphractii armor which he chose and the terminator weapons statement?
Those two questions should have the same answer, not a different one. Presently, you are selectively applying some RAW while ignoring other RAW to come up with a different answer for the two questions.
Army List Entries don't have history. 'A Terminator Captain make take items from the Terminator Weapons list' is true regardless of history.
RAI it proves your point.
RAW it proves the opposite, hence the change.
You were discussing RAW were you not?
Nothing can be asserted either way about RAW in that case. I would have to review the case and see if a specific statement overrode a more general statement. If that were the case then RAW the bikers could get their gear.
Errata can be produced to clarify what was previously written (to remove the possibility of ambiguity) or to assert the opposite of what was previously written. Errata is simply a change in the written word.
Things can be asserted about the RAW in that case. I have the Codex and the FAQ in front of me. Review the case, You will see that a specific ammendment to the Rules As Wriiten had to be made in order to facilitate the selection of wargear from a list that the model specifically had access to. RAI they had access RAW they did not.
Errata does not clarify an ambiguous point, FAQs clarify, Errata changes the RAW.
Ceann wrote: 1. Bob is wearing terminator armor.
2. Bob is not wearing terminator armor.
One of these is true and one is not, they both cannot be true.
But, what if Bob really, really wants to say that it should be sometimes thought of as terminator armor and sometimes not? Couldn't he get the armorers to say yes and the motorpool to say no by using different logic depending on the building he's in? Those guys don't talk to each other all that much, do they?
RAI it proves your point.
RAW it proves the opposite, hence the change.
You were discussing RAW were you not?
Nothing can be asserted either way about RAW in that case. I would have to review the case and see if a specific statement overrode a more general statement. If that were the case then RAW the bikers could get their gear.
Errata can be produced to clarify what was previously written (to remove the possibility of ambiguity) or to assert the opposite of what was previously written. Errata is simply a change in the written word.
Things can be asserted about the RAW in that case. I have the Codex and the FAQ in front of me. Review the case, You will see that a specific ammendment to the Rules As Wriiten had to be made in order to facilitate the selection of wargear from a list that the model specifically had access to. RAI they had access RAW they did not.
Errata does not clarify an ambiguous point, FAQs clarify, Errata changes the RAW.
If they had permission to take items from a list that was more specific than the general statement restricting that permission then they logically had RAW support for taking the items. Of course not everyone is going to see that. So you write errata so that everyone can be on the same page.
Errata changes the RAW but that does not mean that the original RAW was not fully sufficient to the task. We can only conclude that the RAW was controversial.
Ceann wrote: 1. Bob is wearing terminator armor.
2. Bob is not wearing terminator armor.
One of these is true and one is not, they both cannot be true.
But, what if Bob really, really wants to say that it should be sometimes thought of as terminator armor and sometimes not? Couldn't he get the armorers to say yes and the motorpool to say no by using different logic depending on the building he's in? Those guys don't talk to each other all that much, do they?
Ahhhh I got it.
He IDENTIFY'S as wearing terminator armor.
The direct conflict is there because Army List Entries have no history or preference. The option "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list is just as valid for the Terminator Captain in terminator armour as it is for the Terminator Captain in Cataphractii armour.
I will not argue against vague examples with ambulances or pitbulls. You will have to provide clearly reasoned arguments in right context.
There is no direct conflict as argued earlier, because legal builds can be made with all the options available. I do not understand what you mean by "Army List Entries have no history or preference" can you please explain more what you mean by this?
Spoiler:
Let me break it this to you like this:
1st example:
1. I choose unit Terminator Captain
2. I choose Terminator Captain to not have Cataprachtii armor
3. I choose warger from Terminator Weapons list
4. I broke no rules
2nd example:
1. I choose unit Terminator Captain
2. I choose Terminator Captain to have Cataprachtii armor
3. I choose wargear from Terminator Weapons list
4. I broke the restriction that limits those wargear to only models in terminator armor
5. I broke the rules
If in 2nd example I chose to pick no wargear from Terminator Weapons list, no rules would have been broken. There is no direct conflict of rules, there are options and restrictions and I have to follow the options and restrictions without breaking either one. There are perfectly legal builds with both normal terminator armor and cataprachtii armor, so the only conflict will occur if I choose it to occur. This is why I claim the direct conflict of rules happens only by player choice as he has options to legally use the unit without breaking rules both with Terminator armor and Cataprachtii armor.
You keep claiming on and on that wargear restrictions are general while unit entry permissions are specific. I provided you earlier clear enough argument claiming wargear restrictions are more specific by following how the rules are applied when building armylist, i.e. rules are applied in the order encountered, roughly said. This follows also roughly the more advanced rule -clause you brought up earlier. You still have not have provided clear argument against my argument or explain even in general why unit entry permissions should be more advanced rules than wargear limitations. I once again urge you to provide your counter argument or stop repeating your argument which has been disputed but still remains undefended by you.
EDIT: Spoilered my example is it's very similar with the one provided by doctrotom earlier.
RAI it proves your point.
RAW it proves the opposite, hence the change.
You were discussing RAW were you not?
Nothing can be asserted either way about RAW in that case. I would have to review the case and see if a specific statement overrode a more general statement. If that were the case then RAW the bikers could get their gear.
Errata can be produced to clarify what was previously written (to remove the possibility of ambiguity) or to assert the opposite of what was previously written. Errata is simply a change in the written word.
Things can be asserted about the RAW in that case. I have the Codex and the FAQ in front of me. Review the case, You will see that a specific ammendment to the Rules As Wriiten had to be made in order to facilitate the selection of wargear from a list that the model specifically had access to. RAI they had access RAW they did not.
Errata does not clarify an ambiguous point, FAQs clarify, Errata changes the RAW.
If they had permission to take items from a list that was more specific than the general statement restricting that permission then they logically had RAW support for taking the items. Of course not everyone is going to see that. So you write errata so that everyone can be on the same page.
Errata changes the RAW but that does not mean that the original RAW was not fully sufficient to the task. We can only conclude that the RAW was controversial.
Rubbish. All rubbish.
Clearly having two requirements...
Having access to X items.
Must be wearing Y and have access to X items.
Is much more specific than, having access to X items.
The direct conflict is there because Army List Entries have no history or preference. The option "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list is just as valid for the Terminator Captain in terminator armour as it is for the Terminator Captain in Cataphractii armour.
I will not argue against vague examples with ambulances or pitbulls. You will have to provide clearly reasoned arguments in right context.
There is no direct conflict as argued earlier, because legal builds can be made with all the options available. I do not understand what you mean by "Army List Entries have no history or preference" can you please explain more what you mean by this?
Let me break it this to you like this:
1st example:
1. I choose unit Terminator Captain
2. I choose Terminator Captain to not have Cataprachtii armor
3. I choose warger from Terminator Weapons list
4. I broke no rules
2nd example:
1. I choose unit Terminator Captain
2. I choose Terminator Captain to have Cataprachtii armor
3. I choose wargear from Terminator Weapons list
4. I broke the restriction that limits those wargear to only models in terminator armor
5. I broke the rules
If in 2nd example I chose to pick no wargear from Terminator Weapons list, no rules would have been broken. There is no direct conflict of rules, there are options and restrictions and I have to follow the options and restrictions without breaking either one. There are perfectly legal builds with both normal terminator armor and cataprachtii armor, so the only conflict will occur if I choose it to occur. This is why I claim the direct conflict of rules happens only by player choice as he has options to legally use the unit without breaking rules both with Terminator armor and Cataprachtii armor.
You keep claiming on and on that wargear restrictions are general while unit entry permissions are specific. I provided you earlier clear enough argument claiming wargear restrictions are more specific by following how the rules are applied when building armylist, i.e. rules are applied in the order encountered, roughly said. This follows also roughly the more advanced rule -clause you brought up earlier. You still have not have provided clear argument against my argument or explain even in general why unit entry permissions should be more advanced rules than wargear limitations. I once again urge you to provide your counter argument or stop repeating your argument which has been disputed but still remains undefended by you.
The Terminator Captain has the permission "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list, irrespective of whether or not he is equipped with terminator armour or Cataphractii armour. The specific permission granted to the specific model overrides any blanket more general restriction that directly conflicts with "may take items from the Terminator Weapons".
If you allow for history then there isn't even a debate here. The captain purchases his Terminator Weapons and then swaps to Cataphractii armour. No rules broken.
But as I said, Army List Entries don't have history.
If they had permission to take items from a list that was more specific than the general statement restricting that permission then they logically had RAW support for taking the items. Of course not everyone is going to see that. So you write errata so that everyone can be on the same page.
Errata changes the RAW but that does not mean that the original RAW was not fully sufficient to the task. We can only conclude that the RAW was controversial.
Your first sentence is wrong, it should read
"If they had permission to take items from a list that was more specific than the general statement restricting that permission then they logically had RAI support for taking the items"
The RAW was perfectly clear, you could not exchange something you did not have to get something else, the RAI was that you could but the RAW was different so the RAW was changed to match the RAI. Before the RAW was changed anybody taking a meltagun on a biker was, by RAW, making an illegal selection
Your second paragraph I dont understand at all, if the RAW had to be changed because it didnt work then it does mean it was insufficient to the task. "We can only conclude that the RAW was controversial." We can confirm the rule did not allow you to do what it said you should be able to do. thats not controversial, thats a shoddily written rule that does nothing and so requires a correction.
You keep claiming on and on that wargear restrictions are general while unit entry permissions are specific. I provided you earlier clear enough argument claiming wargear restrictions are more specific by following how the rules are applied when building armylist, i.e. rules are applied in the order encountered, roughly said. This follows also roughly the more advanced rule -clause you brought up earlier. You still have not have provided clear argument against my argument or explain even in general why unit entry permissions should be more advanced rules than wargear limitations. I once again urge you to provide your counter argument or stop repeating your argument which has been disputed but still remains undefended by you..
Permissions granted to one specific model in a codex Army List Entry is much more specific than descriptive text vaguely applying a general restriction to any model that gets directed to that list.
In other words, there is no mention of the Terminator Captain in the Terminator Weapons list so it cannot be more specific than the permission granted from the Army List Entry for the Terminator Captain.
You keep claiming on and on that wargear restrictions are general while unit entry permissions are specific. I provided you earlier clear enough argument claiming wargear restrictions are more specific by following how the rules are applied when building armylist, i.e. rules are applied in the order encountered, roughly said. This follows also roughly the more advanced rule -clause you brought up earlier. You still have not have provided clear argument against my argument or explain even in general why unit entry permissions should be more advanced rules than wargear limitations. I once again urge you to provide your counter argument or stop repeating your argument which has been disputed but still remains undefended by you..
Permissions granted to one specific model in a codex Army List Entry is much more specific than descriptive text vaguely applying a general restriction to any model that gets directed to that list.
In other words, there is no mention of the Terminator Captain in the Terminator Weapons list so it cannot be more specific than the permission granted from the Army List Entry for the Terminator Captain.
Giant pile of rubbish again.
Does or does not, the supplement tell you specifically the see codex space marines?
You keep claiming on and on that wargear restrictions are general while unit entry permissions are specific. I provided you earlier clear enough argument claiming wargear restrictions are more specific by following how the rules are applied when building armylist, i.e. rules are applied in the order encountered, roughly said. This follows also roughly the more advanced rule -clause you brought up earlier. You still have not have provided clear argument against my argument or explain even in general why unit entry permissions should be more advanced rules than wargear limitations. I once again urge you to provide your counter argument or stop repeating your argument which has been disputed but still remains undefended by you..
Permissions granted to one specific model in a codex Army List Entry is much more specific than descriptive text vaguely applying a general restriction to any model that gets directed to that list.
In other words, there is no mention of the Terminator Captain in the Terminator Weapons list so it cannot be more specific than the permission granted from the Army List Entry for the Terminator Captain.
No general access to a list of items is less specific than the specific rules governing what may be selected from the list of items
You keep claiming on and on that wargear restrictions are general while unit entry permissions are specific. I provided you earlier clear enough argument claiming wargear restrictions are more specific by following how the rules are applied when building armylist, i.e. rules are applied in the order encountered, roughly said. This follows also roughly the more advanced rule -clause you brought up earlier. You still have not have provided clear argument against my argument or explain even in general why unit entry permissions should be more advanced rules than wargear limitations. I once again urge you to provide your counter argument or stop repeating your argument which has been disputed but still remains undefended by you..
Permissions granted to one specific model in a codex Army List Entry is much more specific than descriptive text vaguely applying a general restriction to any model that gets directed to that list.
In other words, there is no mention of the Terminator Captain in the Terminator Weapons list so it cannot be more specific than the permission granted from the Army List Entry for the Terminator Captain.
No general access to a list of items is less specific than the specific rules governing what may be selected from the list of items
The Terminator Captain doesn't just have access. He "may take items". That specific model is given the permission to take items from the Terminator Weapons list. Any general rule that would take away the Terminator Captain's permission to take items would be in direct conflict and would be overridden by the more specific permission applied to the exact Terminator Captain model.
The Terminator Captain doesn't just have access. He "may take items". That specific model is given the permission to take items from the Terminator Weapons list. Any general rule that would take away the Terminator Captain's permission to take items would be in direct conflict and would be overridden by the more specific permission applied to the exact Terminator Captain model.
Wow, just like the bikes? They too had the option "may take items" but couldnt because they did not meet the restrictions listed under the special weapons list. and required a change in the RAW to allow them to do so.
You've argued RAW that a Cataphractii Captain is not a Terminator. so may select a relic Jump Pack
You're now arguing that RAW the Captain IS a Terminator for selection of wargear from a table which specifically states the model must be wearing terminator armour.
Now if the bikes need to have their unit option changed so as to allow themn to select special weapons why does the Captain not?
Col, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Either the Cataphractii captain is not in Terminator armour, in which case they may select non-Terminator wargear, or they are, and can select Terminator wargear.
The Terminator Captain has the permission "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list, irrespective of whether or not he is equipped with terminator armour or Cataphractii armour. The specific permission granted to the specific model overrides any blanket more general restriction that directly conflicts with "may take items from the Terminator Weapons".
Ah, I see, so this also means a Terminatore Captain, having permission to tak from the Special Issue Wargear section may take a bike. The specific permission granted to the specific model overrides any blanket more general restriction that directly conflicts with "may only take items from...Special Issue Wargear.. list(s)", so therefore Terminator Captain can take a bike because, just like the restriction on terminator weapons for cataphractii armor, the restrictions on bikes for terminator armor are overridden.
Sorry, you don't get it both ways.. Either he gets the bike but no terminator weapons, or he gets the terminatore weapons but no bike depending on the armor he selects.
The phrasing used for this guy is the exact same phrasing is used for all SM units that have the option of terminator armor.
So you see no difference between these two lines?
Spoiler:
Options:
May take items from the Terminator Weapons [list]
Spoiler:
A Captain or Chapter Master in Terminator armour may only take items from the
Terminator Weapons [list]
No, no difference.
Why no difference? Because he is already wearing terminator armor, hence it doesn't need to be stated.
You keep forgetting the last part I'll remind you again.
See codex space marines.
Either the Cataphractii captain is not in Terminator armour, in which case they may select non-Terminator wargear, or they are, and can select Terminator wargear.
Not both.
Personally I would rather the Cataphractii Captain could not take a power fist. I put my personal feelings aside however.
In this discussion I am concerned with what the rules say.
In this case specific permission is given to the Terminator Captain to take items from the Terminator Weapons list. Now unless that rule is lying to us we have to adhere to it. And as we know specific rule statements override general rule statements.
Ceann wrote: Ahhhh I got it.
He IDENTIFY'S as wearing terminator armor.
Can we, uh, not go there? Both being related to trans people and having paid a bit of attention to the scientific side of things, there's a pretty big difference between the biological stuff involved in that and the psychology of someone who's misinterpreting something to have his cake and eat it.
The phrasing used for this guy is the exact same phrasing is used for all SM units that have the option of terminator armor.
So you see no difference between these two lines?
Spoiler:
Options:
May take items from the Terminator Weapons [list]
Spoiler:
A Captain or Chapter Master in Terminator armour may only take items from the
Terminator Weapons [list]
No, no difference.
Why no difference? Because he is already wearing terminator armor, hence it doesn't need to be stated.
You keep forgetting the last part I'll remind you again.
See codex space marines.
There is an obvious difference. Failure to acknowledge the obvious casts doubt on anything you post.
Permissions granted to one specific model in a codex Army List Entry is much more specific than descriptive text vaguely applying a general restriction to any model that gets directed to that list.
In other words, there is no mention of the Terminator Captain in the Terminator Weapons list so it cannot be more specific than the permission granted from the Army List Entry for the Terminator Captain.
That is an opinion. Not an argument. You do not explain why it should be more specific rule. I argued that wargear restrictions are more specific, this is because they are applied or checked after making unit entry selection. You will move to them only after making unit entry selection. I think we can both agree that you need to choose the Army List Entry before you can make any wargear selections. I argued earlier, and I argue now once again that wargear restrictions are more advanced rules, and thus more specific, because as rules they are applied after Army List Entry permissions.
I urge you once again to counter my argument on this matter.
You keep on saying that one rule is more specific than the another, with only reasoning behind being your own opinion.
History, as you brought up, is out of question, as rules clearly are applied in the order they are read or applied. Like you would read a paragraph, one sentence at a time.
You assert that TAKE gives precedence over restrictions, so they may also take as many relics as they wish.
You may take a jump pack and two bikes if you want, he can take take take anything he wants.
Incorrect. I have never said this. Quit strawmanning.
The only restrictions that are removed are those that are in direct conflict with the specific permission granted to the Terminator Captain.
Continuing to strawman me after repeated corrections makes your argument look weak.
After repeated corrections... you have corrected nothing. And you are right you never did say that, you asserted it, which is why I said asserted, if you need to understand the word I'm sure Merriam Webster can help you.
It says see codex space marines. You concluded that "may take items from" ignores prerequisites, when I try to apply your statement to the rest of the sentence you call your own argument a strawman. You cannot even properly formulate a logical deduction, notice how you stopped trying to use them when I pointed it out. You pick two or three words and then pursue semantic acrobatics in a simplistic and obvious manner. You fabricate an argument from smoke and mirrors and get upset when it is noticed.
We go from following basic English reading the rules to logic puzzles so you can hide the fact your premise is faulty by misdirection.
Either the Cataphractii captain is not in Terminator armour, in which case they may select non-Terminator wargear, or they are, and can select Terminator wargear.
Not both.
Personally I would rather the Cataphractii Captain could not take a power fist. I put my personal feelings aside however.
In this discussion I am concerned with what the rules say.
In this case specific permission is given to the Terminator Captain to take items from the Terminator Weapons list. Now unless that rule is lying to us we have to adhere to it. And as we know specific rule statements override general rule statements.
This is the same permission that lets him take items from the Special Wargear section.
He also has permission to take cataphractii armor. Terminator armor grants certain permissions (access to the items in the terminator weapons list - as he is being called terminator captain it makes sense for it to be written to the default of actually having the terminator armor) but also denies permissions to other equipment. Accordign to RAW Cataphracti armor gives back some of the permissions that are denied (i.e.bikes, jump packs) but at the same time denies being able to access anything from the list of terminator weapons. The Terminator Captain has access to the terminator weapons list, true, but for anything that requires terminator armor to use he may only take if he has terminator armor. If you make the CHOICE to not have terminator armor, then that choice denies you from being able to access wargear that requires you to have terminator armor to take. The access is determined by the CHOICES you make in changing out armor - there is no blanket permission to take things from lists that you are prohibited from taking because of the armor you wear. The codswallop about "direct conflict" vs "not direct conflict" on your part is a complete fabrication on your part because you wish to ignore rules that you find inconvenient.
In addition... Col, I would NOT go there. Failure to acknowledge the obvious is something you do. A lot.
Are you guys even looking at the Space Marines codex? There is quite a lot of difference.
Captain in Space Marine codex
Spoiler:
OPTIONS
• May be upgraded to a Chapter Master…40 pts
• A Captain or Chapter Master may replace his chainsword with a relic blade…25 pts
• A Captain or Chapter Master may take a storm shield…15 pts
• A Captain or Chapter Master may take artificer armour…20 pts
• A Captain or Chapter Master may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics lists.
• A Captain or Chapter Master may replace his bolt pistol, chainsword, frag and krak grenades with Terminator armour, storm bolter and power sword…30 pts
• A Captain or Chapter Master in Terminator armour may replace his power sword with a relic blade…10 pts
• A Captain or Chapter Master in Terminator armour may only take items from the Terminator Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics lists.
Terminator Captain in Angels of Death supplement
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May replace power sword with relic blade (see Codex:Space Marines) .... 10 pts
• May replace Terminator armour with Cataphractii Terminator armour (pg 57) .... free
• May take items from the Terminator Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics list (see Codex: Space Marines)
This is the same permission that lets him take items from the Special Wargear section.
He also has permission to take cataphractii armor. Terminator armor grants certain permissions (access to the items in the terminator weapons list - as he is being called terminator captain it makes sense for it to be written to the default of actually having the terminator armor) but also denies permissions to other equipment. Accordign to RAW Cataphracti armor gives back some of the permissions that are denied (i.e.bikes, jump packs) but at the same time denies being able to access anything from the list of terminator weapons. The Terminator Captain has access to the terminator weapons list, true, but for anything that requires terminator armor to use he may only take if he has terminator armor. If you make the CHOICE to not have terminator armor, then that choice denies you from being able to access wargear that requires you to have terminator armor to take. The access is determined by the CHOICES you make in changing out armor - there is no blanket permission to take things from lists that you are prohibited from taking because of the armor you wear. The codswallop about "direct conflict" vs "not direct conflict" on your part is a complete fabrication on your part because you wish to ignore rules that you find inconvenient.
Army List Entries don't have history. The Terminator Captain has specific permission to "take items from the Terminator Weapons" list, irrespective of whether he is in Terminator armour or Cataphractii armour.
In addition... Col, I would NOT go there. Failure to acknowledge the obvious is something you do. A lot.
Are you guys even looking at the Space Marines codex? There is quite a lot of difference.
Captain in Space Marine codex
Spoiler:
OPTIONS
• May be upgraded to a Chapter Master…40 pts
• A Captain or Chapter Master may replace his chainsword with a relic blade…25 pts
• A Captain or Chapter Master may take a storm shield…15 pts
• A Captain or Chapter Master may take artificer armour…20 pts
• A Captain or Chapter Master may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics lists.
• A Captain or Chapter Master may replace his bolt pistol, chainsword, frag and krak grenades with Terminator armour, storm bolter and power sword…30 pts
• A Captain or Chapter Master in Terminator armour may replace his power sword with a relic blade…10 pts
• A Captain or Chapter Master in Terminator armour may only take items from the Terminator Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics lists.
Terminator Captain in Angels of Death supplement
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
• May replace power sword with relic blade (see Codex:Space Marines) .... 10 pts
• May replace Terminator armour with Cataphractii Terminator armour (pg 57) .... free
• May take items from the Terminator Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics list (see Codex: Space Marines)
"• A Captain or Chapter Master may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics lists."
"• May take items from the Terminator Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics list (see Codex: Space Marines)"
The only difference is one may take items from the melee weapons list and the other from the terminator weapons list. It's the same permssions for the different lists, though, so if restrictions apply to one category then they reply to the other categories as well. Blanket permission to override restrictions for terminator weapons? Then it's blanket permission to take melee weapons overriding restrictions. And blanket permission to take special issue wargear, overriding restrictions. And blanket permission to take chapter relics, overriding restrictions on taking relics. You can't argue it one way for one specfic thing then the other way for another thing covered by the exact same statement covering the thing you are asserting.
After repeated corrections... you have corrected nothing. And you are right you never did say that, you asserted it, which is why I said asserted, if you need to understand the word I'm sure Merriam Webster can help you.
It says see codex space marines. You concluded that "may take items from" ignores prerequisites, when I try to apply your statement to the rest of the sentence you call your own argument a strawman.
I have only ever asserted that those restrictions that are in direct conflict with more specific permission are overridden by the more specific permission. No where have I stated, asserted, or implied that prerequisites would be ignored.
"• A Captain or Chapter Master may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics lists."
"• May take items from the Terminator Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics list (see Codex: Space Marines)"
The only difference is one may take items from the melee weapons list and the other from the terminator weapons list. It's the same permssions for the different lists, though, so if restrictions apply to one category then they reply to the other categories as well. Blanket permission to override restrictions for terminator weapons? Then it's blanket permission to take melee weapons overriding restrictions. And blanket permission to take special issue wargear, overriding restrictions. And blanket permission to take chapter relics, overriding restrictions on taking relics. You can't argue it one way for one specfic thing then the other way for another thing covered by the exact same statement covering the thing you are asserting.
Terminator Captains in Angels of Death don't take items from Melee Weapons list so why are you trying to force a comparison there. Forcing the threads attention doesn't help your agument.
This is where things are different.
Spoiler:
• A Captain or Chapter Master in Terminator armour may only take items from the Terminator Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics lists.
Spoiler:
• May take items from the Terminator Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics list (see Codex: Space Marines)
Permissions granted to one specific model in a codex Army List Entry is much more specific than descriptive text vaguely applying a general restriction to any model that gets directed to that list.
In other words, there is no mention of the Terminator Captain in the Terminator Weapons list so it cannot be more specific than the permission granted from the Army List Entry for the Terminator Captain.
Sounds like you said exactly that.
If wearing terminator armour is a descriptive text, then one relic is descriptive text and rules to ride the bike are descriptive text.
Ceann wrote: See codex space marines is also in that same sentence. It forces you to consult those rules.
That has never been in contention nor is it relevant.
What is relevant is the specificity of the permission granted to the Terminator Captain to "take items from the Terminator Weapons" list. That permission is granted to the exact model.
Permissions granted to one specific model in a codex Army List Entry is much more specific than descriptive text vaguely applying a general restriction to any model that gets directed to that list.
In other words, there is no mention of the Terminator Captain in the Terminator Weapons list so it cannot be more specific than the permission granted from the Army List Entry for the Terminator Captain.
Sounds like you said exactly that.
If wearing terminator armour is a descriptive text, then one relic is descriptive text and rules to ride the bike are descriptive text.
YOUR words.
Which of those are in direct conflict with the permission granted to the Terminator Captain model?
"• A Captain or Chapter Master may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics lists."
"• May take items from the Terminator Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics list (see Codex: Space Marines)"
The only difference is one may take items from the melee weapons list and the other from the terminator weapons list. It's the same permssions for the different lists, though, so if restrictions apply to one category then they reply to the other categories as well. Blanket permission to override restrictions for terminator weapons? Then it's blanket permission to take melee weapons overriding restrictions. And blanket permission to take special issue wargear, overriding restrictions. And blanket permission to take chapter relics, overriding restrictions on taking relics. You can't argue it one way for one specfic thing then the other way for another thing covered by the exact same statement covering the thing you are asserting.
Terminator Captains in Angels of Death don't take items from Melee Weapons list so why are you trying to force a comparison there. Forcing the threads attention doesn't help your agument.
This is where things are different.
Spoiler:
• A Captain or Chapter Master in Terminator armour may only take items from the Terminator Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics lists.
Spoiler:
• May take items from the Terminator Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics list (see Codex: Space Marines)
What are the differences between those two lines?
The difference is you cherry picking.
It says only in the SM codex because it is removing basic Melee weapons and basic ranged weapons from your choices that you had in PA. That text isn't in the other data sheet because he starts in terminator armor and is not having access removed.
They MAY take, MAY. It means it is possible to take, that is what may means. Not he CAN, denoting no circumstances, he MAY. There is an option to so. SEE Codex space marines tells you what rules to follow.
• A Captain or Chapter Master in Terminator armour may only take items from the Terminator Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics lists.
Spoiler:
• May take items from the Terminator Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics list (see Codex: Space Marines)
What are the differences between those two lines?
The difference is you cherry picking.
It says only in the SM codex because it is removing basic Melee weapons and basic ranged weapons from your choices that you had in PA. That text isn't in the other data sheet because he starts in terminator armor and is not having access removed.
They MAY take, MAY. It means it is possible to take, that is what may means. Not he CAN, denoting no circumstances, he MAY. There is an option to so. SEE Codex space marines tells you what rules to follow.
Right. So "may" means possibility, permission, opportunity
So "may take items" is in direct conflict with a general statement that makes it impossible for the model to "take items".
In summary
Spoiler:
The specific permission granted to the Terminator Captain overrides the more general description text that precludes the permission.
Overrides are specifically applied to text that directly conflicts.
There is a specific rule on the Army List Entry that the captain may take items from the Terminator Weapons list.
There is some descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour") that prevents the captain from taking any and all items for the Terminator Weapons. Text that makes it impossible for the captain to take any item at all directly conflicts with the line "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list.
So, there is a direct conflict between a specific permission granted to the captain model and a general description.
The specific permission ("may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list) granted to that exact model (the captain) wins out over the general descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour")
My argument against col_impact's reasoning of rule specificity still remains unchallenged, actually mostly ignored. Inconvenient truth maybe?
Due to lack of new and credible arguments, I think we can almost unanimously conclude that RAW Terminator Captain in Cataprachtii Terminator Armour:
CAN take bike/jump pack etc. as the Cataprachtii Terminator armour is not Terminator Armour by definition
CANNOT take any items from Terminator Weapons as the Cataprachtii Terminator Armour is not Terminator Armour by definition and because of that is limited by the restrictions stated in Terminator Weapons
• A Captain or Chapter Master in Terminator armour may only take items from the Terminator Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics lists.
Spoiler:
• May take items from the Terminator Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics list (see Codex: Space Marines)
What are the differences between those two lines?
The difference is you cherry picking.
It says only in the SM codex because it is removing basic Melee weapons and basic ranged weapons from your choices that you had in PA. That text isn't in the other data sheet because he starts in terminator armor and is not having access removed.
They MAY take, MAY. It means it is possible to take, that is what may means. Not he CAN, denoting no circumstances, he MAY. There is an option to so. SEE Codex space marines tells you what rules to follow.
Right. So "may" means possibility, permission, opportunity
So "may take items" is in direct conflict with a general statement that makes it impossible for the model to "take items".
In summary
Spoiler:
The specific permission granted to the Terminator Captain overrides the more general description text that precludes the permission.
Overrides are specifically applied to text that directly conflicts.
There is a specific rule on the Army List Entry that the captain may take items from the Terminator Weapons list.
There is some descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour") that prevents the captain from taking any and all items for the Terminator Weapons. Text that makes it impossible for the captain to take any item at all directly conflicts with the line "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list.
So, there is a direct conflict between a specific permission granted to the captain model and a general description.
The specific permission ("may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list) granted to that exact model (the captain) wins out over the general descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour")
Wrong. Garbage. Rubbish.
PER the BRB when a conflict exists the CODEX takes precedence. A supplement is not a codex.
On the captains wargear is says... see codex space marines. On the sentence to take war gear, it says see codex space marines, his data sheet has multiple references to see codex space marines.
What the model says is irrelevant, the codex rules have priority. Again you are trying to introduce silly logic puzzles and cherry picking words out of a data sheet instead of interpreting the entire sheet.
Impossible or redundant rules aren't new in gw's rules. For example, kyr vhalen has a rule that states he must be warlord unless Perturabo is present. You physically can't take them both in a list as they have opposite loyalties. Absolutely pointless rule, but it's there.
Ghorgul wrote: My argument against col_impact's reasoning of rule specificity still remains unchallenged, actually mostly ignored. Inconvenient truth maybe?
Wrong. Garbage. Rubbish.
PER the BRB when a conflict exists the CODEX takes precedence. A supplement is not a codex.
On the captains wargear is says... see codex space marines. On the sentence to take war gear, it says see codex space marines, his data sheet has multiple references to see codex space marines.
What the model says is irrelevant, the codex rules have priority. Again you are trying to introduce silly logic puzzles and cherry picking words out of a data sheet instead of interpreting the entire sheet.
Angels of Death is a "Codex Supplement" so it overrides the Space Marine's codex in cases of conflict. The Codex Supplement adds and replaces rules in the base Codex where appropriate.
But the line you personally feel it to be appropriate for says...... see codex space marines. It replaces nothing and takes precedence over nothing.
Oh wow jumped back in there real quick and removed where you put appropriate huh?
Please follow tenet 1, state your proven premise that a supplement replaces a codex. You are making things up again, fast as you can.
But the line you personally feel it to be appropriate for says...... see codex space marines.
So? The permission provided in the Angels of Death Codex Supplement can add, override, or replace text in codex: Space Marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JamesY wrote: Impossible or redundant rules aren't new in gw's rules. For example, kyr vhalen has a rule that states he must be warlord unless Perturabo is present. You physically can't take them both in a list as they have opposite loyalties. Absolutely pointless rule, but it's there.
Cool. So you provide the example of a redundant rule which has ZERO relevance to the discussion at hand. Do you have an example of an impossible rule?
Do what codex space marines says. It isn't rocket science.
And specific permission provided by the Angels of Death Codex Supplement is going to override more general restriction in Codex Space Marines. As you say, it isn't rocket science.
Your scenario isn't impossible col. As you present it, the model can access the terminator wargear. If he chooses to upgrade to cataphracti armour, he would then loose access to it, at which point it is a redundant option. It is possible for him to access it as long as he remains in his original terminator armour.
JamesY wrote: Your scenario isn't impossible col. As you present it, the model can access the terminator wargear. If he chooses to upgrade to cataphracti armour, he would then loose access to it, at which point it is a redundant option. It is possible for him to access it as long as he remains in his original terminator armour.
Does the Option say "may take items" or "may access items"? I don't think you are paying attention to the difference there.
A strange phrase. It never made sense to me. Why could you never eat the cake you have? If it means that you cannot eat something already eaten, then it is worded quite poorly.
In this case, though, Col_Ignored is trying to push a brownie as cake for getting ala mode, but not as cake for the price.
By your logic, he may take cataphracti armour. Then he looks at the options he may take from the terminator wargear list, only to find that he isn't eligible for anything on there. He may therefore choose not to upgrade his armour, then go back to the terminator wargear list and find that the options that were previously unavailable, he may now take.
To me, its terminator armour either way, and if someone did try to shenanigan their way to a jetpack terminator, I'd enjoy the realisation that they'd set themselves up for an easy HQ removal, with no transport or squad it could hide in.
A strange phrase. It never made sense to me. Why could you never eat the cake you have? If it means that you cannot eat something already eaten, then it is worded quite poorly.
In this case, though, Col_Ignored is trying to push a brownie as cake for getting ala mode, but not as cake for the price.
As I understood it, the phrase "Have your cake and eat it too" is referring to that you cannot have a beautiful cake and be able to eat it, as the act of eating it will destroy the cake. Hence, you either enjoy it's beauty as a work of art, or enjoy it's flavour as food, but never both.
This phrase made more sense back when making a beautiful cake was actually hard and machines didn't exist. Nowadays it's a trivial matter to make two identical cakes (especially since everyone prefers minimalist decorations as oppose to the almost high-gothic look of older times), so the literal meaning of the phrase (again, as I understand it) has been somewhat lost to time.
EDIT: The phrase basically means you can't have all of the upsides and none of the drawbacks, especially in a mutually exclusive situation.
JamesY wrote: Your scenario isn't impossible col. As you present it, the model can access the terminator wargear. If he chooses to upgrade to cataphracti armour, he would then loose access to it, at which point it is a redundant option. It is possible for him to access it as long as he remains in his original terminator armour.
Does the Option say "may take items" or "may access items"? I don't think you are paying attention to the difference there.
Does it say see codex space marines?
Does tenet 1 state you have to provide your RULES precedence for these interactions?
You have made many statements about a supplement overriding and replacing a codex, instead of... supplementing. Provide your proof per tenet 1.
JamesY wrote: By your logic, he may take cataphracti armour. Then he looks at the options he may take from the terminator wargear list, only to find that he isn't eligible for anything on there. He may therefore choose not to upgrade his armour, then go back to the terminator wargear list and find that the options that were previously unavailable, he may now take.
To me, its terminator armour either way, and if someone did try to shenanigan their way to a jetpack terminator, I'd enjoy the realisation that they'd set themselves up for an easy HQ removal, with no transport or squad it could hide in.
The permission granted - "may take items in the Terminator Weapons [list]" - is irrespective of the armour the Terminator Captain is wearing.
Compare that permission to this permission.
"• A Captain or Chapter Master in Terminator armour may only take items from the Terminator Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics lists."
JamesY wrote: Permission is granted in AoD, then denied in Codex space marines if they are no longer in terminator armour.
Which rule statement is specifically applied to the Terminator Captain model, the permission or the restriction?
In summary
Spoiler:
The specific permission granted to the Terminator Captain overrides the more general description text that precludes the permission.
Overrides are specifically applied to text that directly conflicts.
There is a specific rule on the Army List Entry that the captain may take items from the Terminator Weapons list.
There is some descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour") that prevents the captain from taking any and all items for the Terminator Weapons. Text that makes it impossible for the captain to take any item at all directly conflicts with the line "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list.
So, there is a direct conflict between a specific permission granted to the captain model and a general description.
The specific permission ("may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list) granted to that exact model (the captain) wins out over the general descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour")
JamesY wrote: By your logic, he may take cataphracti armour. Then he looks at the options he may take from the terminator wargear list, only to find that he isn't eligible for anything on there. He may therefore choose not to upgrade his armour, then go back to the terminator wargear list and find that the options that were previously unavailable, he may now take.
To me, its terminator armour either way, and if someone did try to shenanigan their way to a jetpack terminator, I'd enjoy the realisation that they'd set themselves up for an easy HQ removal, with no transport or squad it could hide in.
The permission granted - "may take items in the Terminator Weapons [list]" - is irrespective of the armour the Terminator Captain is wearing.
Compare that permission to this permission.
"• A Captain or Chapter Master in Terminator armour may only take items from the Terminator Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics lists."
The statement a captain or Chapter Master in Terminator armor is needed in the SM codex because they have power armor by default, where's the other has terminator armor by default.
Please quote the page per tenet 1 as premise and which book per tenet 2, in the supplement that states it overrides the codex that it tells you to refer too.
A strange phrase. It never made sense to me. Why could you never eat the cake you have? If it means that you cannot eat something already eaten, then it is worded quite poorly.
In this case, though, Col_Ignored is trying to push a brownie as cake for getting ala mode, but not as cake for the price.
As I understood it, the phrase "Have your cake and eat it too" is referring to that you cannot have a beautiful cake and be able to eat it, as the act of eating it will destroy the cake. Hence, you either enjoy it's beauty as a work of art, or enjoy it's flavour as food, but never both.
This phrase made more sense back when making a beautiful cake was actually hard and machines didn't exist. Nowadays it's a trivial matter to make two identical cakes (especially since everyone prefers minimalist decorations as oppose to the almost high-gothic look of older times), so the literal meaning of the phrase (again, as I understand it) has been somewhat lost to time.
EDIT: The phrase basically means you can't have all of the upsides and none of the drawbacks, especially in a mutually exclusive situation.
Oh, I understood what it means, I am just saying that it is worded poorly. Probably because it has been truncated over the decades after it was first used. Many phrases are setup that way. They make sense when first generated, but as time goes on it gets modified and changed and the language in general goes through many modifications.
A strange phrase. It never made sense to me. Why could you never eat the cake you have? If it means that you cannot eat something already eaten, then it is worded quite poorly.
In this case, though, Col_Ignored is trying to push a brownie as cake for getting ala mode, but not as cake for the price.
As I understood it, the phrase "Have your cake and eat it too" is referring to that you cannot have a beautiful cake and be able to eat it, as the act of eating it will destroy the cake. Hence, you either enjoy it's beauty as a work of art, or enjoy it's flavour as food, but never both.
This phrase made more sense back when making a beautiful cake was actually hard and machines didn't exist. Nowadays it's a trivial matter to make two identical cakes (especially since everyone prefers minimalist decorations as oppose to the almost high-gothic look of older times), so the literal meaning of the phrase (again, as I understand it) has been somewhat lost to time.
EDIT: The phrase basically means you can't have all of the upsides and none of the drawbacks, especially in a mutually exclusive situation.
Oh, I understood what it means, I am just saying that it is worded poorly. Probably because it has been truncated over the decades after it was first used. Many phrases are setup that way. They make sense when first generated, but as time goes on it gets modified and changed and the language in general goes through many modifications.
This is all off-topic. No one is trying to have their cake and eat it too. Personally, I would rather the Cataphractii Captain could not take a jump pack and power fist.
However, the actual rules say otherwise. Personal preferences have no place in a principled discussion of the rules.
Please quote the page per tenet 1 as premise and which book per tenet 2, in the supplement that states it overrides the codex that it tells you to refer too.
Ceann wrote: Please quote the page per tenet 1 as premise and which book per tenet 2, in the supplement that states it overrides the codex that it tells you to refer too.
Ceann wrote: Please quote the page per tenet 1 as premise and which book per tenet 2, in the supplement that states it overrides the codex that it tells you to refer too.
Provide premise or your argument is not sound.
Word semantics are not valid.
What are you talking about?
You have made the following statements to assert you are correct.
"Permissions granted to one specific model in a codex Army List Entry is much more specific than descriptive text vaguely applying a general restriction to any model that gets directed to that list. "
"Angels of Death is a "Codex Supplement" so it overrides the Space Marine's codex in cases of conflict. The Codex Supplement adds and replaces rules in the base Codex where appropriate. "
Please follow the tenets.
Tenet 1. Cite your premise that your interpretation is correct.
Tenet 2. Cite the PAGE these statements occur on and the GW approved text they are on.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Post haste if it isn't a bother.
Ceann wrote: Please quote the page per tenet 1 as premise and which book per tenet 2, in the supplement that states it overrides the codex that it tells you to refer too.
Provide premise or your argument is not sound.
Word semantics are not valid.
What are you talking about?
You have made the following statements to assert you are correct.
"Permissions granted to one specific model in a codex Army List Entry is much more specific than descriptive text vaguely applying a general restriction to any model that gets directed to that list. "
"Angels of Death is a "Codex Supplement" so it overrides the Space Marine's codex in cases of conflict. The Codex Supplement adds and replaces rules in the base Codex where appropriate. "
Please follow the tenets.
Tenet 1. Cite your premise that your interpretation is correct.
Tenet 2. Cite the PAGE these statements occur on and the GW approved text they are on.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Post haste if it isn't a bother.
Both are at the Codex level of authority. However, Angel of Death is a more recent publication, so it updates the Codex in cases of bona-fide conflict if you are using the AoD supplement. It's relevant in terms of Chapter Tactics, since the language has changed for AoD.
My argument isn't contingent on AoD overriding C:SM, per se but rather on specific rule statements overriding general rule statements. I have already shown logic discussions to be supported by YMDC.
He also has no rules that lets him bypass the restrictions normally in place.
So, if he is in Terminator Armour, he may select items. If not, he may select any item that he meets the qualifications for-that is, none of them.
So if there is some general restriction that he may not take any of them then that is in direct conflict with his specific permission that he 'may take items', correct?
You are determining on your own, without discussion which is a general statement and which is a specific statement. You have already demonstrated that you are incapable of making a logical argument as you have failed to properly assemble all of the components required to pose one, multiple times.
You are REQUIRED per the tenets to cite the PAGE NUMBER that tells you...
And you must also cite the PREMISE that supports your conclusion, which doesn't exist.
"Both are at the Codex level of authority. However, Angel of Death is a more recent publication, so it updates the Codex in cases of bona-fide conflict if you are using the AoD supplement. It's relevant in terms of Chapter Tactics, since the language has changed for AoD. "
This entire statement is invalid until your cite tenet's 1 and tenet's 2.
You are determining on your own, without discussion which is a general statement and which is a specific statement. You have already demonstrated that you are incapable of making a logical argument as you have failed to properly assemble all of the components required to pose one, multiple times.
Incorrect. My logical arguments have been fashioned correctly and have been sound.
"Both are at the Codex level of authority. However, Angel of Death is a more recent publication, so it updates the Codex in cases of bona-fide conflict if you are using the AoD supplement. It's relevant in terms of Chapter Tactics, since the language has changed for AoD. "
This entire statement is invalid until your cite tenet's 1 and tenet's 2.
How is relevant in terms of chapter tactics... Here is the units page...
Under Wargear
Terminator Armor - See Codex: Space Marines
Iron Halo - See Codex: Space Marines
"LOL, after you just said its relevant to chapter tactics"
Chapter Tactics - See Codex: Space Marines
Options - Option 1. See Codex: Space Marines,
Option 3. See Codex: Space Marines
Automatically Appended Next Post: What portions of your statements are incorrect?
All of them.
Tenet 1. You have failed. TO CITE YOUR PREMISE. In special people land this means that you need to provide a circumstance where your interpretation of the rules is already a proven case, you have yet to do this.
Tenet 2. Also in the same magical place, we have these things called Codex's, they have page numbers, you need to provide the page number and the VERBATIM text that supports your assertion.
You have done neither of these things and now you pretend to be oblivious to them.
Every example you have provided, your dog or whatever has been incomplete or contained a self created logical fallacy of some kind. You try to craft statements to make the answer you pose to confirm your point of view.
That is not how logical statements work, you must provide the entire statement in full, you either provide 1 premise and 1 conclusion or 2 premises and no conclusion and then pose it as a question that you can criticize someone when they answer it.
You need to provide an ENTIRE statement on your own, and then that statement is determined sound or unsound.
The only thing you have done is play word games and hypocrisy.
Every example you have provided, your dog or whatever has been incomplete or contained a self created logical fallacy of some kind.
All of my examples were sound. If you think there is a logical fallacy then point it out.
In logic, specific overrides general.
1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.
The Ambulance driver can go over the speed limit even though that contradicts the general restriction to drivers. The ambulance driver has a more specific permission than the general restriction.
Ceann wrote: You try to craft statements to make the answer you pose to confirm your point of view. That is not how logical statements work, you must provide the entire statement in full, you either provide 1 premise and 1 conclusion or 2 premises and no conclusion and then pose it as a question that you can criticize someone when they answer it.
You need to provide an ENTIRE statement on your own, and then that statement is determined sound or unsound.
You are making this claim based on what authority?
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give PREMISES for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate.
Premises
For the sake of organization, number your premises. Premises should be largely based on rules. Sometime the rules won't cover the issue, but if there is a related rule, it's a good idea to include it in a premise. Be sure to provide PAGE NUMBERS or quotes.
2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.
All of you examples were not sound. You are not follow propositional logic.
Premise 1: P → Q
Premise 2: P
Conclusion: Q
Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.
Example 1 from you. There is no full correlation of P and Q and a conclusion, you have failed to provide a logical argument. Ambulance Drivers are also drivers, your premise is a fallacy.
Example 2 from you.
1) Pitbulls are dangerous
2) My girlfriend's pitbull is not dangerous
This one does nothing. I don't even know what to say.
Rocks are sharp, my girlfriend has a rock that isn't sharp.
The statement means absolutely nothing, you are not asserting any conclusion.
You might want to have a better understanding of logic before you try playing these silly word games that mean nothing.
All of you examples were not sound. You are not follow propositional logic.
Premise 1: P → Q
Premise 2: P
Conclusion: Q
Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.
Example 1 from you. There is no full correlation of P and Q and a conclusion, you have failed to provide a logical argument. Ambulance Drivers are also drivers, your premise is a fallacy.
Example 2 from you.
1) Pitbulls are dangerous
2) My girlfriend's pitbull is not dangerous
This one does nothing. I don't even know what to say.
Rocks are sharp, my girlfriend has a rock that isn't sharp.
The statement means absolutely nothing, you are not asserting any conclusion.
You might want to have a better understanding of logic before you try playing these silly word games that mean nothing.
Who said I was adhering to the conventions of the special branch of logic known as propositional logic?
Are you aware that the field of logic is far more vast than just that specialized branch?
Again the case below is perfectly worth of consideration.
In logic, specific overrides general.
1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.
The Ambulance driver can go over the speed limit even though that contradicts the general restriction to drivers. The ambulance driver has a more specific permission than the general restriction.
Ceann wrote: No, he does not have specific permission to WEAR it, he has permission to ACCESS that gear, He MAY, not CAN, not MUST, he MAY, it is then followed by directions on where to look at the war gear. The criteria states that he must be wearing terminator armor to use said wargear.
If he is wearing terminator armor, then he may purchase those items. The entry you reference for the unit refers to the entry of the codex, it is directing you to the rules.
At this point in order to purchase those items he MUST be wearing terminator armor, if he is wearing terminator armor then he cannot ride a bike.
If there was any truth to your statement that you were "just honestly following the rules" the same train of thought you are putting forth applies to relics also, if we can ignore the prerequisite text for a grouping of wargear, then clearly he can take as many relics as he wishes also instead of just one.
If you are asserting that, then you are asserting that this same exact line of text "may take from X" that is on nearly every single SM character in existence may also ignore the prerequisites of relics and take as many as they want as well.
Is that what you are saying?
Don't straw man my argument.
The captain model is given specific permission to take items from the Terminator list. That permission supersedes any more general statement that would say he may not take items from the Terminator weapons list.
Specific > general.
In logic, specific overrides general.
1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.
The Ambulance driver can go over the speed limit even though that contradicts the general restriction to drivers. The ambulance driver has a more specific permission than the general restriction.
BTW, if we are able to ignore restrictions in the Wargear List, then Codex Tacticals, Devastators and Crusaders can take Heavy Flamers! Not to mention we can ignore the restrictions listed for Terminators to be on Bikes and take Jump Packs, or any combination! So, have fun with your Librarian riding a Bike in Terminator Armor with a Jump Pack.
As if anyone would seriously allow that to happen that had any grasp of basic English, context, and grammar.
But then, almost anything's possible in Col_ignored's esoteric grammar dictionary.
That is not what is being discussed at all. Nobody is saying to ignore the restrictions in the Wargear list. Why do you even bother chiming in on discussions about my arguments when you refuse to actually read my arguments first hand?
Do as I say, not as I do? Stick to 40k related examples.
Do as I say, not as I do? Stick to 40k related examples.
Logic is fair game in YMDC per YMDC rules.
In logic, specific permission trumps more general restriction.
The Terminator Captain has specific permission applied to his very model that he "may take items from the Terminator Weapons [list]".
In summary
Spoiler:
The specific permission granted to the Terminator Captain overrides the more general description text that precludes the permission.
Overrides are specifically applied to text that directly conflicts.
There is a specific rule on the Army List Entry that the captain may take items from the Terminator Weapons list.
There is some descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour") that prevents the captain from taking any and all items for the Terminator Weapons. Text that makes it impossible for the captain to take any item at all directly conflicts with the line "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list.
So, there is a direct conflict between a specific permission granted to the captain model and a general description.
The specific permission ("may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list) granted to that exact model (the captain) wins out over the general descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour")
What you are trying, and poorly, to use, is called inductive reasoning.
Terminator weapons are available to units who wear terminator armor.
Some units wear terminator armor.
Like that right?
My statement is so true, I am broke my arm patting myself on the back.
Wrong again.
For something like 40k you are mostly concerned with sorting out logical relationships based on natural language and semantics. At no point is any classical logical proof going to be relevant to a discussion of 40k game logic,
So again . . .
In logic, specific overrides general.
1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.
The Ambulance driver can go over the speed limit even though that contradicts the general restriction to drivers. The ambulance driver has a more specific permission than the general restriction.
This general and specific nonsense is what you are copying from the YMDC page and does not actually follow standard logically formulated arguments.
Your premise is false because you are making an unstated assumption, that the AoD supplement supersedes the Codex: Space Marines, because you are making this assumption you conclude that your logical deduction is true.
You have yet to establish that your premise is true. The fact that you refer back to the YMDC page terms specifically rather than discussing actual premise and conclusions that are the basis of logical arguments, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Logical arguments per the forum rules are meant to SUPPORT a rule. You are not supporting a rule, you are fabricating your entire argument from nothing because you have cited no premise.
If you want to cite logic as a rule, cite the page in the BRB that allows logical interpretations of the rules.
YMDC has defined what a debate on Rules As Written involves.
If you feel otherwise, feel free to cite what Rules As Written means in the BRB.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: This general and specific nonsense is what you are copying from the YMDC page and does not actually follow standard logically formulated arguments.
You have yet to find any fault in my argument.
In logic, specific overrides general.
1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.
The Ambulance driver can go over the speed limit even though that contradicts the general restriction to drivers. The ambulance driver has a more specific permission than the general restriction.
The Terminator Captain has specific permission applied to his very model that he "may take items from the Terminator Weapons [list]".
In summary
Spoiler:
The specific permission granted to the Terminator Captain overrides the more general description text that precludes the permission.
Overrides are specifically applied to text that directly conflicts.
There is a specific rule on the Army List Entry that the captain may take items from the Terminator Weapons list.
There is some descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour") that prevents the captain from taking any and all items for the Terminator Weapons. Text that makes it impossible for the captain to take any item at all directly conflicts with the line "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list.
So, there is a direct conflict between a specific permission granted to the captain model and a general description.
The specific permission ("may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list) granted to that exact model (the captain) wins out over the general descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour")
That statement is not true, it is some vague statement on the YMDC page.
A logical argument consists of three parts, a premise, an inference and a conclusion.
Now the rules for 40k are not based in logic, arguments are based in logic.
In order to make a logical argument IN 40k then you need to adhere to the RULES of the game WHILE making your argument. Unless you are telling me that you are ignoring the rules of the game and merely making purely logical arguments, in which case you are trolling everyone.
The Terminator Captain is not driving an ambulance, nor is he a driver.
Your statement is false.
If you want to propose a logical argument, do so within the premise of the game.
As I have been saying, your premise is wrong.
I was going to make a comment but I'm not sure what we are talking about any more.
I get a vague sense it is something about whether Cataphractii Terminator armor is a type of terminator armor or some completely different type of armor as far as the written rules go. I got lost when the ambulance stuff started.
Now the rules for 40k are not based in logic, arguments are based in logic.
In order to make a logical argument IN 40k then you need to adhere to the RULES of the game WHILE making your argument. Unless you are telling me that you are ignoring the rules of the game and merely making purely logical arguments, in which case you are trolling everyone.
The Terminator Captain is not driving an ambulance, nor is he a driver.
Your statement is false.
If you want to propose a logical argument, do so within the premise of the game.
As I have been saying, your premise is wrong.
I have shown the specific overrides general. Its basic logic.
Spoiler:
In logic, specific overrides general.
1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.
The Ambulance driver can go over the speed limit even though that contradicts the general restriction to drivers. The ambulance driver has a more specific permission than the general restriction.
The Terminator Captain has specific permission applied to his very model that he "may take items from the Terminator Weapons [list]".
Specific permission overrides general restriction.
In summary
Spoiler:
The specific permission granted to the Terminator Captain overrides the more general description text that precludes the permission.
Overrides are specifically applied to text that directly conflicts.
There is a specific rule on the Army List Entry that the captain may take items from the Terminator Weapons list.
There is some descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour") that prevents the captain from taking any and all items for the Terminator Weapons. Text that makes it impossible for the captain to take any item at all directly conflicts with the line "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list.
So, there is a direct conflict between a specific permission granted to the captain model and a general description.
The specific permission ("may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list) granted to that exact model (the captain) wins out over the general descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour")
Drivers are not in the game.
Ambulances are not in the game.
The game does not operate on logic, it operates on a set of rules. if you wish to apply logic to a RULE you can do that, however there is no rule called "specific permission".
If you apply logic to the game WITHOUT account for the rules, then you are not talking about 40k you are talking about reality.
Ceann wrote: In what argument? You don't have one.
This?
"In logic, specific overrides general."
That statement is not true, it is some vague statement on the YMDC page.
Lex specialis anyone? I guess this shows how deep your understanding of logic goes.
Lex specialis is the interpretation of legal language. It has nothing to do with logical arguments. A rule is a rule, it is not logical, you are talking about literal translation of words. 40k has its own set of rules that must be adhered too, like see codex space marines.
More of your word game semantics to fabricate a point that doesn't exist. I guess legal and logic both have the same number of letters with an l and a g so you got them mixed up. You can make a logical argument in lex specialis but only if you are operating under the rules of legality. Just like you can only make a logical 40k argument if you are operating under the rules, which you arent and still have no premise cited.
Direct conflict argument has been discredited, the unit has perfectly legal builds with all the options.
Terminator Weapons specific restrictions are checked both at choosing and at end when you have armylist ready. You need to have Army List Entry with legal options at end. Choosing from Terminator Weapons with Cataprachtii option chosen will lead to illegal build within all the rules considered.
Specific units general level permission to Terminator Weapons cannot override specific restrictions in Terminator Weapons. Overrides actually don't happen unless very specifically stated in the rules itself.
Ghorgul wrote: My argument against col_impact's reasoning of rule specificity still remains unchallenged, actually mostly ignored. Inconvenient truth maybe?
Due to lack of new and credible arguments, I think we can almost unanimously conclude that RAW Terminator Captain in Cataprachtii Terminator Armour:
CAN take bike/jump pack etc. as the Cataprachtii Terminator armour is not Terminator Armour by definition
CANNOT take any items from Terminator Weapons as the Cataprachtii Terminator Armour is not Terminator Armour by definition and because of that is limited by the restrictions stated in Terminator Weapons
Ghorgul wrote: Direct conflict argument has been discredited, the unit has perfectly legal builds with all the options.
Terminator Weapons specific restrictions are checked both at choosing and at end when you have armylist ready. You need to have Army List Entry with legal options at end. Choosing from Terminator Weapons with Cataprachtii option chosen will lead to illegal build within all the rules considered.
Specific units general level permission to Terminator Weapons cannot override specific restrictions in Terminator Weapons. Overrides actually don't happen unless very specifically stated in the rules itself.
Ghorgul wrote: My argument against col_impact's reasoning of rule specificity still remains unchallenged, actually mostly ignored. Inconvenient truth maybe?
Due to lack of new and credible arguments, I think we can almost unanimously conclude that RAW Terminator Captain in Cataprachtii Terminator Armour:
CAN take bike/jump pack etc. as the Cataprachtii Terminator armour is not Terminator Armour by definition
CANNOT take any items from Terminator Weapons as the Cataprachtii Terminator Armour is not Terminator Armour by definition and because of that is limited by the restrictions stated in Terminator Weapons
RAW the Cataphractii terminator armour does not count as terminatour for all purposes. Wargear selection is one of the purposes excluded. Therefore a Cataphractii captain can take a bike.
RAW the Terminator Captain "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list. If that specific permission in the Army List Entry conflicts with the more general flavor text of the Terminator Weapons list then the specific permission wins out. There is no choice but to adhere to the Terminator Captain being able to take items for the Terminator Weapons list.
Charistoph wrote: BTW, if we are able to ignore restrictions in the Wargear List, then Codex Tacticals, Devastators and Crusaders can take Heavy Flamers! Not to mention we can ignore the restrictions listed for Terminators to be on Bikes and take Jump Packs, or any combination! So, have fun with your Librarian riding a Bike in Terminator Armor with a Jump Pack.
As if anyone would seriously allow that to happen that had any grasp of basic English, context, and grammar.
But then, almost anything's possible in Col_ignored's esoteric grammar dictionary.
That is not what is being discussed at all. Nobody is saying to ignore the restrictions in the Wargear list. Why do you even bother chiming in on discussions about my arguments when you refuse to actually read my arguments first hand?
1) You need to learn what setting someone to "Ignore" means.
2) This discussion is about following the restrictions in the Wargear lists.
3) Heavy Flamers are restricted in the Wargear list in those units just as Terminator Weapons are restricted to those with Terminator Armour and Bikes and Jump Packs are against those wearing Terminator Armour.
So, the concept in the statement is sound, but then, you have always had extreme difficulties following my logic patterns, especially when you stop reading when you are satisfied with what you want to do.
Ceann wrote:The game does not operate on logic, it operates on a set of rules. if you wish to apply logic to a RULE you can do that, however there is no rule called "specific permission".
If you apply logic to the game WITHOUT account for the rules, then you are not talking about 40k you are talking about reality.
Logic is actually part and parcel of any game system, being the set of principles which define the process of a task. It is also a reasoning conducted or assessed to very strict standards of validity.
So, logic is a very important part of any game. It is the only way a game can be performed without breaking.
That being said, not everything GW writes is supported by or usable with logic, especially with some of those FAQs that came out.
Ceann wrote:Semantics.
I love it when some people use this word and they use it as some sort of bad thing. Not saying that's what you are doing here, Ceann, but it is clearly not used properly by many, and definitely not used by Col_Ignored at all. Semantics is the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
Therefore, any YMDC discussion is literally semantics. What do the words mean, and how can we use them logically?
Charistoph wrote: BTW, if we are able to ignore restrictions in the Wargear List, then Codex Tacticals, Devastators and Crusaders can take Heavy Flamers! Not to mention we can ignore the restrictions listed for Terminators to be on Bikes and take Jump Packs, or any combination! So, have fun with your Librarian riding a Bike in Terminator Armor with a Jump Pack.
As if anyone would seriously allow that to happen that had any grasp of basic English, context, and grammar.
But then, almost anything's possible in Col_ignored's esoteric grammar dictionary.
That is not what is being discussed at all. Nobody is saying to ignore the restrictions in the Wargear list. Why do you even bother chiming in on discussions about my arguments when you refuse to actually read my arguments first hand?
1) You need to learn what setting someone to "Ignore" means.
2) This discussion is about following the restrictions in the Wargear lists.
3) Heavy Flamers are restricted in the Wargear list in those units just as Terminator Weapons are restricted to those with Terminator Armour and Bikes and Jump Packs are against those wearing Terminator Armour.
So, the concept in the statement is sound, but then, you have always had extreme difficulties following my logic patterns, especially when you stop reading when you are satisfied with what you want to do.
The discussion has for quite some been about whether specific permission overrides more general restriction, i.e, whether logic applies. Try to pay attention. If you have me on ignore then you are obviously not paying attention.
Ceann wrote:The game does not operate on logic, it operates on a set of rules. if you wish to apply logic to a RULE you can do that, however there is no rule called "specific permission".
If you apply logic to the game WITHOUT account for the rules, then you are not talking about 40k you are talking about reality.
Logic is actually part and parcel of any game system, being the set of principles which define the process of a task. It is also a reasoning conducted or assessed to very strict standards of validity.
So, logic is a very important part of any game. It is the only way a game can be performed without breaking.
That being said, not everything GW writes is supported by or usable with logic, especially with some of those FAQs that came out.
Ceann wrote:Semantics.
I love it when some people use this word and they use it as some sort of bad thing. Not saying that's what you are doing here, Ceann, but it is clearly not used properly by many [ . . .]. Semantics is the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
Therefore, any YMDC discussion is literally semantics. What do the words mean, and how can we use them logically?
These are actually helpful comments. That's good to see. It has been a while since you have contributed much beyond pure disruption in any thread I have been a heavy participant in.
Yup. Ceann has put himself in the awkward position of poo-pooing arguments that use logic and semantics as a guide. I guess he has forgotten that logic and semantics are critical components of written language and games.
col_impact wrote: RAW the Cataphractii terminator armour does not count as terminatour for all purposes. Wargear selection is one of the purposes excluded. Therefore a Cataphractii captain can take a bike.
RAW the Terminator Captain "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list. If that specific permission in the Army List Entry conflicts with the more general flavor text of the Terminator Weapons list then the specific permission wins out. There is no choice but to adhere to the Terminator Captain being able to take items for the Terminator Weapons list.
Incorrect. You credit one rule as specific permission, while the other rule you credit to be "general flavor text" by only your own choice. That is something you do not get to decide.
We are trying to have rules debate and then you start argumenting that one rule is "general flavor text" = fluff text? Your argument is that one piece of text is rule, while the other clear restriction is fluff text? That certainly is something you do not get to decide.
We have 2 rules which are described by certain sub-rules to them. Both are independent, equal entities. Neither rule can claim to be more specific.
1. Terminator Captain - Has permission to take weapons from Terminator Weapons.
2. Terminator weapons - Includes restriction that "A model wearing a terminator armor may replace.." and then the listed options.
Neither rule can be claimed to be more specific, or more general. Therefore when making choices for your Army List Entry, you need to follow all the permissions and restrictions set in relevant rules in to order to have Army List Entry with legal options in the end.
The discussion has for quite some been about whether specific permission overrides more general restriction, i.e, whether logic applies. Try to pay attention. If you have me on ignore then you are obviously not paying attention.
You keep arguing that Army List Entry gives specific permission to Terminator Weapons, this is true.
You however argue that the Rule for Terminator Weapons entry in Space Marines Wargear List is general. This is not the case.
Space marine codex lists material in following way:
Forces of the Space Marines:
1. Space marines wargear list - an independent in entry in the listing of all the forces available.
2. All the army list entries.
3. All the formations.
Every choice is listed as an independent entry in the list "Forces of the Space Marines" list, therefore they are equal.
Space marines wargear list is special kind of entry in the listing, as any Army List Entry given specific permission to use it may access it within the restrictions set in the "Space marines wargear list" entry.
Therefore the entries listed above are equal, with no one being more general or specific than the other. This makes the "Space Marines Wargear List" independent and equal entry with all the formations and army list entries available.
As explained above, specific permission on one entry on the "Forces of the Space Marines" or on entry in Angels of Death cannot override specific restriction on another entry in "Forces of the Space Marines", especially when the specific permission guides you to the entry "Space Marines Wargear List" in "Forces of the Space Marines" in Codex Space Marines.
Angels of Death is a supplement and does not override any permissions or restrictions stated in Codex Space Marines.
The only way to properly, and acceptably, override this position, is to acknowledge that a terminator captain, wearing cataphractii terminator armour, is in fact wearing terminator armour.
JamesY wrote: The only way to properly, and acceptably, override this position, is to acknowledge that a terminator captain, wearing cataphractii terminator armour, is in fact wearing terminator armour.
I am also pretty sure that no one would object to you if you house rule your Terminator Captain in Cataprachtii Terminator Armour to be wearing a Terminator Armour This [house ruling] would probably even be allowed in Tournaments if discussed prior with TO.
You have been attempting to pass of legal jargon as logic which it is not.
You have attempted to apply ONLY literal translations of words while ignoring the fact that the game rules exist, which is what I specifically pointed out.
You have not, and still have not, cited your source that states a supplement overrides a codex. You also have not provided a premise that the rules work in this way and have failed to provide an actual in game example using game rules.
I am getting the impression that you are incapable of doing so.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Page 156 BRB.
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or Bends the rules it is represented by a special rule.
Does the terminator captain have a special rule that allows him to ignore the governing rule for terminator weapons.
No.
Also page 156, a model might gain special rules as a result of psychic powers, scenario special rules, or a piece of terrain.
Has the terminator captain gained a special rule?
No.
You keep arguing that Army List Entry gives specific permission to Terminator Weapons, this is true.
You however argue that the Rule for Terminator Weapons entry in Space Marines Wargear List is general. This is not the case.
Space marine codex lists material in following way:
Forces of the Space Marines:
1. Space marines wargear list - an independent in entry in the listing of all the forces available.
2. All the army list entries.
3. All the formations.
Every choice is listed as an independent entry in the list "Forces of the Space Marines" list, therefore they are equal.
Space marines wargear list is special kind of entry in the listing, as any Army List Entry given specific permission to use it may access it within the restrictions set in the "Space marines wargear list" entry.
Therefore the entries listed above are equal, with no one being more general or specific than the other. This makes the "Space Marines Wargear List" independent and equal entry with all the formations and army list entries available.
As explained above, specific permission on one entry on the "Forces of the Space Marines" or on entry in Angels of Death cannot override specific restriction on another entry in "Forces of the Space Marines", especially when the specific permission guides you to the entry "Space Marines Wargear List" in "Forces of the Space Marines" in Codex Space Marines.
Angels of Death is a supplement and does not override any permissions or restrictions stated in Codex Space Marines.
Actually I have to modify my earlier argument (quoted above in spoilers):
Entries listed in are Forces of the Space Marines are equal entries, yes. However the Space Marines Wargear List, or sublists contained within, as such are not accessible without specific permission granted in the options of specific Army List Entry. Already this fact should prove against of them being treated as general rule, as they are in no way freely accessible to all the space marines. This makes for example the Terminator Weapons sublist to be acting as a special rule given to the unit. This causes every item given to the unit to essentially be special rule, which the Army List Entry acquires either by default or by some specific earlier choices.
This may sound a bit weird, but think of this this way: You have a single Space Marine model with Furious Charge and Powerfist. Now Furious Charge is an USR, and Powerfist is an Item. The exact classifications do not matter, both are actually and effectively just special rules, subrules, or just simply rules, which state how the unit is played.
Let me demonstrate this. Subrules are marked with different amounts of X's, with one X being the Army List Entry we start with.
Spoiler:
X Captain
XX Bolt pistol
XX Chainsword
XX Frag grenades
XX Krak Grenades
XX Iron Halo
XX And the Shall Know No Fear USR XX Chapter Tactics
XX Independent Character
XX Melee weapons
XXX Melee Weapons: No choice
XX Ranged weapons
XXX Ranged Weapons: No Choice
XX Special Issue Wargear
XXX Special Issue Wargear: Terminator Armour (X pts.)
Now, choosing the Terminator Armour grants the model access to rule Terminator Weapons, but you loose access to Melee Weapons and Ranged Weapons
XX Terminator Weapons
XXX Terminator Weapons: Thunder Hammer (X pts.) choosing this rule has restriction that model needs to be wearing Terminator Armour
XXX Terminator Weapons: Storm Shield (X pts.) choosing this rule has restriction that model needs to be wearing Terminator Armour
Now 40k rules demand that you need to have legal armylist choices. They are only checked at end, when you finish choosing options and upgrades to your Army List Entry. In above list no choices were made from Melee Weapons or Ranged Weapons, and the rule giving you access to these was lost after picking Terminator Armour.
In the case of Terminator Captain you have always access to the rule Terminator weapons, but cannot make any selections from options allowed in Terminator Weapons Rule when wearing Cataprachtii Terminator Armour because Cataprachtii is not a Terminator Armour by definition.
As stated earlier, there is kind of direct conflict: Model has a Terminator Weapons rule with further options that cannot be chosen legally.
1. Well RAW, you need to follow the rules and you cannot claim that the Terminator Weapons-Rule (access to the list: the Model just has a rule stating it MAY take items=rules from Terminator Weapons-Rule) somehow overrides the options = rules contained within the Terminator Weapons-Rule.
2. Other argument against direct conflict argument is that the you are never always forced to a situation where you gain the Terminator Weapons-Rule, but do not get to make in further choices from that Rule. You can always choose Terminator Captain to not have Cataprachtii Terminator Armour. Therefore the direct conflict is self-caused by choosing Cataprachtii Terminator Armour=Rule for your Terminator Captain. Charging on same turn after deepstriking is also self-caused rules conflict, unless specifically allowed by the unit's own rules. And self-caused rules conflicts fall under the category of Break no Rule.
3. Anyway with access to Terminator Weapons you are never forced to choose items from the list, therefore you have to follow all the limitations contained in Terminator Weapons list.
In short, claim that if model has a rule giving it access to Space Marine Wargear List entry subrule Terminator Weapons somehow overrides all the options=rules contained within the accessed Rule Terminator Weapons is hopelessly incorrect
And in no way can you consider Terminator Weapons a general rule as you need specific rule to be contained in Army List Entry that allows you to use Terminator Weapons rule and the options contained within.
col_impact wrote: RAW the Cataphractii terminator armour does not count as terminatour for all purposes. Wargear selection is one of the purposes excluded. Therefore a Cataphractii captain can take a bike.
RAW the Terminator Captain "may take items from the Terminator Weapons if he is wearing Terminator Armor" list. If that specific permission in the Army List Entry conflicts with the more general flavor text of the Terminator Weapons list then the specific permission wins out. There is no choice but to adhere to the Terminator Captain being able to take items for the Terminator Weapons list.
JamesY wrote: Your scenario isn't impossible col. As you present it, the model can access the terminator wargear. If he chooses to upgrade to cataphracti armour, he would then loose access to it, at which point it is a redundant option. It is possible for him to access it as long as he remains in his original terminator armour.
Does the Option say "may take items" or "may access items"? I don't think you are paying attention to the difference there.
And if he's wearing terminator armor he still meets the requirements in the terminator weapons section of wearing terminator armor, thus actually getting to choose a weapon from the list. He doesn't get a bike from the list though as terminator armor prevents that.
If he chooses to take cataphracti armor, he knows that he loses access to anything on the terminator weapons list that requires terminator armor (which is everything on the list) by dint of choosing to get rid of the terminator armor. This same choice allows him to take a bike because of the terminator armor.
Just because it says "may take", doesn't mean that you get to choose items from a list that are prohibited to take because of the CHOICE you made in armor. If you wish something from that list in specific, make your CHOICE to have the right armor. There is nothing in "may take" that specifically overrides the prohibitions in the list themselves about what armor precludes someone from taking something. If, as you assert, "may take" does override specirfic restrictions - something you have been repeatedly asked by people to provide but have failed to do so - then by applying the exact same standard captains in terminator armor may purchase bikes, and may purchase multiple relics because they are told they can take items (plural) from the relics list.
Do what codex space marines says. It isn't rocket science.
And specific permission provided by the Angels of Death Codex Supplement is going to override more general restriction in Codex Space Marines. As you say, it isn't rocket science.
It is going to override restrictions that it specifically states it's overriding (such as Wrath of Magnus datasheets overwriting earlier datasheets). Things where it tells you to see the parent codex does not mean it is overwritten. Apparently it's more rocket science than you think.
He also has no rules that lets him bypass the restrictions normally in place.
So, if he is in Terminator Armour, he may select items. If not, he may select any item that he meets the qualifications for-that is, none of them.
So if there is some general restriction that he may not take any of them then that is in direct conflict with his specific permission that he 'may take items', correct?
No, not then his being restricted from them is the result of a choice he made taking another item, and that item precludes him from taking from that list. That is, unless it is specifically stated that the restrictions on the list are overridden. "May take items from" is not specific permission. Therefore, he is denied from taking items from that list because of his choice to take a different item.
You are determining on your own, without discussion which is a general statement and which is a specific statement. You have already demonstrated that you are incapable of making a logical argument as you have failed to properly assemble all of the components required to pose one, multiple times.
Incorrect. My logical arguments have been fashioned correctly and have been sound.
No, they really haven't been either, to be honest. We've demonstrated why - I've shown you that by using your own "logical arguments" we end up with terminator captains riding bikes while festooned with all the relics he has points for.
It clearly overrides nothing because the entire data sheet is plastered with a rubber stamp of "see Codex: Space Marines"
It doesn't state anything is overridden or replaced. A rule page has not been quoted that says it does. As far as I aware data sheets of essentially the same unit, such as inquisition and imperial agents, do not override each other, they are their own individual data sheets.
The data sheet in question explicitly tells us to use the SM codex.
Ceann wrote: It clearly overrides nothing because the entire data sheet is plastered with a rubber stamp of "see Codex: Space Marines"
It doesn't state anything is overridden or replaced. A rule page has not been quoted that says it does. As far as I aware data sheets of essentially the same unit, such as inquisition and imperial agents, do not override each other, they are their own individual data sheets.
The data sheet in question explicitly tells us to use the SM codex.
Ah, it tells us to use the SM Codex in a cunning ploy to lull the SM Codex into a false sense of security so that it doesn't know it's being overridden until it's too late!
Ceann wrote: It clearly overrides nothing because the entire data sheet is plastered with a rubber stamp of "see Codex: Space Marines"
It doesn't state anything is overridden or replaced. A rule page has not been quoted that says it does. As far as I aware data sheets of essentially the same unit, such as inquisition and imperial agents, do not override each other, they are their own individual data sheets.
The data sheet in question explicitly tells us to use the SM codex.
Ah, it tells us to use the SM Codex in a cunning ploy to lull the SM Codex into a false sense of security so that it doesn't know it's being overridden until it's too late!
Shussh now, keep quiet! This is a still unknown Zero-Day Vulnerability in the rules that will be only used in the direst need for RAWWAAC list to win a critical game!
He also has no rules that lets him bypass the restrictions normally in place.
So, if he is in Terminator Armour, he may select items. If not, he may select any item that he meets the qualifications for-that is, none of them.
So if there is some general restriction that he may not take any of them then that is in direct conflict with his specific permission that he 'may take items', correct?
No, not then his being restricted from them is the result of a choice he made taking another item, and that item precludes him from taking from that list. That is, unless it is specifically stated that the restrictions on the list are overridden. "May take items from" is not specific permission. Therefore, he is denied from taking items from that list because of his choice to take a different item.
All of you are relying on a notion of history to hand-wave away the direct conflict between the specific permission and the general restriction. This is not the first time I have pointed out the counter argument's reliance on history. A direct conflict exists if any choice violates the specific permission.
To wrap your heads around history, let's consider this RAW argument . . .
1) I equip my Terminator Captain model, replacing his power sword with a chainfist. (He is in terminator armour so he may replace and he does)
2) I swap the Terminator Captain's terminator armour for Cataphractii terminator armour. (He keeps his chainfist since the Captain model make legally take Terminator Weapon items)
3) The Terminator Captain purchases a bike. (He is not restricted from doing so since he is not in terminator armour)
4) I now have a Terminator Captain with a power fist and a bike in Cataphractii armour. (He has a completely legal configuration for Cataphractii armour)
This is a perfectly legitimate RAW resolution. All rules were followed and no rule is broken.
To wrap your heads around history, let's consider this RAW argument . . .
1) I equip my Terminator Captain model, replacing his power sword with a chainfist. (He is in terminator armour so he may replace and he does)
2) I swap the Terminator Captain's terminator armour for Cataphractii terminator armour. (He keeps his chainfist since the Captain model make legally take Terminator Weapon items)
3) The Terminator Captain purchases a bike. (He is not restricted from doing so since he is not in terminator armour)
4) I now have a Terminator Captain with a power fist and a bike in Cataphractii armour. (He has a completely legal configuration for Cataphractii armour)
This is a perfectly legitimate RAW resolution. All rules were followed and no rule is broken.
Incorrect.
End result is you have a Terminator Captain in Cataprachtii Terminator Armour with Chainfist and Bike. The final Terminator Captain model has no history or memory, as you stated. Therefore the build is illegal.
We see that having Cataprachtii Terminator Armour and Chainfist chosen simultaneously is not allowed. This is because, as explained in very detailed manner by many people earlier, as per restrictions in Terminator Weapons a model without Terminator Armour Cannot choose Chainfist from the options available.
You cannot play with the order you pick options. When you have prepared your Armylist, with the Terminator Captain with chosen wargear and items, the Terminator Captain needs to follow all the rules simultaneously. It does not matter in which order you pick the wargear, you just need to have made legal collection of choices at end without breaking any rules or other restrictions.
No Col. This us wrong, your argument has no value.
The reason your argument has no value is that the rules of 40k are primary and logic is supplementary to the rules. You are not trying to use logic to support a rule, you are trying to use legality on word definitions to fabricate your own rules that do not exist.
You went to the beach and came back with sea shells and oysters and while you can convince people and get them to agree that they are different things, you cannot use them to buy a sandwich, they are not a valid form of currency.
All rules were not followed, all WORDS in a sentence were followed, the rules were ignored.
Cite direct conflict, specific permission and general permission from the BRB, codex, or the supplement, with the page numbers please.
1. A SM Captain buys a bike. He's in power armor at the time, so it's legal.
2. He trades his power armor for terminator armor.
3) He buys a power fist.
We now have a Captain on a bike with a power fist, using your criteria of the order you purchase things. Yet, we know this isn't allowed.
Ironically, you have derided us for relying on a notion of history claiming we're hand waving something away, but that's exactly what you're doing here. You're trying to rely on the history of the order of purchasing things so that you can end up with a combination that you do not get to have normally. Where is the RAW that you rely on the order of purchasing things so that you may buy things that you can't purchase later when you get something else? GW has shot this down in FAQs.
But, at least it seems you're trying to abandon your previous "logical arguments" that were "fashioned correctly and have been sound" about the supplement overriding the codex when it's been proven that it doesn't without a specific statement that it's overriding the codex. Not that you're admitting it. But, you've gone back to the old wheeze of trying to game the order things are purchased in to end up with a combination that you can't purchase normally (i.e. you just look at the sheet and see that the combination you have isn't allowed - which is how GW handles it now)
He never cites anything as the tenets dictate.
He never tells you what document he gets these rules from.
You are required by the forum rules to present a premise, he never does this.
He calls legal terminology, logic, which it isn't and never uses said inferences to support actual rules, he uses literal words as a replacement for rules.
doctortom wrote: 1. A SM Captain buys a bike. He's in power armor at the time, so it's legal.
2. He trades his power armor for terminator armor.
3) He buys a power fist.
We now have a Captain on a bike with a power fist, using your criteria of the order you purchase things.
This isn't the same scenario at all.
Spoiler:
1) I equip my Terminator Captain model, replacing his power sword with a chainfist. (He is in terminator armour so he may replace and he does)
2) I swap the Terminator Captain's terminator armour for Cataphractii terminator armour. (He keeps his chainfist since the Captain model make legally take Terminator Weapon items)
3) The Terminator Captain purchases a bike. (He is not restricted from doing so since he is not in terminator armour)
4) I now have a Terminator Captain with a power fist and a bike in Cataphractii armour. (He has a completely legal configuration for Cataphractii armour)
My end result was a model that has permission to take all of its wargear selections. The combination is completely allowed.
Remember, a Terminator Captain has permission to take items from the Terminator Weapons list, irrespective of whether he is in terminator armour or Cataphractii terminator armour.
That means the combination is perfectly legal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghorgul wrote: Also I dont understand how you can claim your choices are "perfectly legitimate RAW resolution. All rules were followed and no rule is broken."
You clearly broke the restriction on Terminator Weapons by having Chainfist at end with no Terminator Armour on the model.
Incorrect.
The Terminator Captain model has permission to "take items from the Terminator Weapons" list.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghorgul wrote: you just need to have made legal collection of choices at end without breaking any rules or other restrictions.
The Terminator Captain does have a legal collection of choices. No rule was broken and no rule is broken.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
doctortom wrote: Ironically, you have derided us for relying on a notion of history claiming we're hand waving something away, but that's exactly what you're doing here. You're trying to rely on the history of the order of purchasing things so that you can end up with a combination that you do not get to have normally. Where is the RAW that you rely on the order of purchasing things so that you may buy things that you can't purchase later when you get something else? GW has shot this down in FAQs.
The irony is intentional ("to wrap your heads around history, let's consider this RAW argument . . .").
The interesting thing is that history isn't exactly against the rules.
To the matter at hand . . . .
I have outlined an entirely legal following of the rules. Feel free to cite any rule that forbids me from doing so.
You declaring your view legal and according to RAW isblike me declaring myself Star Lord. We are both wrong and we are both looked at like we are crazy.
But on topic, in your example why are you presuming that the Terminator Captain is still a Terminator Captain after equipping himself with Cataphracti Armor? Would he not then be a Cataphracti Captain and since your view is that Cataphracti is only terminator armor for a select set of purposes, the captain is not in Terminator armor at all and thus would not be allowed to take any weapons that are specifically restricted to those wearing Terminator armor.
A Wolf Lord could take terminator armor and have access to special issue warhead. IIRC one of those items in the special issue wargear was a TWC. But the wording of the TWC did not allow terminator armor. By your standard the wolf Lord could have bought the TWC first and then been allowed to buy the terminator armor? Or since he had permission from the get go to purchase from special issue, he could override the are striction on the TWC?
The Terminator Captain model has permission to "take items from the Terminator Weapons" list.
Incorrect.
The Terminator Captain model in Cataprachtii has permission to "take items from the Terminator Weapons" list but he has no legal options within the Terminator Weapons list as all the options demand the model to be wearing Terminator Armour. Cataprachtii Terminator Armour is not Terminator Armour.
Nothing in rule "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" suggests he may override the rules governing Terminator Weapons, as has been argued earlier by several people several times.
Let me give you a clear example where a rule overrides another rule:
Raptor Talon [Formation], page 53 in Traitor Legions Codex Supplement.
Formation has Special Rule: Predatory Warriors Direct quote: "Units in this Formation can charge on the same turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve, but always count as making a disordered charge when they do so."
There exists a basic rule, in BRB, stating that a unit cannot charge on the same turn it arrives from Deep Strike Reserve. (BRB, special rules, deep strike, pg. 162).
On page 13 in BRB, Basic versus Advanced:
"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence."
Clearly the Codex rule Predatory Warriors contradicts the Special Rule for Deep Striking in BRB, therefore Predatory Warriors rule overrides contradicting [special] rule in BRB.
BRB does not state that rules inside codex override other rules inside the same codex or another codex.
Please produce us an excerpt which supports your argument of Terminator Captain permission to Terminator Weapons to override restrictions within the options in Terminator Weapons. BRB, faq or errata will be sufficient.
The Terminator Captain model has permission to "take items from the Terminator Weapons" list.
Incorrect.
The Terminator Captain model in Cataprachtii has permission to "take items from the Terminator Weapons" list but he has no legal options within the Terminator Weapons list as all the options demand the model to be wearing Terminator Armour. Cataprachtii Terminator Armour is not Terminator Armour.
Nothing in rule "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" suggests he may override the rules governing Terminator Weapons, as has been argued earlier by several people several times.
Let me give you a clear example where a rule overrides another rule:
Raptor Talon [Formation], page 53 in Traitor Legions Codex Supplement.
Formation has Special Rule: Predatory Warriors Direct quote: "Units in this Formation can charge on the same turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve, but always count as making a disordered charge when they do so."
There exists a basic rule, in BRB, stating that a unit cannot charge on the same turn it arrives from Deep Strike Reserve. (BRB, special rules, deep strike, pg. 162).
On page 13 in BRB, Basic versus Advanced:
"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence."
Clearly the Codex rule Predatory Warriors contradicts the Special Rule for Deep Striking in BRB, therefore Predatory Warriors rule overrides contradicting [special] rule in BRB.
BRB does not state that rules inside codex override other rules inside the same codex or another codex.
Please produce us an excerpt which supports your argument of Terminator Captain permission to Terminator Weapons to override restrictions within the options in Terminator Weapons. BRB, faq or errata will be sufficient.
You missed the point. The Terminator Captain has a fully legal configuration.
To direct you back to the task at hand . . .
1) I equip my Terminator Captain model, replacing his power sword with a chainfist. (He is in terminator armour so he may replace and he does)
2) I swap the Terminator Captain's terminator armour for Cataphractii terminator armour. (He keeps his chainfist since the Captain model make legally take Terminator Weapon items)
3) The Terminator Captain purchases a bike. (He is not restricted from doing so since he is not in terminator armour)
4) I now have a Terminator Captain with a power fist and a bike in Cataphractii armour. (He has a completely legal configuration for Cataphractii armour)
This is a perfectly legitimate RAW resolution. All rules were followed and no rule is broken.
If you feel otherwise point out the rule that I break. The burden is on you to post rules here.
The interesting thing is that history isn't exactly against the rules.
To the matter at hand . . . .
I have outlined an entirely legal following of the rules. Feel free to cite any rule that forbids me from doing so.
History is not recorded, we only get the end result of choices, there is no history existing in the final armylist:
BRB, pg. 117, The Force Roster:
"Write down the details of the models that make up your army... This written record is known as your army's force roster, and you must keep it to hand while you play the game."
There is no mention of history here, you just need to have Force Roster which follows all the relevant rules.
What you have done is to refuse to acknowledge arguments against your claims.
I am afraid my friend that the burden of proof on your "entirely legal following of the rules" is on you.
Ghorgul wrote: we only get the end result of choices, there is no history existing in the final armylist:
The end result is entirely legal. No history is required. The model has permission to take Terminator Weapons. You are confusing the replacing which was legally completed with the permission to have which the model always has.
Spoiler:
1) I equip my Terminator Captain model, replacing his power sword with a chainfist. (He is in terminator armour so he may replace and he does)
2) I swap the Terminator Captain's terminator armour for Cataphractii terminator armour. (He keeps his chainfist since the Captain model make legally take Terminator Weapon items)
3) The Terminator Captain purchases a bike. (He is not restricted from doing so since he is not in terminator armour)
4) I now have a Terminator Captain with a power fist and a bike in Cataphractii armour. (He has a completely legal configuration for Cataphractii armour)
This is a perfectly legitimate RAW resolution. All rules were followed and no rule is broken.
If you feel otherwise point out the rule that I break. The burden is on you to post rules here.
Ghorgul wrote: we only get the end result of choices, there is no history existing in the final armylist:
The end result is entirely legal. No history is required.
That's a complete and utter falsehood.
"All of you are relying on a notion of history to hand-wave away the direct conflict between the specific permission and the general restriction. This is not the first time I have pointed out the counter argument's reliance on history. A direct conflict exists if any choice violates the specific permission. "
As opposed to what you are doing, relying on a notion of history to hand-wave being able to buy some things. You are using history because you have to remember the order in which you did the things to come to the final configuration of the model. Taking it without history, the character is completely illegal because it has terminator weapons but no terminator armor, just the same way you don't get a captain wearing terminator armor riding a bike because he bought the bike before swapping out his armor. If the end result isn't legal, you don't get to do it.
But, since you insist no history is required, prove it. You are not allowed to rely on the order of purchasing things, because that is history. Back up your statement and prove how it can be done without having to remember the order in which things were done (which is history).
EDIT: I see you added to your post. Just jettison everything in your spoiler to prove the point, because having to know the order of things is having to know the history of things. You insist we don't need to know the history. Prove it.
doctortom wrote: You are not allowed to rely on the order of purchasing things, because that is history.
Do you have rules quote on this statement?
I am just following rules.
1) I equip my Terminator Captain model, replacing his power sword with a chainfist. (He is in terminator armour so he may replace and he does)
2) I swap the Terminator Captain's terminator armour for Cataphractii terminator armour. (He keeps his chainfist since the Captain model make legally take Terminator Weapon items)
3) The Terminator Captain purchases a bike. (He is not restricted from doing so since he is not in terminator armour)
4) I now have a Terminator Captain with a power fist and a bike in Cataphractii armour. (He has a completely legal configuration for Cataphractii armour)
This is a perfectly legitimate RAW resolution. All rules were followed and no rule is broken.
Doctortom: What rule did I break? Page and paragraph please!
You missed the point. The Terminator Captain has a fully legal configuration.
To direct you back to the task at hand . . .
1) I equip my Terminator Captain model, replacing his power sword with a chainfist. (He is in terminator armour so he may replace and he does)
2) I swap the Terminator Captain's terminator armour for Cataphractii terminator armour. (He keeps his chainfist since the Captain model make legally take Terminator Weapon items)
3) The Terminator Captain purchases a bike. (He is not restricted from doing so since he is not in terminator armour)
4) I now have a Terminator Captain with a power fist and a bike in Cataphractii armour. (He has a completely legal configuration for Cataphractii armour)
This is a perfectly legitimate RAW resolution. All rules were followed and no rule is broken.
If you feel otherwise point out the rule that I break. The burden is on you to post rules here.
The Roster you provide is convoluted, let me tidy it up to follow the:
BRB, pg. 117, The Force Roster:
"Write down the details of the models that make up your army... This written record is known as your army's force roster, and you must keep it to hand while you play the game."
Terminator Captain
Cataprachtii Terminator Armour
Chainfist/Power Fist (you switched it 2nd time midway with no mention, but lets not worry about that!)
Bike
1) Cataprachtii Terminator Armour is legal choice
2) Bike is legal choice because Cataprachtii Terminator Armour is not Terminator Armour by definition
3)Chainfist/power fist choice is Illegal. See the justification and rule entry below:
In Codex Space Marines, Space Marines Wargear List, Terminator Weapons [list] entry:
"A model wearing Terminator armour may replace his power weapon with one of the following: -Power fist X pts, -Chainfist X pts."
A model, as recorded in Force Roster I kindly provided for you, is not wearing a Terminator armour so therefore cannot replace his power weapon with Power fist or Chainfist. This is because Cataprachtii Terminator Armour is not Terminator armour by definition.
You failed to record your models Force Roster entry in clear manner and you failed to follow the rule set in Terminator Weapons [list] entry. Therefore you ended up with illegal choices for you models.
Ceann wrote: No because when you submit the list, the powerfist is found to be on a model not wearing terminator armor. The list is invalid.
You keep inventing words. None of the words you are using appear in a codex.
The Terminator Captain has permission to take items from the Terminator Weapons list. The list is completely valid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghorgul wrote: you ended up with illegal choices for you models.
Incorrect. The Terminator Captain model may take items from the Terminator Weapons list.
The end result is 100% legal. You are confusing a choice that was made with the end result. The Force Roster only cares about whether the end result is legal.
Spoiler:
1) I equip my Terminator Captain model, replacing his power sword with a chainfist. (He is in terminator armour so he may replace and he does)
2) I swap the Terminator Captain's terminator armour for Cataphractii terminator armour. (He keeps his chainfist since the Captain model make legally take Terminator Weapon items)
3) The Terminator Captain purchases a bike. (He is not restricted from doing so since he is not in terminator armour)
4) I now have a Terminator Captain with a chainfist and a bike in Cataphractii armour. (He has a completely legal configuration for Cataphractii armour)
This is a perfectly legitimate RAW resolution. All rules were followed and no rule is broken.
If you feel otherwise point out the rule that I break. The burden is on you to post rules here.
So what other rules for terminator armor do you choose to keep from the Captain previously in terminator armor and now in Cataphracti armor? I ask because your RAI of timing events supports you retaining any all the rules of the previously held terminator armor even after the captain has switched to Cataphracti armor, you are just choosing to nitpick this one to support you illegal RAI build.
Ceann wrote: Precedence and verbatim rules quotes, the two things col inventor ignores the most.
The burden is on you to point out the rule that I break.
Spoiler:
1) I equip my Terminator Captain model, replacing his power sword with a chainfist. (He is in terminator armour so he may replace and he does)
2) I swap the Terminator Captain's terminator armour for Cataphractii terminator armour. (He keeps his chainfist since the Captain model make legally take Terminator Weapon items)
3) The Terminator Captain purchases a bike. (He is not restricted from doing so since he is not in terminator armour)
4) I now have a Terminator Captain with a chainfist and a bike in Cataphractii armour. (He has a completely legal configuration for Cataphractii armour)
Ceann wrote: No because when you submit the list, the powerfist is found to be on a model not wearing terminator armor. The list is invalid.
You keep inventing words. None of the words you are using appear in a codex.
The Terminator Captain has permission to take items from the Terminator Weapons list. The list is completely valid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghorgul wrote: you ended up with illegal choices for you models.
Incorrect. The Terminator Captain model may take items from the Terminator Weapons list.
The end result is 100% legal. You are confusing a choice that was made with the end result. The Force Roster only cares about whether the end result is legal.
Spoiler:
1) I equip my Terminator Captain model, replacing his power sword with a chainfist. (He is in terminator armour so he may replace and he does)
2) I swap the Terminator Captain's terminator armour for Cataphractii terminator armour. (He keeps his chainfist since the Captain model make legally take Terminator Weapon items)
3) The Terminator Captain purchases a bike. (He is not restricted from doing so since he is not in terminator armour)
4) I now have a Terminator Captain with a chainfist and a bike in Cataphractii armour. (He has a completely legal configuration for Cataphractii armour)
This is a perfectly legitimate RAW resolution. All rules were followed and no rule is broken.
If you feel otherwise point out the rule that I break. The burden is on you to post rules here.
He doesn't have permission to have terminator weapons if he doesn't have terminator armor.
Now, let's get get back to a statement you made, where you said there's no history involved. Posting things in steps IS a history, because you have to have the history of what order things are in. Since you assert that no history is required, prove how you can have the items without just copying and pasting the steps you listed above, since that is history. You don't just get to ignore that challenge - you made a statement, now back it up.
As Ceann has said, state your precendence that allows you to purchase in this order. GW has had FAQs indicating that they do now subscribe to this practice in general for being able to skirt prohibitions. I gave you a counter example of a Space Marine captain in terminator armor on a bike because he had the bike before the terminator armor. Prove how, if what you are doing is legal, it isn't likewise legal for him to purchase the bike before trading in armor.
Incorrect. The Terminator Captain model may take items from the Terminator Weapons list.
"The Terminator Captain model may take items from the Terminator Weapons list" rule in Army List Entry is not under dispute. We all agree that the Terminator Captain may take items from the Terminator Weapons list.
The rule under dispute is if he can take for example a Power fist from the list while he is wearing a Cataprachtii Terminator Armour. The rule was quoted just prior to this: "A model wearing Terminator armour may replace his power weapon with one of the following: -Power fist X pts"
You claim this rule is overriden. That claim is incorrect. Provide rule entry which allows the overriding, you have been asked to do this several times already.
You are confusing a choice that was made with the end result. The Force Roster only cares about whether the end result is legal.
I do not understand what you mean by that. Recorded Force Roster needs to be legal and that means to follow all the relevant rules. You have been shown that in your example you have not followed all the relevant rules.
You are confusing a choice that was made with the end result. The Force Roster only cares about whether the end result is legal.
I do not understand what you mean by that. Recorded Force Roster needs to be legal and that means to follow all the relevant rules. You have been shown that in your example you have not followed all the relevant rules.
It's an entirely legal configuration. The Terminator Captain can take items from the Terminator Weapons list.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
doctortom wrote: Quit dodging. Provide the proof for your statement that you you can do a legal build without knowing history.
You've got it backwards. I laid out a completely legal process. You haven't shown anything to be illegal.
You mention a FAQ. You should post it. Otherwise there are no rules against what I am doing.
Spoiler:
1) I equip my Terminator Captain model, replacing his power sword with a chainfist. (He is in terminator armour so he may replace and he does)
2) I swap the Terminator Captain's terminator armour for Cataphractii terminator armour. (He keeps his chainfist since the Captain model make legally take Terminator Weapon items)
3) The Terminator Captain purchases a bike. (He is not restricted from doing so since he is not in terminator armour)
4) I now have a Terminator Captain with a chainfist and a bike in Cataphractii armour. (He has a completely legal configuration for Cataphractii armour)
This is a perfectly legitimate RAW resolution. All rules were followed and no rule is broken.
If you feel otherwise point out the rule that I break. The burden is on you to post rules here.
Ceann wrote: Precedence and verbatim rules quotes, the two things col inventor ignores the most.
The burden is on you to point out the rule that I break.
Spoiler:
1) I equip my Terminator Captain model, replacing his power sword with a chainfist. (He is in terminator armour so he may replace and he does)
2) I swap the Terminator Captain's terminator armour for Cataphractii terminator armour. (He keeps his chainfist since the Captain model make legally take Terminator Weapon items)
3) The Terminator Captain purchases a bike. (He is not restricted from doing so since he is not in terminator armour)
4) I now have a Terminator Captain with a chainfist and a bike in Cataphractii armour. (He has a completely legal configuration for Cataphractii armour)
You have been pointed out the rules you break. Then you were asked to provide rule quotes which support you disregarding restrictions contained within the Terminator Weapons [list]. You have several times failed to produce relevant quotes, you keep on posting again the Army List Entry rule giving Terminator Captain access to Terminator Weapons [list] "may take items from Terminator Weapons". This rule does override any restrictions in the rule Terminator Weapons [list].
Please provide a rule quote which justifies overriding the restriction set in Terminator Weapons [list].
Ghorgul wrote: You have been pointed out the rules you break.
Please point out the rules I break in the steps below.
1) I equip my Terminator Captain model, replacing his power sword with a chainfist. (He is in terminator armour so he may replace and he does)
2) I swap the Terminator Captain's terminator armour for Cataphractii terminator armour. (He keeps his chainfist since the Captain model may legally take Terminator Weapon items)
3) The Terminator Captain purchases a bike. (He is not restricted from doing so since he is not in terminator armour)
4) I now have a Terminator Captain with a chainfist and a bike in Cataphractii armour. (He has a completely legal configuration for Cataphractii armour)
As all claims in support of Terminator Captain in Cataprachtii Terminator Armour being able to choose options within Terminator Weapons list have been discredited and arguments against the claims stand unchallenged, even outright ignored, we can conclude that:
Terminator Captain in Cataprachtii Terminator Armour can have a bike or jump pack.
Terminator Captain in Cataprachtii Terminator Armour has access to Terminator Weapons, but cannot make any legal choices from the said list.
Ghorgul wrote: As all claims in support of Terminator Captain in Cataprachtii Terminator Armour being able to choose options within Terminator Weapons list have been discredited and arguments against the claims stand unchallenged, even outright ignored, we can conclude that:
Terminator Captain in Cataprachtii Terminator Armour can have a bike or jump pack.
Terminator Captain in Cataprachtii Terminator Armour has access to Terminator Weapons, but cannot make any legal choices from the said list.
Quite dodging.
Point out the rules I break in the steps below.
1) I equip my Terminator Captain model, replacing his power sword with a chainfist. (He is in terminator armour so he may replace and he does)
2) I swap the Terminator Captain's terminator armour for Cataphractii terminator armour. (He keeps his chainfist since the Captain model may legally take Terminator Weapon items)
3) The Terminator Captain purchases a bike. (He is not restricted from doing so since he is not in terminator armour)
4) I now have a Terminator Captain with a chainfist and a bike in Cataphractii armour. (He has a completely legal configuration for Cataphractii armour)
Unless you can point out rules that I break, I am doing something perfectly legitimate and legal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
doctortom wrote: Prove that the same process can't be used with a vanilla Space Marine Captain to provide him with a bike and with terminator armor.
Why? The process I outline is thoroughly legal and end results in a 100% legal combination.
Meanwhile, you mention FAQs but fail to deliver as far as posting them.
You have to show a rule being broken here.
Please point out the rules I break in the steps below.
1) I equip my Terminator Captain model, replacing his power sword with a chainfist. (He is in terminator armour so he may replace and he does)
2) I swap the Terminator Captain's terminator armour for Cataphractii terminator armour. (He keeps his chainfist since the Captain model may legally take Terminator Weapon items)
3) The Terminator Captain purchases a bike. (He is not restricted from doing so since he is not in terminator armour)
4) I now have a Terminator Captain with a chainfist and a bike in Cataphractii armour. (He has a completely legal configuration for Cataphractii armour)
Except we don't conclude that. He concludes he can to both.
The DATA SHEET for this model says see codex space marines beside his terminator armor in the war gear section. His item selections state explicitly, see codex space marines.
Codex Space marines dictates you must wear terminator armor to take items from terminator weapons.
If you are not wearing terminator armor you cannot take terminator weapons. You assert there is some buying order, there is no rule that states you can do this, so by default you cannot do this.
It breaks on step 2 when you take off terminator armor. He may take a chainfist IF he is wearing terminator armor, he doesn't get to keep it.
If you are not wearing terminator armor you cannot take terminator weapons. You assert there is some buying order, there is no rule that states you can do this, so by default you cannot do this.
It breaks on step 2 when you take off terminator armor. He may take a chainfist IF he is wearing terminator armor, he doesn't get to keep it.
Incorrect. The Terminator Captain model in the Angel of Death supplement "may take items from the Terminator Weapons [list]" so he gets to keep it.
Spoiler:
OPTIONS:
may take items from the Terminator Weapons [list]
The section you are talking about in the data sheet is a section for OPTIONS of wargear. Nothing in there is a rule, none of it is a rule. Rules are in the BRB or labeled as special rules, he has no special rule called quartermaster switcheroo, or pull a fast one.
Ceann wrote: The section you are talking about in the data sheet is a section for OPTIONS of wargear. Nothing in there is a rule, none of it is a rule. Rules are in the BRB or labeled as special rules, he has no special rule called quartermaster switcheroo, or pull a fast one.
Please point out the rules I break in the steps below.
1) I equip my Terminator Captain model, replacing his power sword with a chainfist. (He is in terminator armour so he may replace and he does)
2) I swap the Terminator Captain's terminator armour for Cataphractii terminator armour. (He keeps his chainfist since the Captain model may legally take Terminator Weapon items)
3) The Terminator Captain purchases a bike. (He is not restricted from doing so since he is not in terminator armour)
4) I now have a Terminator Captain with a chainfist and a bike in Cataphractii armour. (He has a completely legal configuration for Cataphractii armour)
Please look at the diagram and tell me where it states wargear options are rules? It doesn't because they are not rules, they have no legal grounds as rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The section you are quoting from the supplement. "May take items from" that is listed at the end of data sheet break down as wargear options, these are not rules, their value is 0. The space marine codex has the wargear and the rules for that wargear require you to WEAR terminator armor. Not previously worn, or glanced at it in the shop keeps window. Wargear options on a data sheet are not rules so any text you quote from there is squashed by space marines codex.
The Terminator Captain model has permission to "take items from the Terminator Weapons" list.
Incorrect.
The Terminator Captain model in Cataprachtii has permission to "take items from the Terminator Weapons" list but he has no legal options within the Terminator Weapons list as all the options demand the model to be wearing Terminator Armour. Cataprachtii Terminator Armour is not Terminator Armour.
Nothing in rule "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" suggests he may override the rules governing Terminator Weapons, as has been argued earlier by several people several times.
Let me give you a clear example where a rule overrides another rule:
Raptor Talon [Formation], page 53 in Traitor Legions Codex Supplement.
Formation has Special Rule: Predatory Warriors Direct quote: "Units in this Formation can charge on the same turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve, but always count as making a disordered charge when they do so."
There exists a basic rule, in BRB, stating that a unit cannot charge on the same turn it arrives from Deep Strike Reserve. (BRB, special rules, deep strike, pg. 162).
On page 13 in BRB, Basic versus Advanced:
"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence."
Clearly the Codex rule Predatory Warriors contradicts the Special Rule for Deep Striking in BRB, therefore Predatory Warriors rule overrides contradicting [special] rule in BRB.
BRB does not state that rules inside codex override other rules inside the same codex or another codex.
Please produce us an excerpt which supports your argument of Terminator Captain permission to Terminator Weapons to override restrictions within the options in Terminator Weapons. BRB, faq or errata will be sufficient.
You missed the point. The Terminator Captain has a fully legal configuration.
To direct you back to the task at hand . . .
1) I equip my Terminator Captain model, replacing his power sword with a chainfist. (He is in terminator armour so he may replace and he does)
2) I swap the Terminator Captain's terminator armour for Cataphractii terminator armour. (He keeps his chainfist since the Captain model make legally take Terminator Weapon items)
3) The Terminator Captain purchases a bike. (He is not restricted from doing so since he is not in terminator armour)
4) I now have a Terminator Captain with a power fist and a bike in Cataphractii armour. (He has a completely legal configuration for Cataphractii armour)
This is a perfectly legitimate RAW resolution. All rules were followed and no rule is broken.
If you feel otherwise point out the rule that I break. The burden is on you to post rules here.
You missed the point. The Terminator Captain has a fully legal configuration.
To direct you back to the task at hand . . .
1) I equip my Terminator Captain model, replacing his power sword with a chainfist. (He is in terminator armour so he may replace and he does)
2) I swap the Terminator Captain's terminator armour for Cataphractii terminator armour. (He keeps his chainfist since the Captain model make legally take Terminator Weapon items)
3) The Terminator Captain purchases a bike. (He is not restricted from doing so since he is not in terminator armour)
4) I now have a Terminator Captain with a power fist and a bike in Cataphractii armour. (He has a completely legal configuration for Cataphractii armour)
This is a perfectly legitimate RAW resolution. All rules were followed and no rule is broken.
If you feel otherwise point out the rule that I break. The burden is on you to post rules here.
The Roster you provide is convoluted, let me tidy it up to follow the:
BRB, pg. 117, The Force Roster:
"Write down the details of the models that make up your army... This written record is known as your army's force roster, and you must keep it to hand while you play the game."
Terminator Captain
Cataprachtii Terminator Armour
Chainfist/Power Fist (you switched it 2nd time midway with no mention, but lets not worry about that!)
Bike
1) Cataprachtii Terminator Armour is legal choice
2) Bike is legal choice because Cataprachtii Terminator Armour is not Terminator Armour by definition
3)Chainfist/power fist choice is Illegal. See the justification and rule entry below:
In Codex Space Marines, Space Marines Wargear List, Terminator Weapons
entry:
"A model wearing Terminator armour may replace his power weapon with one of the following: -Power fist X pts, -Chainfist X pts."
A model, as recorded in Force Roster I kindly provided for you, is not wearing a Terminator armour so therefore cannot replace his power weapon with Power fist or Chainfist. This is because Cataprachtii Terminator Armour is not Terminator armour by definition.
You failed to record your models Force Roster entry in clear manner and you failed to follow the rule set in Terminator Weapons [list] entry. Therefore you ended up with illegal choices for you models.
Ghorgul wrote: As all claims in support of Terminator Captain in Cataprachtii Terminator Armour being able to choose options within Terminator Weapons list have been discredited and arguments against the claims stand unchallenged, even outright ignored, we can conclude that:
[list]Terminator Captain in Cataprachtii Terminator Armour can have a bike or jump pack.
Terminator Captain in Cataprachtii Terminator Armour has access to Terminator Weapons, but cannot make any legal choices from the said list.
Quite dodging.
Point out the rules I break in the steps below.
1) I equip my Terminator Captain model, replacing his power sword with a chainfist. (He is in terminator armour so he may replace and he does)
2) I swap the Terminator Captain's terminator armour for Cataphractii terminator armour. (He keeps his chainfist since the Captain model may legally take Terminator Weapon items)
3) The Terminator Captain purchases a bike. (He is not restricted from doing so since he is not in terminator armour)
4) I now have a Terminator Captain with a chainfist and a bike in Cataphractii armour. (He has a completely legal configuration for Cataphractii armour)
Unless you can point out rules that I break, I am doing something perfectly legitimate and legal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
doctortom wrote: Prove that the same process can't be used with a vanilla Space Marine Captain to provide him with a bike and with terminator armor.
Why? The process I outline is thoroughly legal and end results in a 100% legal combination.
Meanwhile, you mention FAQs but fail to deliver as far as posting them.
You have to show a rule being broken here.
Please point out the rules I break in the steps below.
1) I equip my Terminator Captain model, replacing his power sword with a chainfist. (He is in terminator armour so he may replace and he does)
2) I swap the Terminator Captain's terminator armour for Cataphractii terminator armour. (He keeps his chainfist since the Captain model may legally take Terminator Weapon items)
3) The Terminator Captain purchases a bike. (He is not restricted from doing so since he is not in terminator armour)
4) I now have a Terminator Captain with a chainfist and a bike in Cataphractii armour. (He has a completely legal configuration for Cataphractii armour)
Your argument has been discredited, by rule quotes in very clear manner. You are ignoring arguments and dodging. You are acting in very disruptive manner. You do not provide rule quotes in support of your claims, yet you demand others to provide rule quotes. When they are provided you ignore them completely and continue repeating your discredited claims.
Ceann wrote: Please look at the diagram and tell me where it states wargear options are rules? It doesn't because they are not rules, they have no legal grounds as rules.
From the Datasheets page of Codex: Space Marines:
"Each Space Marines unit in this book has a datasheet. These detail either Army List Entries or Formations, providing all the rules information that you will need to use your models in your games of Warhammer 40,000."
From the BRB:
"Army List Entries The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop publications, such as codexes, codex supplements and dataslates.
Regardless of where this information is found, it is known as an Army List Entry. Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel miniatures and includes everything you will need to know in order to use that unit in a game
of Warhammer 40,000.
In some older codexes, the information for a single unit’s Army List Entry is spread out amongst different sections of the book. Taken together they describe, and are treated for all rules purposes as, a single Army List Entry. When using such a codex, each unit’s Faction is the same as its codex title. For example, all units in Codex: Space Marines belong to the Space Marines Faction, whilst all units in Codex: Chaos Daemons belong to the Chaos Daemons Faction."
Sorry, they are rules as far as I can tell. And if they weren't rules, they would have no power to do anything to the game. Every Captain would be stuck without Wargear and no rules to even get Terminator Armour in the first place.
Can we, uh, not go there? Both being related to trans people and having paid a bit of attention to the scientific side of things, there's a pretty big difference between the biological stuff involved in that and the psychology of someone who's misinterpreting something to have his cake and eat it.
