Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

That's fair.

 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.



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.

col_impact wrote:

 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:

col_impact wrote:

 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.

I think both RAW and RAI are clear.

Frankly, I'm halfway expecting every IOM IC 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stephanius wrote:
I think both RAW and RAI are clear.

Frankly, I'm halfway expecting every IOM IC 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.

col_impact wrote:

 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.



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?

col_impact wrote:

 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.

 doctortom wrote:


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.

 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.

col_impact wrote:

 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.

blaktoof wrote:


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.

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?

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

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")

Kind of like: "may take models from the special issue warear list" would override "may not be selected by a model wearing terminator armor"

 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.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 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.