Bit of a necropost, but I realised a great buff to these guys yesterday. If you really need something dead more than your Rippers could reliably do, a Starpriest will help them get it done!
We discussed that a while back and while I see the point of saying "the wording does neither say bite nor jaws" I kinda see why it should work anyway: - What does a Ripper do with its beak? - It does bite. - What is a beak? It is the name for the jaws of a bird. Ornithologic anatomy sources talk about the two jaws of a beak. I would probably just play it as a bite/jaws attack, buffing it with the Serpent Staff, and wait for someone to complain. Then accept if the opponent insists, but laugh at him because of it.
Esch their own, Im not much of a rule diehard bit for me it implies An attack named 'bite' OR 'jaws' not an attack named 'beak'. Razordon and the Salamander are fair play, I Just noticed Also so much unclear stuff has heen faq'd by now. For me this is Just obvious following wording.
That was also my opinion last year, but seeing that quite a number of other rules do not follow the legal standard rule of "wording first, then interpretation" I changed my opinion. We are not exactly an OP army so why not try take everything we can get?
Given the amount of inconsistencies that'd otherwise arise I'd say you should follow interpretation first as opposed to wording first. Especially for older stuff. GW doesnt seem to be the most consistent with their naming conventions so it often feels like rules that sould be the same are "different' because they phrased it slightly differently...