Cataphractii Captain using the Raven's Fury Jump Pack

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.

**Ceann**

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.

**col_impact**

ItsPug wrote:

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**

This is irrelevant we are on 7th edition.

**col_impact**

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.

**ItsPug**

col_impact wrote:
ItsPug wrote:

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?

**Ceann**

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.

**doctortom**

col_impact wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
So it does or does not remove restrictions?

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.

**col_impact**

ItsPug wrote:

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

doctortom wrote:
col_impact wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
So it does or does not remove restrictions?

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.

**ItsPug**

col_impact wrote:
ItsPug wrote:

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**

Then all space marine characters can do this without purchasing terminator armor.

Clearly they cannot.
It says MAY. Not CAN, not MUST.
May.

May means possibly.

Wargear rules are more specific than model rules.

**spiralingcadaver**

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?

**col_impact**

ItsPug wrote:
col_impact wrote:
ItsPug wrote:

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**

spiralingcadaver wrote:
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.

**col_impact**

Ceann wrote:
Then all space marine characters can do this without purchasing terminator armor.

Angels of Death is written differently.

Other cases follow this format.

Spoiler:

**Ghorgul**

col_impact wrote:

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:

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.

**Ceann**

col_impact wrote:
ItsPug wrote:
col_impact wrote:
ItsPug wrote:

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.

**col_impact**

Ghorgul wrote:
col_impact wrote:

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.

**Ceann**

So you are asserting that every single space marines character can bypass the Terminator Weapons prerequisite text?

**ItsPug**

col_impact wrote:

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.

**col_impact**

Ghorgul wrote:

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.

**Ceann**

col_impact wrote:
Ghorgul wrote:

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?

**ItsPug**

col_impact wrote:
Ghorgul wrote:

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

**col_impact**

ItsPug wrote:
col_impact wrote:
Ghorgul wrote:

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.

**Ceann**

Wrong again.

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 are asserting they can all do this.

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.

**col_impact**

Ceann wrote:
Wrong again.

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:

**ItsPug**

col_impact wrote:

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_impact**

Ceann wrote:

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.

**JNAProductions**

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.

Not both.

**doctortom**

col_impact wrote:

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.

**Ceann**

col_impact wrote:
Ceann wrote:
Wrong again.

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.