Battle School Uniform

The bags are classified as part of the set, in both name and description, so I think they should still be included on the page, even if there is no mechanic bonus

Weapon have never been part of set pages. just put a notice at the top, such as Dustin Silver Knight Set or Waffle Cone Set pages did.

Can we change that, so we do consider weapons to be a part of the set?

Probably not, because there is a legitimate reason. Similarly named "sets" might not always come out all at once. For example, the Trinity clothes were released before the staves (i'm pretty sure). I think the farthest extent we should allow the weapons is including the weapon in the angled shot, if even that.

And it's more the case that the weapon is not included in the clothing set, as opposed to part of the set. It does say clearly in the description that it's part of the set and that's why we link it above rather than below.

True that weapons in some older sets like the Trinity might not belong (and I thought they all came out in G13)? But in cases like the Waffle Cone set, all the equipment including the weapons came together. The things we need to consider are:

• Should we consider weapons/shields/etc that are similarly named to other forms of equipment as a part of the set?
• Should we consider weapons/shield/etc that come out of the same character cards/bags with other equipment as part of the set?
• If either of the first two questions are yes, then should we just include them in the bullet list at the bottom or also include them in the set preview images?

As you said, the weapons might make it harder to see what the rest of the set look like. We don't necessarily have to include the weapons in the image, though I'm not saying we should or should not. It just seems odd to me that we only mention them in an obscure For template at the top of the page.

How about we have just one picture to the side that has the weapon with the set.

That sounds like a good idea.