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.

GodDamUser wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
And a Chapter Master has permission to take items from the wargear list, correct? Therefore any restrictions from that list don't apply, and a Chapter Master in termies armor can take a bike or jump pack.

We are not talking chapter master here

Chapter Masters are models of the Captain unit and have access to the same exact options as the Captain model. So when talking about just Wargear purchasing options there is no difference between Captain and Chapter Master

col_impact wrote:

I do not. The lack of rule guidance means I can do what I want as long as I produce a legal result for the Force Roster.

And how do you tell if it is a legal result for the Force Roster? You look at a writeup of the equipment he has at the end and see if there are any conflicts between pieces of equipment. If not, it is not a legal end result for the Force roster. The Force roster does not care about your history, it only cares that the combination of things that you have on your army list are legal together.


Going by your method, you can not keep a Space Marine captain from having a bike and terminator armor. Step 1 - take bike, which he is allowed to do while in power armor. He has been given permission to take special wargear. 2. Swap out power armor for terminator armor - he already has the bike, so is not taking it after he gets the terminator armor. Your quotation about the bike only says may not be taken with terminator armor, not that he doesn't keep it if he takes terminator armor at the same step. It's the same thing (except sort of in reverse) with your procedure - you only get to take the chainfist if you are in terminator armor. You have him changing to cataphractii armor later. Both examples here have the model taking a piece of wargear that's only allowed for them if they are not wearing the armor they will ultimately be wearing, then after taking that wargear they change armor. Yet, you still claim the terminator captain on the bike is not legal while the cataphracti captain with a chainfist is legal. Both purchased the piece of wargear with reuirements or restrictions first, then changed armor afterwards. If "may not take" for the bike applies after changing out the armor, then so would the "model in Terminator armor may take" would apply just the same after changing out of the terminator armor. Or else both may choose the sequencee that allows them to get things normally prohibited for that armor. Charistoph pointed out the FAQ answer for the Apothecary indicating you don't get to sequence (there's a rules reference for you indicating precedence on this), so obviously the sequencing is not allowed the way you are doing it. Well, that in addition to them not saying you take them in sequence - you have literally taken a "they don't say I can't so therefore I can" approach to the rules here, and that is not how it works. You have permission to take items, but you do not have permission to do them in a sequence. Therefore, you have to look at the end product - your final army list entry - and make sure the combination of wargear is legal.

Wow, go away for an evening and find another 10 pages on this. Impressive copy and paste skills.

I still stand by that you don't acknowledge his argument, he doesnt have one.

The rulebook is in English, the codex is in English.
Rules from the book are read, in English.
English is read from top to bottom, left to right.

Without the above being factual, a discussion cannot take place, a game cannot exist, let alone be played. And no, there is no rule on how to read the rules, there are however rules for the language English which dictate how it is read.

The options provided on the data sheet, top to bottom are...

1. May replace power sword with Relic Blade

2. May replace Terminator Armor with Cataphractii Terminator Armor

3. May take items from Terminator Weapons, Special Wargear and/or Chapter Relics.


You cannot argue that the rules do not tell you the order, the language you are using tells you the order. Once you get to the option of choosing Terminator Weapons or Special Wargear you have already decided which armor will be worn. You cannot go back and reserve the decision.

Just like in the shooting phase I cannot declare who I am shooting at, roll some dice, then decide I am actually shooting at another target.

Just like in the movement phase I cannot move a unit then move two other units then decide I wanted to move the first unit somewhere else.

Just like in the psychic phase I cannot choose a power, roll the dice and then decide I meant the roll to be for another power.

Nor can I decide to reorder the structure of a set of rules in order to sequence them to take other actions.
There is no precedence for going back through rules text you have already passed to make a different decision.

He is not given the opportunity to swap armor after acquiring a chain fist, he has already passed the text stating he may do so.

Is the Codex in English? Yes.
Is the supplement in English? Yes.
Are the rules in English? Yes.
Do we all have to read the rules in the same manner? Yes.

col_impact wrote:
I do not. The lack of rule guidance means I can do what I want as long as I produce a legal result for the Force Roster.

What an interesting way of saying, "Well it doesn't say I can't."

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I do not. The lack of rule guidance means I can do what I want as long as I produce a legal result for the Force Roster.

What an interesting way of saying, "Well it doesn't say I can't."

Bingo!!

I mentioned this awhile back when he insisted that "we do want we want" as justification.

Doesn't this whole argument/discussion really boil down to: are you the kind of player who actively seeks out obvious mis-printed rules in order to abuse them for your gain?

It boils down to no one in this thread being able to find anything illegal in the process described below . . .


1) I equip my Terminator Captain model, replacing his power sword with a chainfist. (He is in terminator armour by default 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)


If you think there is something illegal here, point out exactly why you think so.

If no one finds anything illegal then we have to accept that it is indeed legal and valid according to the rules.


Also, Pay Very Close Attention: We are discussing Teminator Captains as found in Angels of Death supplement. The Terminator Captain datasheet is not the same as the Captain datasheet in C:SM.

 Elbows wrote:
Doesn't this whole argument/discussion really boil down to: are you the kind of player who actively seeks out obvious mis-printed rules in order to abuse them for your gain?

Only for a tiny part. For the rest it has been someone who wants to treat something as X during one part of the Options selection and then as Y during another part of the Options selection. At least, as far as I can tell from the responses. I put that guy on Ignore a long time ago. He had a lying problem at the time.

 Charistoph wrote:
I put that guy on Ignore a long time ago. He had a lying problem at the time.

You have that backwards. You were suspended from DakkaDakka 5 times for falsely accusing of me lying.

You have a 'false accusing' problem.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
I put that guy on Ignore a long time ago. He had a lying problem at the time.

You have that backwards. You were suspended from DakkaDakka 5 times for falsely accusing of me lying.

You have a 'false accusing' problem.

He was suspended for saying you are a liar, whether or not that is true is moot for the rules of the forum. So now he wasn't suspended for making a false claim, he was suspended for making a personal attack. I think I have been suspended a few times for making personal attacks on both of you, not that it matters at the moment. Apologies.

Regardless,. Ignoring the specific rules in the wargear list because you have general permission to take items from a list of things the model may take upgrades from makes all of the rules on restrictions of the wargear list meaningless text....



...Yet they obviously are RAW. Col.I you are choosing to add the word specific anywhere you want to try and validate a point, without bothering with what specific actually is. It's as if you are saying a model with a penalty to toughness ignores the penalty because their statline is the specific number and the debuff to toughness is a general thing that can be applied to any unit.

Your interpretation of the rules completely renders every restriction written on the wargear list meaningless for every army. Yes the Terminator captain had general lists of things it can purchase upgrades from, but if you choose the specific upgrade 'cataphracti Terminator armor' and then make the case it is not 'Terminator armor' then you, anybody for that matter, may have general permission to purchase items from the Terminator weapons list- however that list has no available items to purchase for any model that is not specifcaly wearing Terminator armor from its own RAW on the list. If you want to argue the rules on the list are RAI then you might as well say wargear points cost are also RAI fwiw.

I'm going to lock this thread before it becomes any more personal.

For the record, moderation of any user is strictly between that user and the moderation team.