Rules trump examples, right? It doesn't matter if there's no canon example mounted said item. As long as the rules say a unit can use mount an item it can do so even though the example says otherwise right? I ask because I came across this in aerospace fighter construction.
TM page 190.
Under
SPECIAL ENHANCEMENTS it says:
Conventional fighters can be built as standard aircraft or given the Very-Short Take-Off and Landing (VSTOL) ability to launch using shorter runways. If the designer opts to install this option now, the VSTOL equipment takes up 5 percent of the aerospace fighter’s total tonnage (rounded up to the nearest 0.5 ton).
Aerospace fighters and aerodyne Small Craft, by virtue of their design, already incorporate VSTOL capabilities, but may mount this equipment to eliminate the +2 penalty for attempting a vertical landing in atmosphere.
That seems pretty straight forward. If I want to eliminate the +2 VTOL landing penalty for my 50 ton ASF I need to free up 2.5 tons so I can install additional VTOL Equipment.
Only the example below that says:
As an aerospace fighter, Scott’s Sabutai comes with VSTOL landing and liftoff capabilities automatically. It may not mount the VSTOL enhancement.
If rules trump examples, shouldn't Scott choose to accept the +2 VTOL Landing penalty and not to install additional VTOL Equipment?
In the example's favor though the Tech Base and Space sections only refer to conventional fighters.
Tech Base: VSTOL equipment is equally available to conventional fighters constructed using a Clan or Inner Sphere technology bases.
Space: A conventional fighter’s VSTOL equipment does not affect its number of available weapon slots.
So can I legally add extra VTOL equipment to my ASF to eliminate the landing penalty or is my pilot stuck with the penalty?
Thanks.
