This has come up again and again, so here is a thread for it.

In the dex it says you can take 0-1 Leman Russ. Yet for some reason, Gwar! and co believe that Leman Russ' no longer exist.

Where did they go?

Leman Russ Battle Tank as a Unit DOES NOT EXIST!

The wording in the DH codex is Clear:

The following units may be used...

0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank

In the Imperial Guard Codex, in the Army List (the place where it has the unit names and costs), you will find:

Leman Russ Squadron

It it that simple. Different name means you cannot take it. Exactly the same as the Sentinels. You cannot take them either. Same as an Armoured Fist Squad, you can't take them either. The only things remaining to a DH/WH force from the IG are the Infantry platoon and 0-1 Rough Rider Squad.

Yes it is harsh, but those are the rules. Rules change. You can argue RaI all you want, but I can then in Turn Argue RaI that Sisters of Battle can Move 12" in a Rhino, Disembark, Shoot Bolters and then Assault, as thats what it was like back then.

I think it is a similar argument/discussion to fabius bile and whether or not he can enhance possessed marines/bikers/etc . On the one hand they are still chaos marines but on the other hand there is only one chaos space marines entry in the codex and bile's rules state he can only take chaos space marines and enhance them. By RAW only the regular trooper can be enhanced, but some stores/groups might allow bikers/etc to be enhanced because they are just regular marines that are riding a bike or slightly mutated so why wouldnt bile be able to enhance them genetically? Classic example of raw v rai and why I think GW should be updating their faq/errata every month or 3 months.

What really matters in the real world outside of these forums is what your particular group of friends/store/tournament allows. For me personally it would not be a big deal to allow you to take a leman russ in your DH army and the latest ard boys tournament allowed it as well according to the other post this argument is taken from, but if your personal store or group of friends plays by exactly what is written they may tell you that you cannot take them. By RAW I would agree that you cannot, but RAW is not all that matters when you play a real game.

I think a lot of arguments in this forum go around and around with one person stating raw and the next person stating rai and just going back and forth for pages and pages. At some point you need to realize that you are going in endless circles where no one "wins" and everyone wastes time and move on.

Where did they go?

The same place that "Imperial Guard Armoured Fist Squad" and "Space Marine Land Speeder Tornado" went, the unit doesn't exist anymore.

No offence, but what 'Ard Boyz or your local Store does is inconsequential. In order for the game to be playable, it needs to have rules. These rules must be followed, otherwise it becomes impossible for someone to walk into a GW and say "Lets play 40k".

Gwar! wrote:No offence, but what 'Ard Boyz or your local Store does is inconsequential. In order for the game to be playable, it needs to have rules. These rules must be followed, otherwise it becomes impossible for someone to walk into a GW and say "Lets play 40k".

Ard boyz matters if you are playing in an ard boyz tournament, which is what I said and meant. My point in that paragraph was that what really matters when you go to play a game is not just the rulebook but what houserules your group/store/club/tournament uses.

They got mysteriously replaced with Leman Russ Battle Tanks, which are obviously not Leman Russ in the same way that Tank Shock is obviously not a Ram . In fact, the Leman Russ Squadron has absolutely no similarities at all the the Leman Russ tank that DH are allowed to take, and assuming they are the same is a heinous form of cheating.

The DH/WH are allowed to take one unit of Leman Russ. Seeing as Leman Russ as a separate doesn't exist any more, they obviously cannot take it.

The designers are all-knowing and always correct. They explicitly renamed LR into LRBT with the express intention of nerfing Inquisitorial forces by denying access to an overpriced tank.

Anything else is speculation on RAI, which we cannot possibly know, and RAI is obviously a synonym for cheating.



/sarcasmoff

And how do you define "Clear RaI"? From your description, I can only assume it is "How the rules used to work", in which case please allow me to take my Free Deep Striking Space Wolf Grey Hunters who can Fire their Bolters then charge you, while I rush my Sisters in their Rhino and disembark, shoot then assault.

Guys, I am getting a sense of "Gwar is an evil prick" here. Look, it is not my fault GW are staffed by Monkeys. They write the rules, not me.

Oh I definitely don't think you're evil. You're like an Inquisitor. They're not evil.... they just stick to the rules and are always right, no matter the severity or context of law breach.

I just find it odd that you can both realise that the rules are written by Monkeys, and then stick to the strictest possible reading of every conflict.

Trasvi wrote:Oh I definitely don't think you're evil. You're like an Inquisitor. They're not evil.... they just stick to the rules and are always right, no matter the severity or context of law breach.

I just find it odd that you can both realise that the rules are written by Monkeys, and then stick to the strictest possible reading of every conflict.

My Main issue here is I get exasperated when people try and use RaI as if it meant anything, or even worse trying to claim RaW says you can, when it is PLAINLY clear that RaW you cannot. They have a Different name, so it is a different unit. Just like the Tornado and Armoured Fist Squads, they just can no longer be taken.

As for the "conflict", there is no conflict. Unfortunate implications yes, but if GW wanted to fix it, they can issue an errata.

TBH I think Gwar is right.

Trasvi wrote:They got mysteriously replaced with Leman Russ Battle Tanks, which are obviously not Leman Russ in the same way that Tank Shock is obviously not a Ram . In fact, the Leman Russ Squadron has absolutely no similarities at all the the Leman Russ tank that DH are allowed to take, and assuming they are the same is a heinous form of cheating.

The DH/WH are allowed to take one unit of Leman Russ. Seeing as Leman Russ as a separate doesn't exist any more, they obviously cannot take it.

The designers are all-knowing and always correct. They explicitly renamed LR into LRBT with the express intention of nerfing Inquisitorial forces by denying access to an overpriced tank.

Anything else is speculation on RAI, which we cannot possibly know, and RAI is obviously a synonym for cheating.



/sarcasmoff

I must say, I love your decision to use one of the most argued issues of 5th edition as though it was a clear cut situation that everyone knows and agrees exactly how it is played...

Alternatively (instead of worrying about the strict interpretations of rules that weren't written with each other in mind) just house rule this with your budies.

If it's not a tournament and it's not for pick up play with a stranger (i.e it's for your gaming group) discuss a solution with them.

Gwar! wrote:My Main issue here is I get exasperated when people try and use RaI as if it meant anything, or even worse trying to claim RaW says you can, when it is PLAINLY clear that RaW you cannot. They have a Different name, so it is a different unit. Just like the Tornado and Armoured Fist Squads, they just can no longer be taken.

As for the "conflict", there is no conflict. Unfortunate implications yes, but if GW wanted to fix it, they can issue an errata.

RAW, it is perfectly clear cut. You cannot take them.

However, In my personal opinion, in GW's monkey written ruleset there are often times where strict RAW needs to be overlooked in favour of a more intuitive interpretation. But that is just me, and I shoot with my Target Locks as well.

Gwar! wrote:
And how do you define "Clear RaI"? From your description, I can only assume it is "How the rules used to work", in which case please allow me to take my Free Deep Striking Space Wolf Grey Hunters who can Fire their Bolters then charge you, while I rush my Sisters in their Rhino and disembark, shoot then assault.

Guys, I am getting a sense of "Gwar is an evil prick" here. Look, it is not my fault GW are staffed by Monkeys. They write the rules, not me.

So many retorts, so little time. Let us suffice to say I do not think Gwar is evil. The rest is on the table.

For the record, equating the "Leman Russ Battle Tank" vs. "Leman Russ Squadron" to "Free Deep Striking Space Wolf Grey Hunters who can Fire their Bolters then charge you, while I rush my Sisters in their Rhino and disembark, shoot then assault" is an incorrect comparison. How? Well, for one thing DH/WH used to be able to take a Leman Russ and now that the unit name slightly changed you assert they cannot. To my knowledge Grey Wolf Hunters have never been without points cost, have never been able to deep strike, have never been able to fire a Rapid Fire weapon and assault the same turn, nor have Sisters ever been able to bypass the Assault Vehicle rule. I can show precedent that WH/DH can take a Leman Russ. You cannot show precedent that your Space Wolves should be free.

In short, we *CAN* know the intent of the Codex authors to allow us to take a Leman Russ Battle Tank. The Codex allowed it. To assume (and that's what you are doing when you do this) that since the IG Codex changed that they no longer intend you to be able to do that is preposterous. The more likely scenario is the Codex authors assumed most *REASONABLE* adults would understand that a Leman Russ is still a Leman Russ and that you can have one.

I will however concede that GW is staffed by Monkeys.

The Green Git wrote:To my knowledge Grey Wolf Hunters have never been without points cost, have never been able to deep strike, have never been able to fire a Rapid Fire weapon and assault the same turn, nor have Sisters ever been able to bypass the Assault Vehicle rule. I can show precedent that WH/DH can take a Leman Russ. You cannot show precedent that your Space Wolves should be free.

<Darth>I find your lack of Faith Disturbing.</Vader>

I point you back to Ye Olde Thirde Edition, where the Space Wolves were able to Deep Strike for Free (so long as EVERYONE did it) and were able to charge afterwards, and even fire their bolters at unit A and Charge Unit B. They could even, along with Sisters of battle from the 3rd edition WH Codex, Start in a Rhino, Move 12", disembark at the front of the rhino, fire their bolters at unit A and then charge unit B.

Oddly enough, the same thing that stopped this working (Rules updates) stop you taking a Leman Russ.

Therefore, by your definition of Intent (i.e. how it used to work) I should be able to do this now and Sod what the rules say.

The rule says specific things are allowed.
Taking something generally similar is not allowed.

It is funny when people think that nit-picking is worse than making things up.

Or maybe that is just me.

kirsanth wrote:The rule says specific things are allowed.
Taking something generally similar is not allowed.

It is funny when people think that nit-picking is worse than making things up.

Or maybe that is just me.

No, it's me as well, but suddenly I am TFG.
-Shrugs-

@ the OP - Please remember that what is said in these forums will probably have NO bearing on how your LGS and friends play it. If your LGS has a forum site and you really want to know how they feel, ask on that site.

YMDC in dakka is only used to determine RAW - which in some cases make the game unplayable.

FYI - I had the exact same question a few months ago, so I asked my LGS - it was polled to 100% allow the 'Ard Boyz - under the intent that the rules were so out of date. (Only 6 people voted, but that was enough for a decision)

Linky



@ GWAR! - When aren't you TFG? and why is it a bad thing?

Gwar! wrote:

kirsanth wrote:The rule says specific things are allowed.
Taking something generally similar is not allowed.

It is funny when people think that nit-picking is worse than making things up.

Or maybe that is just me.

No, it's me as well, but suddenly I am TFG.
-Shrugs-

Suddenly?

The codex for WH/DH says you can take 0-1 leman russ as a choice, that codex calls it a unit. The specific changes to the ImpG codex do not impact the choice of a Leman Russ as a UNIT in the WH/DH army.

You may take a leman russ. Have a nice day.

Harkainos wrote:YMDC in dakka is only used to determine RAW - which in some cases make the game unplayable.

Since when has not allowing DH/WH to Take Leman Russes equalled "Unplayable"?

@ GWAR! - When aren't you TFG? and why is it a bad thing?

I do my best auld bean!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The codex for WH/DH says you can take 0-1 leman russ as a choice, that codex calls it a unit. The specific changes to the ImpG codex do not impact the choice of a Leman Russ as a UNIT in the WH/DH army.

You may take a leman russ. Have a nice day.

Yes, you may take a Leman Russ. Pray Tell, where in the Imperial Guard codex would I find the Points Costs, Characteristics and Options for this Unit? The DH/WH codex say to look at Codex: Imperial Guard for the "Leman Russ Battle Tank" Unit, but there is no such unit in the Army List. I see a Leman Russ Squadron, with the option to take various kinds of Leman Russes, but there is no Unit Named "Leman Russ Battle Tank". As such, I logically conclude that, because said unit does not appear in the Codex we are told to reference, that a DH/WH Army may not take this unit, similar to Armoured Fist Squads and Land Speeder Tornados.

There is always the argument about false accuracy in GW rules writing. If you look at the rules strictly based on their text, and not on their meaning, you get a different result than if you look at the meaning.

In this example, the rules as interpreted literally are clear: you can take up to one LRBT unit, and with no such unit available the option becomes null.

OTOH, it doesn't take a call to miss cleo to figure out what those rules actually mean: a Witchhunter player can take a damn LRBT. The LRBT is still available, it's still a valid choice, and the meaning of the RAW is preserved.

BTW Gwar, this is where you run into problems. Not because you think you're correct, but because you think you're solution is the only one that can be correct.

Harkainos wrote:YMDC in dakka is only used to determine RAW - which in some cases make the game unplayable.

This really isn't true at all, a bunch of people decided it's only about RAW, and it's true that it's the only thing worth discussing, since RAI is just "I feel" which while relevant doesn't lend to informative rules debates.

But if you go back and look at the YMDC threads posted by yak (we haven't seen one in a while) you will see that it's equally valid to gather numerical evidence of how people choose to play the game given a prior knowledge that how they play may not be RAW.

I suppose this is just me knitpicking, and I'm not about to start arguing "but RAI is" against things, but if almost everyone in the world plays a certain way which doesn't line up with the RAW, it certainly warrants a footnote.

Polonius wrote:BTW Gwar, this is where you run into problems. Not because you think you're correct, but because you think you're solution is the only one that can be correct.

Oddly, this is because my solution always follows the rules and doesn't make up random rules to please the RaI crowd. As such, my solutions are inherently the correct ones.

RAW doesn't make the game unplayable, any more than house rules do. RAW is simply the process of determining what the rules actually say, not what the rules meant to say.

the problem you run into is that there are seldom only one way to parse a sentence or read a word, and even RAW can have multiple possibilities.

RAI isn't always impossible to determine either. The infamous terminators w/o terminator armor debate showed that, as did the Shoota Boy nob with powerklaw debate. It's often pretty clear what the author intended, and when there are two RAW interpretations, one of which meshes with the RAI, I tend to give it the most weight.

Polonius wrote:The problem you run into is that there are seldom only one way to parse a sentence or read a word, and even RAW can have multiple possibilities.

This problem is not as widespread as you make it out to be. Yes there are some issues, but by and large there are not that many "game breakers" as it were.

It's often pretty clear what the author intended, and when there are two RAW interpretations, one of which meshes with the RAI, I tend to give it the most weight.

This is where you and I differ in opinion. It is "pretty clear" to people whenever they want to gain an advantage and "muddy" when they wish to negate a downside. In my view, what the Writers actually write (Plus any subsequent Erratas) are exactly what the authors intended to do. If it was not, they would have issued an errata to fix it.

Gwar! wrote:

Polonius wrote:BTW Gwar, this is where you run into problems. Not because you think you're correct, but because you think you're solution is the only one that can be correct.

Oddly, this is because my solution always follows the rules and doesn't make up random rules to please the RaI crowd. As such, my solutions are inherently the correct ones.

Ah, good old arrogant Gwar. Not every stretch or bend of the rules is random, and they're not all made up. The WH rules allow an LRBT to be bought out of the the IG codex, the IG codex still allows a Leman Russ squadron built around a single LRBT, I fail to see how this is a made up random rule. The rules allow it, and you're allowing a few words like "unit" to get in the way of what's really not a difficult work around. Assuming that the most important part of GW's rules are the qualifiers and operators like "unit", and not the actual, you know, rules, is missing the point.

Now, for things like Armored fists = Veterans, I think that's way too far of a stretch under RAW.

Gwar! wrote:

Harkainos wrote:YMDC in dakka is only used to determine RAW - which in some cases make the game unplayable.

Since when has not allowing DH/WH to Take Leman Russes equalled "Unplayable"?

LOL - 'some cases' may or may not include this instance.

I did (for this instance) test it using the 'Yay' rules and the 'Nay' rules..... 'Nay' rules is probably nastier, considering the army model count jumped from 55 to 109, with a lot more vehicles and melta weapons.

My personal taste is to have at least 1 armor 14 vehicle (for added flavor, and I really don't want to paint 109 models)

Polonius wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Polonius wrote:BTW Gwar, this is where you run into problems. Not because you think you're correct, but because you think you're solution is the only one that can be correct.

Oddly, this is because my solution always follows the rules and doesn't make up random rules to please the RaI crowd. As such, my solutions are inherently the correct ones.

Ah, good old arrogant Gwar. Not every stretch or bend of the rules is random, and they're not all made up. The WH rules allow an LRBT to be bought out of the the IG codex, the IG codex still allows a Leman Russ squadron built around a single LRBT, I fail to see how this is a made up random rule. The rules allow it, and you're allowing a few words like "unit" to get in the way of what's really not a difficult work around. Assuming that the most important part of GW's rules are the qualifiers and operators like "unit", and not the actual, you know, rules, is missing the point.

Now, for things like Armoured fists = Veterans, I think that's way too far of a stretch under RAW.

A Leman Russ Squadron is no more a Leman Russ Battle Tank than a Bolter is a Storm Bolter.
Interesting fact: If you take a Leman Russ Squadron of 1 Model, it's unit name (drum-roll please) Remains Leman Russ Squadron, and in fact follows the squadron rules until it is fired upon, even if it starts the game as a single model.

So, no, a LRBT cannot be bought in a IG army, nor is it a Unit in an Codex: IG, and therefore cannot be bought by WH/DH Armies.

Furthermore, your blatant personal attack (Calling me Arrogant) is unwarranted and not permitted. I am not arrogant. Arrogance implies I am wrong a lot but think I am right, whereas I am actually right pretty much 100% of the time, because I rigidly stick to rules that can be cited and backed up, rather than making up rules to play along with RaI.

Gwar! wrote:

Polonius wrote:The problem you run into is that there are seldom only one way to parse a sentence or read a word, and even RAW can have multiple possibilities.

This problem is not as widespread as you make it out to be. Yes there are some issues, but by and large there are not that many "game breakers" as it were.

Hardly anything in YMDC is a game breaker.

It's often pretty clear what the author intended, and when there are two RAW interpretations, one of which meshes with the RAI, I tend to give it the most weight.

This is where you and I differ in opinion. It is "pretty clear" to people whenever they want to gain an advantage and "muddy" when they wish to negate a downside. In my view, what the Writers actually write (Plus any subsequent Erratas) are exactly what the authors intended to do. If it was not, they would have issued an errata to fix it.

RAI is like common sense.
It's only sensed by people with something in common.

Assuming that no one would question your assertion that something is "close enough" sets you up to be TFG.
Leaping giving a 12" charge is a better assertion of RAI being used, than the Terminator issue. Most people call me TFG for hamstringing my OWN army with the RAW of that one (thanks Gwar! ), as I would not really call my opponent on it, but am unwilling to build my own army around assuming my opponent will not read details and think them to be important.

Polonius wrote:In this issue, are you arguing that the authors intent in 2003 was anything other than "Witchhunters can take a single LRBT"?

No, that was their intent. However, it was also their intent for Space Wolves to be able to Disembark from 12" moving Rhinos, Shoot one squad and assault the other. Rules change and things get invalidated. Yes this is because GW write slower than a 4 year old, but that is not my concern. My concern is that when playing the game you do not abuse RaI or TMIR. I don't know about you, but when was the last time you had someone using them to try and disadvantage themselves because it was in the "Spirit of the Game" or RaI?

If you want a LRBT, I will Demand to play my Space Wolves as RaI or is my RaI less worthy of use?

kirsanth wrote:Most people call me TFG for hamstringing my OWN army with the RAW of that one (thanks Gwar! )

Yeah, well like I said, people do not use RaI to hamstring their armies, only to boost them.

Polonius wrote:And yes, an LRBT can be bought, as part of a Leman Russ squadron.

(Emphasis mine)I am glad you agree. Now point out the option for a "Leman Russ Squadron" in the DH/WH codex please.

Boy this is getting heated.

Real quick question: If you only have 1 LRBT from a squadron.... is it still a squadron or is it a unit?

I only ask this because it seems THAT is where the confusion lye (lie? lay?). I don't care any which way on it, as (which i stated before) I already know how my LGS plays it.

Gwar! wrote:

Polonius wrote:In this issue, are you arguing that the authors intent in 2003 was anything other than "Witchhunters can take a single LRBT"?

No, that was their intent. However, it was also their intent for Space Wolves to be able to Disembark from 12" moving Rhinos, Shoot one squad and assault the other. Rules change and things get invalidated. Yes this is because GW write slower than a 4 year old, but that is not my concern. My concern is that when playing the game you do not abuse RaI or TMIR. I don't know about you, but when was the last time you had someone using them to try and disadvantage themselves because it was in the "Spirit of the Game"?

If you want a LRBT, I will Demand to play my Space Wolves as RaI or is my RaI less worthy of use?

Your RAI is outdated, mine isn't. This little line of argument is weak, and you know it. What you describe isn't invalidation, it's a change of how things operate. There also isn't any sort of RAW or RAI dispute as to what your wolves can do. The rules are clear, and while the wolf codex was written with that idea in mind, the 4th edition rules almost certainly had SW rhino rush in mind when they neutered transports.

The same can't be said about the other thing. There is no evidence that the intent towards WH's and LRBTs has changed.

People do things all the time. In 3rd I also took my get's hot tests even when plasma was out of range.

You seem to operate from this perspective that all attempts to modify the RAW are for some sort of gain by the posters. Why would a sisters player even take a russ? The Exorcists is way better.

Harkainos wrote:Boy this is getting heated.

Real quick question: If you only have 1 LRBT from a squadron.... is it still a squadron or is it a unit?

Actually, I remember having a Debate about this a while back. Turns out it remains a Squadron untill it is first shot at by the Enemy. Therefore, if you Immobilise it before it has been shot at (via Terrain) RaW it is Assploded!

Of course 99.999% of players don't even realise this, and even I am not THAT much of an ass to call on it (unless the guy was a total dick or a Scientologist, but that's just me)

Gwar! wrote:

Polonius wrote:And yes, an LRBT can be bought, as part of a Leman Russ squadron.

(Emphasis mine)I am glad you agree. Now point out the option for a "Leman Russ Squadron" in the DH/WH codex please.

Oh come off it. You know my point. Of course it's not there. You were arguing that it somehow doesn't exist in any form. It does.

kirsanth wrote:It is funny when people think that nit-picking is worse than making things up.

Or maybe that is just me.

It's not that I think nit-picking is bad... it's nit-picking over a game of toy soldiers.

I reserve serious thought for serious matters. This ain't one of 'em.

Gwar! wrote:

Polonius wrote:And yes, an LRBT can be bought, as part of a Leman Russ squadron.

(Emphasis mine)I am glad you agree. Now point out the option for a "Leman Russ Squadron" in the DH/WH codex please.

Does it actually state in the DH/WH that you actually need to buy the unit LRBT? I thought it just said you can buy a LRBT. Since there is a model called that (as part of a Squad) and it has a points value, why can't I just buy said model and not an actual unit?

Yes, I know that the rules don't work like that, I can't purchase a model out of a unit for the models cost, however it could be determined that the DH/WH entry is actually a allowed break in that rule. In which case, you are allowed to buy a model out of a squadron/unit.

(sorry if this argument is kinda fuzzy/unclear)

Basically, the model exists and even though I am not usually allowed to buy just one model out of a unit, I can in this case because the DH/WH makes the exception.

Polonius wrote:Your RAI is outdated, mine isn't. This little line of argument is weak, and you know it. What you describe isn't invalidation, it's a change of how things operate. There also isn't any sort of RAW or RAI dispute as to what your wolves can do. The rules are clear, and while the wolf codex was written with that idea in mind, the 4th edition rules almost certainly had SW rhino rush in mind when they neutered transports.

You claim "the 4th edition rules almost certainly had SW rhino rush in mind", but unless you actually wrote it, I doubt you know the Intentions for sure. All I know is the Rules changed, and it stopped that tactic working.

Polonius wrote:The same can't be said about the other thing. There is no evidence that the intent towards WH's and LRBTs has changed.

Yes, there is. The renaming of the Leman Russ Battle Tank into the Leman Russ Squadron without an accompanying errata.

Polonius wrote:People do things all the time. In 3rd I also took my get's hot tests even when plasma was out of range.

Your Rules mistakes are relevant because.... (in 20 words or less).

Polonius wrote:You seem to operate from this perspective that all attempts to modify the RAW are for some sort of gain by the posters. Why would a sisters player even take a russ? The Exorcists is way better.

Irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Sisters/Grey Knights players are attempting to take a unit that is not permitted by the rules of the game, citing how it "used to work". This is no more valid than my Space Wolf Example. Neither way can be used, because neither way follows the rules. Access to an otherwise unavailable unit sounds like a Boost rather than a hamstringing in my book.

Polonius wrote:Oh come off it. You know my point. Of course it's not there. You were arguing that it somehow doesn't exist in any form. It does.

The unit "Leman Russ battle Tank" no longer does exist. A Model within the Leman Russ Squadron is Called a Leman Russ battle Tank, but the Unit is Still called Leman Russ Squadron, and thus not a legal choice for a DH/WH army.

Timmah wrote:Does it actually state in the DH/WH that you actually need to buy the unit LRBT? I thought it just said you can buy a LRBT. Since there is a model called that (as part of a Squad) and it has a points value, why can't I just buy said model and not an actual unit?

it says you must buy a Leman Russ Battle Tank unit. As there are no Rules for buying this unit in the IG codex (there are rules for buying the model as part of a Unit with a different name) they cannot take it.

Timmah wrote:Yes, I know that the rules don't work like that, I can't purchase a model out of a unit for the models cost, however it could be determined that the DH/WH entry is actually a allowed break in that rule. In which case, you are allowed to buy a model out of a squadron/unit.

No, nothing in the WH/DH rules says "Ignore the name of the unit and do whatever you want".

The Green Git wrote:

kirsanth wrote:It is funny when people think that nit-picking is worse than making things up.

Or maybe that is just me.

It's not that I think nit-picking is bad... it's nit-picking over a game of toy soldiers.

I reserve serious thought for serious matters. This ain't one of 'em.

And that was a serious thought?


Anyhow. . .
Leaping gives Fast Charge 12.
RAI that means you can assault 12".
RAW that means nothing.

Everyone I have ever met uses Leaping as it used to work.
To jack a related quote from a different thread. . .

willydstyle wrote: However, I don't think it's what the rules say. If my opponent wanted to play strictly by the rules it would be bad sportsmanship to play otherwise.

I think this is probably more clear than what I wrote, and also a good quote.


Thanks for the quote willystyle!

Really? You're honestly claiming that there is no way I can be sure GW knew it was nerfing Space Wolf Rhino Rushes in 4th. The world you live in must be pretty strange, particularly when you can divine intent from a lack of errata. You used to be better than this.

Polonius wrote:Really? You're honestly claiming that there is no way I can be sure GW knew it was nerfing Space Wolf Rhino Rushes in 4th. The world you live in must be pretty strange, particularly when you can divine intent from a lack of errata. You used to be better than this.

No, there is no way to be sure without a specific note in the rulebook saying "We did this to Nerf Space Wolves Rhino Rush hahahahahahaha suck it, love Jervis". And how does one NOT divine intent from a lack of errata. All the Errata and FaQ are easily updated, all they have to do is change one line, but they did not, thus showing their intention that the RaW should be used as is.

And yes, I used to be better. Sadly being gone for 4 weeks doing sweet bugger all tends to dull the mind somewhat.
I am also incredibly drunk, having purchased a Bottle of Fine Dry London Gin and being Unemployed as I am.

Gwar! wrote:

Harkainos wrote:Boy this is getting heated.

Real quick question: If you only have 1 LRBT from a squadron.... is it still a squadron or is it a unit?

Actually, I remember having a Debate about this a while back. Turns out it remains a Squadron untill it is first shot at by the Enemy. Therefore, if you Immobilise it before it has been shot at (via Terrain) RaW it is Assploded!

Of course 99.999% of players don't even realise this, and even I am not THAT much of an ass to call on it (unless the guy was a total dick or a Scientologist, but that's just me)

Entirely wrong. Read the first paragraph under UNITS OF VEHICLES - SQUADRONS. Squadron rules only apply to units of vehicles with more than one vehicle model. If there was only one vehicle in the squadron to begin with, none of the squadron rules are ever applied.

Thank god only .001% of players have that rule wrong.

Gwar! wrote:

Timmah wrote:Does it actually state in the DH/WH that you actually need to buy the unit LRBT? I thought it just said you can buy a LRBT. Since there is a model called that (as part of a Squad) and it has a points value, why can't I just buy said model and not an actual unit?

it says you must buy a Leman Russ Battle Tank unit. As there are no Rules for buying this unit in the IG codex (there are rules for buying the model as part of a Unit with a different name) they cannot take it.

Timmah wrote:Yes, I know that the rules don't work like that, I can't purchase a model out of a unit for the models cost, however it could be determined that the DH/WH entry is actually a allowed break in that rule. In which case, you are allowed to buy a model out of a squadron/unit.

No, nothing in the WH/DH rules says "Ignore the name of the unit and do whatever you want".

Does it actually say LRBT unit? I was under the impression it just said LRBT. In which case, the DH/WH is actually creating the unit.

Maybe I am wrong, but I don't believe it actually says that the LRBT you are purchasing is the unit LRBT. It could just be a LRBT in general.

I am not ignoring the name of the unit. A DH/WH can purchase 0-1 LRBT. Is there a model called a LRBT? Yes. Does it have a points value? Yes. So I purchase it for that points value. It doesn't say take the unit called LRBT.

The DH/WH is creating a new unit out of a LRBT. Its not breaking any rules since it is not taking a LR Squadron.

I can think of plenty of other things that break core rules but their entry doesn't have to say "Ignore the name of the unit and do whatever you want".

jwolf wrote:Entirely wrong. Read the first paragraph under UNITS OF VEHICLES - SQUADRONS. Squadron rules only apply to units of vehicles with more than one vehicle model. If there was only one vehicle in the squadron to begin with, none of the squadron rules are ever applied.

Thank god only .001% of players have that rule wrong.

I'm sorry you mean this paragraph:

Most vehicles fight as individual units and are represented by a single model. However, some small vehicles, like Ork Warbuggies and Eldar Vypers, operate in units of more than one vehicle, known as squadrons. These follow the rules for normal units, with the following exceptions:

Note how it says NOTHING about Squadrons of 1 Model not using them.

Furthermore:

To represent this, treat all immobilised results as destroyed (wrecked) and all stunned results as shaken. If a squadron consists of a single vehicle when an enemy unit fires at it, it reverts to the normal rules for vehicle damage results.

As you can see, it only reverts to the normal rules if the enemy fires at a lone model in a Squadron. As Leman Russ can no longer be bought as single tanks (Such as the Chimera) but are instead bought in Squadrons of 1-3, the squadron rules apply to them until it is fired upon.

Gwar! wrote:Furthermore, your blatant personal attack (Calling me Arrogant) is unwarranted and not permitted. I am not arrogant. Arrogance implies I am wrong a lot but think I am right, whereas I am actually right pretty much 100% of the time, because I rigidly stick to rules that can be cited and backed up, rather than making up rules to play along with RaI.

Reference: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrogant

* Main Entry: ar·ro·gant
* Pronunciation: \-gənt\
* Function: adjective
* Etymology: Middle English, from Latin arrogant-, arrogans, present participle of arrogare
* Date: 14th century

1 : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner <an arrogant official>

I see nothing in the definition about being correct. Arrogance denotes pride and exaggeration of self worth. I thing stating that you are not arrogant because you are always right... well let the reader decide.

Timmah wrote:Does it actually say LRBT unit?

Yes, it says "The following UNITS may be taken from Codex:..." The LRBT is no longer a unit in the Imperial Guard Codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Green Git wrote:I see nothing in the definition about being correct. Arrogance denotes pride and exaggeration of self worth. I thing stating that you are not arrogant because you are always right... well let the reader decide.

Arrogance implies unworthy Pride or excessive pride. I feel that I have the right to be proud of my debating skills and my track record here on Dakka, or do you think I am wrong in feeling this way? I certainly do not feel my pride is "excessive".

Furthermore good sir, I would appreciate if you linked to a Proper English Dictionary when citing definitions. That is all.

To the OP, yes, you may take a Leman Russ with your WH or DH army, your codex clearly states that, refer to the Imperial Guard codex for the appropriate points cost of one Leman Russ.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:To the OP, yes, you may take a Leman Russ with your WH or DH army, your codex clearly states that, refer to the Imperial Guard codex for the appropriate points cost of one Leman Russ.

No, the WH/DH codex says you may look to the Imperial Guard codex for the Unit called "Leman Russ Battle Tank", not what you are stating. As the LRBT is no longer a unit, you may not take one.

Best Thread EVAR!1!!!!!11!!!!!

Oh, and to the OP: You can if you and your opponent decide you can. End of story.

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:To the OP, yes, you may take a Leman Russ with your WH or DH army, your codex clearly states that, refer to the Imperial Guard codex for the appropriate points cost of one Leman Russ.

No, the WH/DH codex says you may look to the Imperial Guard codex for the Unit called "Leman Russ Battle Tank", not what you are stating. As the LRBT is no longer a unit, you may not take one.

The codex states your army may include a Leman Russ, therefore you can obtain the relevant points cost and stat line for the Leman Russ in the Imperial Guard codex.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:To the OP, yes, you may take a Leman Russ with your WH or DH army, your codex clearly states that, refer to the Imperial Guard codex for the appropriate points cost of one Leman Russ.

No, the WH/DH codex says you may look to the Imperial Guard codex for the Unit called "Leman Russ Battle Tank", not what you are stating. As the LRBT is no longer a unit, you may not take one.

The codex states your army may include a Leman Russ, therefore you can obtain the relevant points cost and stat line for the Leman Russ in the Imperial Guard codex.

No, it does not. The exact wording is "The following units may be used in a Daemonhunters Army..."

It does not say "You may take a Leman Russ Model", it says you may take the unit called "Leman Russ Battle Tank". There is no such unit with that name in the current IG Codex. If you could find one, I would be much obliged, as All I can find is the Leman Russ Squadron, which is similar, but not what is named in the DH/WH codexes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Green Git wrote:Oh, and to the OP: You can if you and your opponent decide you can. End of story.

He and his opponent can also decide to make Marines S10. Doesn't mean it's the Rules as Written (bar the Abuse of TMIR).

"The following units. . ." I think is the related text in the DH.

LRBT is no longer a unit in the IG codex, but it is the unit refered to in the DH.

As for WH. . . Do they even have the LRBT option? I am actually missing it.

In any case, why not have the DH join a guard army, if you really want the tanks?

Or just assume that your opponent either cannot read, or thinks details are not important, as many are telling you to.
I generally think that is a bad idea though.

WH have the rules on Page 26, by their HQ's, in a totaly different place to the DH codex, which are by their Troops/FA. The wording is Totally Identical however. (Swapping SoB, Grey Knights etc)

Oddly, I read the part on pg25, and TOTALLY missed the sidebar on the next page.

^^

Apparently details are important.

Can you take one, just one Leman Russ as a squadron? If so, understand how many points that single Leman Russ will cost and pay those points for the Leman Russ battle tank in your WH/DH army.


Your differentiating between the use of the word unit and squadron is irrelevant when discussing 1 tank. 1 tank is a unit of 1, or a squadron of 1, it's still 1 battle tank and you may field it with the WH/DH armies.

OP, you may field your tank, your Codex allows you to field your one Leman Russ. It's postion on the pages of the newer codex for the impG has changed, you just use the stats and pay the points cost for it.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Can you take one, just one Leman Russ as a squadron?

Not according to the WH/DH. . . You need a unit.

shrug

Gwar! wrote:

Harkainos wrote:Boy this is getting heated.

Real quick question: If you only have 1 LRBT from a squadron.... is it still a squadron or is it a unit?

Actually, I remember having a Debate about this a while back. Turns out it remains a Squadron untill it is first shot at by the Enemy. Therefore, if you Immobilise it before it has been shot at (via Terrain) RaW it is Assploded!

Of course 99.999% of players don't even realise this, and even I am not THAT much of an ass to call on it (unless the guy was a total dick or a Scientologist, but that's just me)

HA... Scientologists!


/on track

So... I cannot take a single LRBT because it is a squadron at the time of purchase... but if the enemy shot at it is a unit and therefore purchasable.

Sounds playable.

I suppose I should model the bullet holes in the LRBT to explain that it was in fact shot it prior to purchase. Like a used/preowned LRBT.

I'm just being facetious.

/game on

kirsanth wrote:"The following units. . ." I think is the related text in the DH.

Yea, I don't have the DH/WH codex handy atm, but if this is indeed the exact wording, than Kirsanth is right, and you cannot take a LRBT.

Harkainos wrote:I'm just being facetious.

I am glad you are.

@MeanGreenStompa: Please, PLEASE read what kirsanth and I have written. It explains it in detail. Multiple times. Repeatedly.

Timmah wrote:Yea, I don't have the DH/WH codex handy atm, but if this is indeed the exact wording, than Kirsanth is right, and you cannot take a LRBT.

I have both to hand, and it is indeed the exact wording. I can even scan them in, crop the relevant bits and show them to you if you really want (it costs extra though, 10 dorrah )

Simple answer: Discuss it with your opponent.

Odds are, they would assume it is the same thing.

The thing is, it is entirely possible that the think they are NOT the same thing, as the actual text is quite specific (and not identical).

No matter which way it goes, assuming is what will cause problems. This is why I do not put Leaping into lists I intend to play against random/new people. I will use it in friendly/campaign games, as the discussions have been gone through and we can build lists after the discourse. Building a list knowing that the rules actually say something else is . . . shady - at best.

Luckily the IG player in our campaign does not have a Valkyrie. . . yet.

@Timmah: That is the exact quote in both books. It refers to "the unit" multiple times and goes on to say it has to be the exact and basic version, not any variants.

The WH and DH codices allow you to incorporate 1 Leman Russ into your army. The rules and stats and points cost for it are in the Imperial Guard codex.

The word juggling is not relevant. The Codex allows for the incoporation of a Leman Russ, with the stats and points etc from the Guard Codex, into your army. Changing the name from unit to squadron (unit of 1, squadron of 1 who gives a crap) is without merit in the case of an individual tank being used in another army list and is using the finite lettering of the game (slanted at a particular angle) to attempt to kill the spirit of the game.

OP, you may take 1 Leman Russ Battle Tank. For the cost appropriate in, and using the stats provided in, the Imperial Guard Codex. The new Imperial Guard codex was not written with the intention of denying those two old codices any of their options.

This discussion makes me want to necro my Terminator armor discussion.

Must resist...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The WH and DH codices allow you to incorporate 1 Leman Russ into your army. The rules and stats and points cost for it are in the Imperial Guard codex.

The word juggling is not relevant. The Codex allows for the incoporation of a Leman Russ, with the stats and points etc from the Guard Codex, into your army. Changing the name from unit to squadron (unit of 1, squadron of 1 who gives a crap) is without merit in the case of an individual tank being used in another army list and is using the finite lettering of the game (slanted at a particular angle) to attempt to kill the spirit of the game.

OP, you may take 1 Leman Russ Battle Tank. For the cost appropriate in, and using the stats provided in, the Imperial Guard Codex. The new Imperial Guard codex was not written with the intention of denying those two old codices any of their options.

Agreed....

A Squadron is made up of Tanks, I fail to see where the issue is?

Does anyone on the forums remember Rule Number One? Should be easy its the same in both Fantasy and 40k.

What part of "These Units" do you not understand? You cannot Incorporate a LRBT, you must Incorporate a LRBT Unit, which is not in the IG Codex.

MGS, stop ignoring the part of the rule you don't like.

R3con wrote:Does anyone on the forums remember Rule Number One? Should be easy its the same in both Fantasy and 40k.

Yes, I read that about the same time I read the part about having an intelligent rules debate.

kirsanth wrote:

R3con wrote:Does anyone on the forums remember Rule Number One? Should be easy its the same in both Fantasy and 40k.

Yes, I read that about the same time I read the part about having an intelligent rules debate.

The one where it says to back up your views with facts and logic rather than skipping parts of the rule to make it work your way?

Yes.

Despite the irony, let me repost how it starts:
"In any intelligent rules debate, the goal is to determine what the rules actually say. A rules debate should not help you win more games or find exploitable rules. It should allow you to feel confident that you are not breaking any rules, and thus (unintentionally) cheating your opponent."

Is there a LRBT Unit in the previous IG codex? It seems to me that unit and squadron are thrown around in the DH/WH codices interchangeably.

I mean... it says Unit in the first paragraph, but when you look at the actual list it says Squadron for the Sentinals? So (if they existed) I would only be able to take Armoured Sentinal Squadron Units? That makes no sense.

IF we are going to claim we need to use the entire reading and treat it as scripture, then we must take everything into context (that includes subtext).

I know subtext is rough in RaW but the above example is more than adequate proof that to demand the word Unit in order to use it doesn't work.

Gwar! wrote:
Furthermore, your blatant personal attack (Calling me Arrogant) is unwarranted and not permitted. I am not arrogant. Arrogance implies I am wrong a lot but think I am right, whereas I am actually right pretty much 100% of the time, because I rigidly stick to rules that can be cited and backed up, rather than making up rules to play along with RaI.

It is warranted, it is permitted, it's not a personal attack, and you are arrogant. Anything else?

Gwar! wrote:

Polonius wrote:Really? You're honestly claiming that there is no way I can be sure GW knew it was nerfing Space Wolf Rhino Rushes in 4th. The world you live in must be pretty strange, particularly when you can divine intent from a lack of errata. You used to be better than this.

No, there is no way to be sure without a specific note in the rulebook saying "We did this to Nerf Space Wolves Rhino Rush hahahahahahaha suck it, love Jervis". And how does one NOT divine intent from a lack of errata. All the Errata and FaQ are easily updated, all they have to do is change one line, but they did not, thus showing their intention that the RaW should be used as is.

So, you can divine my intent calling you arrogant was a personal attack, you can divine the intent to not issue errata as being pleased with RAW and not laziness, but assuming that they intended to nerf the Space Wolf Rhino Rush is totally impossible? Judging intent is something we all do every day. The fact that you do it, and then claim we can't, it's simply ridiculous.

Finally, if you think I'm personally attacking you, report me to a mod. I think history has shown that you have, at best, an overly sensitive and alarmist view of posts directed at you, while consistently ignoring the impact your posts have on others. I think they'll back me up on this one.

WH codex says I can take 1 LR the guard codex has stats for the LR

The fact that the guard now takes them in squadrons doesn't change the fact that the WH codex says I may take one.

If your playing a WH army your codex trumps all else correct?

"All units are taken exactly as they appear in Codex"

There is a statline for LRBT correct? It appears in the codex.....as a possible member of the squad..It does not state where it has to be found only that it has to be taken exactly as they appear.

To me that means if I can find a statline for the LRBT I can take it as it APPEARS in the codex.

No where does the WH rules state that it has to have a sepearate codex entry....so the squadren/unit argument is moot. If you can find a statline for a LRBT your golden.

R3con wrote:No where does the WH rules state that it has to have a sepearate codex entry....so the squadren/unit argument is moot. If you can find a statline for a LRBT your golden.

Please note the bit on Page 26 where it says "These UNITS..." Therefore, the Inducted UNITS must be UNITS in Codex: Imperial Guard. If they are Not UNITS anymore (like say, Armoured Fist or the LRBT), then you cannot take them. There is no entry for a UNIT with the name "Leman Russ Battle Tank" in the Imperial Guard Codex.

Also, it refers to Sentinels as squadrons, possibly because they were squadrons in the old codex as well. Not that it matters, you can't take them either.

I called Gwar! an Inquisitor first...

He's most likely correct btw. And by most likely I mean that he is.

Specific trumps General.
Not Codex trumps everything. Not even close.

Specifically, the unit "leman russ battle tank" is mentioned.

Generally, the leman russ is a squadron now.

Specifically the rules do not allow you to take a squadron in a WH or DH army.

Just bring the WH or DH as allies.
Alternatively, realize you are not following RAW and move on.

kirsanth wrote:Just bring the WH or DH as allies.

QFT. So much rage from the RaI camp over something so easy to work around and not cheat while doing it.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I called Gwar! an Inquisitor first...

He's most likely correct btw. And by most likely I mean that he is.

Like I've been saying, he's correct if you assume that the words used are more important than the meaning of the words. I disagree with that assumption. The end result is the same, there's just a slightly different name for the choice.

Honestly if you are going to say that its ok to take the LRBT because it's "close enough" then why stop with just one?

The IG codex says 1-3 is 1 LRBT squadron.

Bring them all!

The mind boggles.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I called Gwar! an Inquisitor first...

He's most likely correct btw. And by most likely I mean that he is.

Glad to hear it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:Honestly if you are going to say that its ok to take the LRBT because it's "close enough" then why stop with just one?

The IG codex says 1-3 is 1 LRBT squadron.

Bring them all!

The mind boggles.

Hell, why not go further and say Leman Russ is close enough to baneblade, lets take 7. or Tactical Marine is close enough to Grey Hunters!

kirsanth wrote:Honestly if you are going to say that its ok to take the LRBT because it's "close enough" then why stop with just one?

The IG codex says 1-3 is 1 LRBT squadron.

Bring them all!

The mind boggles.

Really? The mind boggles? If I take 3 lrbts, then I haven't taken 0-1 LRBT. If I take one, than I have. This isn't a slippery slope argument.

Either way you are not taking the unit called LRBT as the book says.

REPOST:

Is there a LRBT Unit in the previous IG codex? It seems to me that unit and squadron are thrown around in the DH/WH codices interchangeably.

I mean... it says Unit in the first paragraph, but when you look at the actual list it says Squadron for the Sentinals? So (if they existed) I would only be able to take Armoured Sentinal Squadron Units? That makes no sense.

IF we are going to claim we need to use the entire reading and treat it as scripture, then we must take everything into context (that includes subtext).

I know subtext is rough in RaW but the above example is more than adequate proof that to demand the word Unit in order to use it doesn't work.

If you take 1 squadron as 1 unit, why is it different?

Polonius wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Honestly if you are going to say that its ok to take the LRBT because it's "close enough" then why stop with just one?

The IG codex says 1-3 is 1 LRBT squadron.

Bring them all!

The mind boggles.

Really? The mind boggles? If I take 3 lrbts, then I haven't taken 0-1 LRBT. If I take one, than I have. This isn't a slippery slope argument.

No, if you take 1, you have taken a Leman Russ Squadron, which is not a valid choice.

Harkainos wrote:REPOST:
Is there a LRBT Unit in the previous IG codex?

Yes.

Harkainos wrote:REPOST:

Is there a LRBT Unit in the previous IG codex? It seems to me that unit and squadron are thrown around in the DH/WH codices interchangeably.

I mean... it says Unit in the first paragraph, but when you look at the actual list it says Squadron for the Sentinals? So (if they existed) I would only be able to take Armoured Sentinal Squadron Units? That makes no sense.

IF we are going to claim we need to use the entire reading and treat it as scripture, then we must take everything into context (that includes subtext).

I know subtext is rough in RaW but the above example is more than adequate proof that to demand the word Unit in order to use it doesn't work.

I already adressed this. it does not use the terms interchangeably, the only mention of Squadrons are for Sentinels, which you cannot take either because there are no units called "Sentinels" in the IG codex anymore

kirsanth wrote:Honestly if you are going to say that its ok to take the LRBT because it's "close enough" then why stop with just one?

The IG codex says 1-3 is 1 LRBT squadron.

In 2 out of the 3 listings for a LRBT in the codex there is no mention of squad.

Specifically page 48

and

The summary.

Really....? A Leman Russ Battle tank is still something you can take. I would just say you can only take one. You know because squadrens weren't ment for that codex? It is still an option and should be taken only the biggest donkey-cave would tell you you can't. At that point I'd pick up my little men and go home or play someone else I got better crap to do than waste my time like that.

Edit- I would though hold the DH/WH's Russ to the 4th ed rules as thats what it was ment for.

Gwar! wrote: So much rage from the RaI camp over something so easy to work around and not cheat while doing it.

Using words like "Cheat" to describe someone that does not take the literal interpretation stance is pretty much donning the rage cap yourself.



Speaking for myself I think the whole argument is highly amusing. I could care less about what's "Right" or "RAW" and more worried about what's fun for me and my opponent. I'd gladly let a DH opponent take a LRMBT. They're rear armor 10 and my Power Klaws can take them out that much easier.

CajunMan550 wrote:Edit- I would though hold the DH/WH's Russ to the 4th ed rules as thats what it was ment for.

yeah, and my Dark Eldar and Space Wolves are Meant for 3rd ed, can I use those rules please? If anything, you should be using the 1st 3rd ed IG codex, not the "4th ed" one (which wasn't 4th ed).

The rules as they are now do not allow any sort of Leman Russ to be added to a WH/DH army. As said before, just do it the other way around!

CajunMan550 wrote:Really....? A Leman Russ Battle tank is still something you can take. I would just say you can only take one. You know because squadrens weren't ment for that codex? It is still an option and should be taken only the biggest donkey-cave would tell you you can't. At that point I'd pick up my little men and go home or play someone else I got better crap to do than waste my time like that.

Edit- I would though hold the DH/WH's Russ to the 4th ed rules as thats what it was ment for.

I just noticed the a-hole gets changed to donkey-cave. Seriously, try quoting it and t still says the original. Hehe!

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I just noticed the a-hole gets changed to donkey-cave. Seriously, try quoting it and t still says the original. Hehe!

Yup, it's the best Wordfilter I have seen on the Series of Tubes!

@cajun: Why would you get annoyed at me? I am following the rules, you are not. If anything I should be getting mad at you!

Your just taking this idea and nerfing it, the book was ment to be able to take the Russes and Sentinals. Why not deny them Infantry too because there not the same anymore they got different kinds of commanders. And take there Storm troops away cause hellguns are gone in new books obviously there just dead now even though that codex has them. Obviously the Daemon Hunters can't order in support for Sentinals and Leman Russes because they changed there name that must be an awkward phone call, " By the Ordo Malius I am Requisitioning your Leman Russ Battle Tank and Sentinal...." "oooo Sorry chief we got Leman Russ Squadrens and Sentinal Squadrens now new name but so ya its totally dif. soo uhh go F urself" *Click*

I think I'd be calling Adeptus Customaservice after that transmission.

CajunMan550 wrote:Your just taking this idea and nerfing it, the book was ment to be able to take the Russes and Sentinals. Why not deny them Infantry too because there not the same anymore they got different kinds of commanders. And take there Storm troops away cause hellguns are gone in new books obviously there just dead now even though that codex has them. Obviously the Daemon Hunters can't order in support for Sentinals and Leman Russes because they changed there name that must be an awkward phone call, " By the Ordo Malius I am Requisitioning your Leman Russ Battle Tank and Sentinal...." "oooo Sorry chief we got Leman Russ Squadrens and Sentinal Squadrens now new name but so ya its totally dif. soo uhh go F urself" *Click*

No offence, but thems the rules. Don't like it? Take a IG Army with DH/WH allies. That way you get 9 Russes, all the variants, without cheating!

Ah so now its cheating.....no response to page 48? A clearly defined codex entry for a lone LRBT?

You can take a Leman Russ ........ using the "Name Game" like some extreme RAW guys like to do, you could refuse to let them use Commander Pask as his abilities only apply to "Leman Russes" It doesnt say which one, so we must assume it means none of them..............

There is even a stat-line for the tank by name in the back......

People who hold the BS "Name Game" rule are childish as far as I can see.......its like telling someone that you refuse to play in a 40k Tournament because you dont play 40k.... you play Warhammer 40,000.

0-1 Leman Russ battle tank, for the points quoted in the new codex, with the upgrades as listed for the appropriate points and subject to Lumbering Behemoth. The Squadron rules affect those models within only insofar as forcing matched movement, target allocation, damage allocation etc and are all rendered moot by the original WH/DH limitation of 0-1.

Squadrons are described in the BGB with the following introduction '...some small vehicles, like Ork Warbuggies and Eldar Vypers, operate in UNITSof more than one vehicle, known as squadrons. These follow the rules for normal units...'
This proves that the term squadron falls under the wider auspices of the term UNIT and that the unit of 0-1 Leman Russ used by WH/DH is perfectly viable. The only deviation from standard as listed in the rules would have been the theoretical use of more than one LRBT in your army, the codex states only one, thereby rendering the secondary rules for squadron null and void.

You may field a leman russ battle tank in your DH/WH army.

I'm a little biased on this, because the codex is screwed on what Daemons are too. I've spent too many hours having to defend that my Daemon Princes aren't Daemons, just my Summoned Greater Daemon. It's just outdated, and a little too specific for it's own good. Had it been worded a little more badly I could see it more. Does this restrict what kind of Russ you can take, or are all of the variants open? Who knows?

"Most vehicles fight as individual units and are represented by a single model. However, some small vehicles. . ."

That first sentence helps a lot too. The second one I find funny because now LRBT are small vehicles.

Most vehicles are units. Some are squadrons.

See the disconnect when you start at the beginning?

R3con wrote:Ah so now its cheating.....no response to page 48? A clearly defined codex entry for a lone LRBT?

And the points are? Oh look, the Unit of LRBT doesn't exist! Show me in the Army list a Unit called LRBT and it's points. I see a LRS, but not a LRBT.

Codex WH, which I am looking at right now says 0-1 Leman Russ battle tank, that means the vanilla type, not a variant, since back in the day we had demolishers and there was no allowance then. This represents a tank requisitioned by an inquisitor, it would only be viable to take the battle tank, which is the vanilla one, normal upgrades apply as does the new lumbering behemoth rule. Enjoy!

MeanGreenStompa wrote:You may field a leman russ battle tank in your DH/WH army.

Repeating it doesn't make you right. Actually proving it does, as I have done multiple times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Codex WH, which I am looking at right now says 0-1 Leman Russ battle tank

Ok, One last time:
NO IT DOES NOT
It says you may Take "These Units", of which one Unit is LRBT. There is NO UNIT Called LRBT in the IG Codex. There is a Leman Russ Squadron, but no option to field a Unit called Leman Russ Battle Tank

kirsanth wrote:"Most vehicles fight as individual units and are represented by a single model. However, some small vehicles. . ."

That first sentence helps a lot too. The second one I find funny because now LRBT are small vehicles.

Most vehicles are units. Some are squadrons.

See the disconnect when you start at the beginning?

Now who's interpreting the rules to suit? If it's covered by the squadron rules, it is still viable to be covered by the rules for UNITS where not superseded by the squadron rules. The rules are clear on this.

It says look in the IG Codex; does it say which version?

Seriously - does it say "Look in the newest version" or "Look in the version published in year X"? Or does it just say "Look in the IG Codex"?

Can anyone find RAW which state that the current version of Codexes MUST always be used? Or is that just assumed as RAI? If not, then RAW - in fact - allows for use of any old Codex we like . . .

Which would cause all sorts of RAW headaches, right?

See, don't think for any instant I am arguing that we SHOULD allow use of Rogue Trader army lists in current 40K, but simply that I can't remember finding a single RAW which SPECIFICALLY says we have to use the current codex. Specifically, the WH 'dex does NOT say "use the latest IG Codex, which may have been printed long after this one and may not work with these rules if you are being anal about it".

There is really no such thing as RAW - there is "RAW with the minimum amount of RAI assumptions of things that should be obvious" (such as using a current 'dex).

I think it is obvious a WH player is supposed to be able to take a single LRBT. If someone got all "RAW! RAW! RAW says no!" I would just pull out last edition of the IG Codex and say "Got the rules right here .... let's see RAW which says I have to use the current 'dex please?"

Hey Gwar your wrong get over it.

When I look at Army Builder or my Codex and it says in big letters Leman Russ Battle Tank I can tell your wrong right there.

Gwar! wrote:
Ok, One last time:
NO IT DOES NOT
It says you may Take "These Units", of which one Unit is LRBT. There is NO UNIT Called LRBT in the IG Codex. There is a Leman Russ Squadron, but no option to field a Unit called Leman Russ Battle Tank

Squadron, which is a type of Unit, so the Leman Russ Unit is not the same as the Leman Russ Battle Tank Unit? That's your whole argument? The Leman Russ isn't the Leman Russ Battle Tank? What is it then? A toaster? The new Imperial Guard Codex does indeed describe the Leman Russ as 'Leman Russ Battle Tanks' on page 48 of the new codex.

You are quite wrong Gwar, now please stop with the caps and 'you're wrong, you're wrong'. I have categorically proven my point via both codices and the rulebook. I am sorry that seems to anger you so.

Ah mgs. I feel like you sir are just not grasping what he is trying to say.

I feel that gwar is right on this one. He is also right that if they did not mean to screw over the dh they would post an faq about it to clear up this problem.

Also darkknight that's a terribly idiotic thing to say. Shame on you for opening your mouth.

Also i do not give you permision to put the I think gwar is right part in your sig gwar. Ive hated that ever since ive seen it as I do feel that one part about you is arrogant.

Army Builder isn't exactly official. I brought up earlier that a guy I know was using it and it didn't add the cost for any of his vehicles past the first in a squadron. I was then brought up that it was an error with the data file, meaning anyone could add anything to Army Builder at will.

IG Codex pg. 89

Army List Entries
Each entry in the army list represents a different UNIT.

Seems quite clear to me.

You are told which specific unit to look up.

Looking up a different name is the start of the problem, even if the name is close.

But you didn't say I couldn't put it there

Golga wrote:Also darkknight that's a terribly idiotic thing to say. Shame on you for opening your mouth.

Please do a couple of things for me; learn to spell my username correctly (is it so hard to copy?) and show me where I am wrong in what I say. I would like someone to provide RAW which say "you have to use the current version of the Codex" or similar. I don't think you will find it.

Of course, it is reasonably assumed RAI - but that is not the same as RAW. And that is what this is about.

Also, for the record - I agree with the chap with the Brian Blessed avatar; you may take 0-1 Leman Russ (Unit - and we know it is a unit because the 'dex says "The following units . . .") and there is a Leman Russ Squadron entry. And rulebook states that squadrons are a type of unit ("units called squadrons"). I find this argument compelling, and consider there is a case that RAW allows for the use of not just 0-1 Russ, but in fact 0-1 Russ squadron with all the bells and whistles.

Darknight wrote:

Golga wrote:Also darkknight that's a terribly idiotic thing to say. Shame on you for opening your mouth.

Please do a couple of things for me; learn to spell my username correctly (is it so hard to copy?) and show me where I am wrong in what I say. I would like someone to provide RAW which say "you have to use the current version of the Codex" or similar. I don't think you will find it.

Of course, it is reasonably assumed RAI - but that is not the same as RAW. And that is what this is about.

Also, for the record - I agree with the chap with the Brian Blessed avatar; you may take 0-1 Leman Russ (Unit - and we know it is a unit because the 'dex says "The following units . . .") and there is a Leman Russ Squadron entry. And rulebook states that squadrons are a type of unit ("units called squadrons"). I find this argument compelling, and consider there is a case that RAW allows for the use of not just 0-1 Russ, but in fact 0-1 Russ squadron with all the bells and whistles.

Ok....

The mind boggles.

This time I am pretty sure it is not just mine, either.

Since I'm a nice guy, and realize that this is a game, I would have no problem letting you field your single LRBT, put all the upgades you want (except Pask, just a little too much) and field it. Thats just me.

Though RAW seems kinda shady, common sense would have to tell you that Inquisitorial forces can still use the LRBT, its the first one on the "Leman Russ squadron" list.

What could you not follow?

You are permitted to take a Leman Russ unit - because it says "The following units . . . . 0-1 Leman Russ" in the WH Codex.

Squadrons are a type of unit. Therefore, all squadrons are units, but not all units are squadrons.

Therefore, a Leman Russ Squadron is a Leman Russ Unit.

Therefore, there is a RAW case that a Leman Russ squadron can be taken.

Is that RAI? No - RAI is clearly a single Leman Russ (normal variant) but if we want to make RAW comments here, there is a RAW case for the whole damned squadron.

Darknight wrote:What could you not follow?

You are permitted to take a Leman Russ unit - because it says "The following units . . . . 0-1 Leman Russ" in the WH Codex.

Squadrons are a type of unit. Therefore, all squadrons are units, but not all units are squadrons.

Therefore, a Leman Russ Squadron is a Leman Russ Unit.

Therefore, there is a RAW case that a Leman Russ squadron can be taken.

Is that RAI? No - RAI is clearly a single Leman Russ (normal variant) but if we want to make RAW comments here, there is a RAW case for the whole damned squadron.

No.

No there is not.

kirsanth wrote:You are told which specific unit to look up.

Looking up a different name is the start of the problem, even if the name is close.

It says 0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank in the WH codex. So I would read that as just ONE Leman Russ Battle Tank.

Army Builder makes mistakes all the time. That is no valuable proof.

I agree with Gwar! that by strict RAW it is no longer allowed. However, I'd always speak with my opponent about stuff like this before and he'd probably agree.

Heck, I guess almost everyone would agree on it, but, as stated before, that is not exactly the topic here. I dare to guess even Gwar!, if asked nicely, would allow his opponent to take one LRBT in his WH/DH army for a game. It's just that the rules no longer really 100% allow it.

I am told to look up a Leman Russ - and I am also told it is a unit. A squadron is a type of unit. Therefore, I am looking up a Leman Russ unit.

The difference here is that things may have multiple names, but what the thing IS does not change.

Of course, both your and mine RAW interpretations (both of which are equally valid) are not RAI. But that isn't what we are talking about here, is it? This is about RAW and the bitterness of Gwar because his SW Codex wasn't that good, right?

Darknight wrote:

Golga wrote:Also darkknight that's a terribly idiotic thing to say. Shame on you for opening your mouth.

Please do a couple of things for me; learn to spell my username correctly (is it so hard to copy?) and show me where I am wrong in what I say. I would like someone to provide RAW which say "you have to use the current version of the Codex" or similar. I don't think you will find it.

Of course, it is reasonably assumed RAI - but that is not the same as RAW. And that is what this is about.

Also, for the record - I agree with the chap with the Brian Blessed avatar; you may take 0-1 Leman Russ (Unit - and we know it is a unit because the 'dex says "The following units . . .") and there is a Leman Russ Squadron entry. And rulebook states that squadrons are a type of unit ("units called squadrons"). I find this argument compelling, and consider there is a case that RAW allows for the use of not just 0-1 Russ, but in fact 0-1 Russ squadron with all the bells and whistles.

I just got all tingly..... I might get to use my Crystal Targeting Matrix on my Fire Prism again if we can use old books.........

I am now 120% convinced that you can take a Leman Russ.......Especialy as it says in the WH codex...." All units are taken exactly as they appear in Codex: Space Marines or Codex: Imperial Guard and may only use the options and upgrades listed there."

So I would read that as you use the Unit as it appears in the IG codex not how it appears in the WH/DH codex.....it appears in the WH codex as a LRBT, but we use it as it appears in the IG codex.....ie you would use the new(?) name as found in the nex codex.

Witzkatz wrote: I dare to guess even Gwar!, if asked nicely, would allow his opponent to take one LRBT in his WH/DH army for a game.

Sadly, you would be wrong; I quote from another thread....

Gwar! wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I am going to stab a certain someone in the back and say that you're wrong Gwar. You are allowed 0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank. This means that you can get a squad of Leman Russ, just not more than one in that squad. There is nothing stopping you from getting that 1 Leman Russ, from the Leman Russ Squadron choice.

(P.S. Even if you WERE right, would you really try to be TFG and demand the game is played like that?)

The DH/WH codex Explicitly states "You may take these units from Codex: IG", one of which is "Leman Russ Battle Tank". Show me in the Army list (with the points ect) a Unit called Leman Russ Battle Tank. A Full fledged unit, not something that is part of another. You can't, because it has been replaced by a Leman Russ Squadron, which means DH/WH cannot take any sort of Leman Russ Anymore.

And yes, after 10 years of a crappy Space Wolf Minidex, I will damn well make people play by their crappy rules. Am I bitter? Yes.

You may all not like it, but from a RaW standpoint, I am correct. How you play it is up to you, but if you don't go and pull TMIR to try and get a benefit like 99% of people do, you cannot take a Leman Russ, nor can you take Sentinels.

Underlining emphasis mine.

As I said, this isn't about RAW interpretations. This is about Gwar's bitterness and the desire to impose will on others. Yawn. If it were religion or politics, I could understand . . .

Wait. This is about Sisters, right? I guess it is religion or politics. Perhaps it should be moved to OT?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:0-1 Leman Russ battle tank, for the points quoted in the new codex, with the upgrades as listed for the appropriate points and subject to Lumbering Behemoth. The Squadron rules affect those models within only insofar as forcing matched movement, target allocation, damage allocation etc and are all rendered moot by the original WH/DH limitation of 0-1.

Squadrons are described in the BGB with the following introduction '...some small vehicles, like Ork Warbuggies and Eldar Vypers, operate in UNITSof more than one vehicle, known as squadrons. These follow the rules for normal units...'
This proves that the term squadron falls under the wider auspices of the term UNIT and that the unit of 0-1 Leman Russ used by WH/DH is perfectly viable. The only deviation from standard as listed in the rules would have been the theoretical use of more than one LRBT in your army, the codex states only one, thereby rendering the secondary rules for squadron null and void.

You may field a leman russ battle tank in your DH/WH army.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The new Imperial Guard Codex does indeed describe the Leman Russ as 'Leman Russ Battle Tanks' on page 48 of the new codex.

To condense this for you all, the squadron is a type of unit, the leman russ (vanilla edition) is the leman russ battle tank. Your unit of 0-1 leman russ battle tank is indeed the vanilla armed leman russ with the options as priced. You may field this squadron (or Unit to simplify) of one tank in your WH/DH army and the rules fully endorse it. It is regrettable that since I have demonstrated this via the written rules, certain parties do not have the good grace to admit they were in error.

<Devil's Advocate>

See, MGS, I disagree - I think because the WH 'dex says we can choose from the following UNITS that means we have to choose a Leman Russ unit. Which means we have to choose the Leman Russ Squadron (as a Squadron is a type of unit). Which means we can have a number of Russes, of any type.

Of course, that isn't RAI - but it is a RAW interpretation. I think MGS' interpretation is not RAW, but rather a hybrid of RAW and RAI.

</Devil's Advocate>

The unit you are told to look up has had its name changed.

Does this change retroactively change the words in the previously written codecii?

Not without Errata/FAQ.

Is this the only example of such an issue?
No. (See: Daemon rules for Daemon hunters)

I'm gonna just throw my 2 cents in this.


To play the game based on strict adherence of the rules is truely the wrong way to play the game. It even sais this in the rule book (I'm not gonna quote a page) that scenarios occour in play that confuse both players. When this occours, a dice-off or a mutal agreement.

"I'll let you use that Russ if it's just a basic leman russ tank".

kirsanth wrote:The unit you are told to look up has had its name changed.

Thank you for admitting it is the same unit as far as the WH Codex is concerned, simply with a name change.

The name has changed from "Leman Russ" (which is called unit by the WH Codex, thus implying it is a unit) to "Leman Russ Squadron". Squadrons are a type of unit, therefore this is a Leman Russ unit.

Does this change retroactively change the words in the previously written codecii?

Fortunately not - because then the words might be changed to "If these units do not appear under precisely these names in the current edition of the Codex (i.e. the one published long after this one) then you may not take them".

Darknight wrote:What could you not follow?

You are permitted to take a Leman Russ unit - because it says "The following units . . . . 0-1 Leman Russ" in the WH Codex.

Squadrons are a type of unit. Therefore, all squadrons are units, but not all units are squadrons.

You can get the codex to say a lot of you cut the end off sentences Darknight. The Codex says "1-0 Leman Russ Battle Tank".

That said, arguing RAW in this situation is a fool's errand. What you need is R(ules)IMO.

Note that the Rough Riders entry does not specify a maximum number unlike the entry in the Daemonhunters codex

Darknight wrote:

kirsanth wrote:The unit you are told to look up has had its name changed.

Thank you for admitting it is the same unit as far as the WH Codex is concerned, simply with a name change.

The name has changed from "Leman Russ" (which is called unit by the WH Codex, thus implying it is a unit) to "Leman Russ Squadron". Squadrons are a type of unit, therefore this is a Leman Russ unit.

Does this change retroactively change the words in the previously written codecii?

Fortunately not - because then the words might be changed to "If these units do not appear under precisely these names in the current edition of the Codex (i.e. the one published long after this one) then you may not take them".

Just wow.

The rules do not need to disallow. They must EXPLICITELY allow.
And, in this case, they do not.

Again - WOW.

Page 48 of the IG codex...... LEMAN RUSS BATTLE TANK.... it LIVES!!!!!!!!!

I cant stand how you fanatical RAW people wont admit when you are wrong, We have met your requierments for this..

Squadrans are a type of unit........

Leman Russ Battle Tank appears BY NAME in the codex.....

Leman Russ Battle Tank has a stat-listing...BY NAME.......

The WH codex say to take the LRBT AS IT APPEARS in the IG codex.....

any further need of proof is just you being stubborn and unreasonable......

My apologies, George. My (serious and genuine) argument still stands - a Leman Russ Battle Tank (unit) is the same thing as a Leman Russ Battle Tank Squadron, as a squadron is a type of unit.

The RAW argument that you could take the whole squadron is, while technically meritorious, clearly against RAI. And could be argued (successfully, I think) to be spurious on a RAW standpoint because the RAW say "0-1 ... tank".

However, I would argue that - based on the WH Codex's allowance to take a single Leman Russ Battle Tank, the fact it refers to such a choice as a unit, and the fact that squadrons are units; that a squadron can be taken, BUT that the squadron can only consist of a single tank.

The "flavor" of that tank is up for debate.

This is one of those situtations where there are multiple RAW conclusions - which means we either have to (according to RAW!) dice off or mutually agree.

After five pages, there is no mutual agreement. I just rolled a six. I believe I win

That "logic" means that a Leman Russ Squadron unit is a squadron.

It does not make you right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The fact that a unit can be a squadron does not change the actual name written in the codex.
Neither does leaving words out.

kirsanth wrote:The rules do not need to disallow. They must EXPLICITELY allow.
And, in this case, they do not.

I disagree - in fact, the WH Codex "explicitely" allows "0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank" the unit of which must be taken exactly as it appears in the IG Codex. This is clearly possible - I can take a single Leman Russ Battle Tank as the entirety of a unit called a Leman Russ Squadron, can I not?

Darknight wrote:

kirsanth wrote:The rules do not need to disallow. They must EXPLICITELY allow.
And, in this case, they do not.

I disagree - in fact, the WH Codex "explicitely" allows "0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank" the unit of which must be taken exactly as it appears in the IG Codex. This is clearly possible - I can take a single Leman Russ Battle Tank as the entirety of a unit called a Leman Russ Squadron, can I not?

Not for WH/DH armies, without removing or changing words.

You are told to look the unit LRBT up in the codex. Not the MODEL.

What you find is LR Squadron.

=/=

kirsanth wrote:

Darknight wrote:

kirsanth wrote:The rules do not need to disallow. They must EXPLICITELY allow.
And, in this case, they do not.

I disagree - in fact, the WH Codex "explicitely" allows "0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank" the unit of which must be taken exactly as it appears in the IG Codex. This is clearly possible - I can take a single Leman Russ Battle Tank as the entirety of a unit called a Leman Russ Squadron, can I not?

Not for WH/DH armies, without removing or changing words.

You are told to look the unit LRBT up in the codex. Not the MODEL.

What you find is LR Squadron.

=/=

Page 48....it is there

kirsanth wrote:The fact that a unit can be a squadron does not change the actual name written in the codex.

Never said it did - I merely pointed out that something called a Leman Russ Battle Tank and described as a unit is clearly the same thing as a Leman Russ Battle Tank which appears in a unit called a Leman Russ Squadron.

Do you argue that the model in a Leman Russ Squadron called a Leman Russ Battle Tank is not a Leman Russ Battle Tank?

Also; the WH Codex says these things are "units" - therefore, for the WH Codex, a Leman Russ Battle Tank is a unit.

I have still yet to see anyone come up with RAW which says I have to use the current edition of the Codex; merely that RAW says I have to use "Codex : Imperial Guard". I have a lovely copy of that. Don't use it. Anyone wanna trade?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:You are told to look the unit LRBT up in the codex.

I am told nothing of the sort. I am told these units must be fielded as shown in Codex : Imperial Guard. So, I must field my unit of 0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank as they appear in Codex : IG. A unit of 1 Leman Russ Battle Tank is a valid option; it is a squadron with a single model.

The IG 4th edition codex is no longer a legal codex.

Page 64 "Squadrins....... follow the rules for normal units......."

First Paragraph..... last sentance, but read the whole thing so you dont get too confused.........

Honestly I don't really see why you're getting up in arms. Technically you can't take a LMBT anymore. However, no friendly game would enforce that and the 'ard Boyz precedent is strong evidence to house rule it at any tournament.

Does anyone even care that I have a reprinting of the WH codex and it specificly says "LEMAN RUSS BATTLE TANK"....all of this fighting is over the 1st printing saying "Leman russ"

New codex does supersede old, fortunately the leman russ was not removed from it and as explained in this thread, you may field one with your WH/DH army, the leman russ or leman russ battle tank to give it it's full name as stated in the imperial guard codex (page 48 folks ) is now fielded in squadrons, that affects the imperial guard army since you may take 1-3 as a unit. It is one of several types of Leman Russ available to take in the rulebook (see Leman Russ Squadrons) but only the basic tank qualifies as the Leman Russ Battle Tank, as fully described on page 48, it does not extent to 'variants' such as vanquishers and demolishers (listed as Leman Russ variantname on page 49, instead of Leman Russ Battle Tank). The limitation placed on Units of Leman Russ as Squadrons is not an affecting rule for the leman russ you take for the WH/DH army, since you can only take the 1 tank and therefore the leman russ battle tank in your squadron (that's a type of Unit folks) is entirely legit in the WH/DH army.

Tournaments may rule differently as they wish, but that is the rules as written.

Ok, but the unit is Leman Russ Squadron, in the IG codex.

Which is not the unit you were supposed to reference, from the WH or DH codex.

The issue is not whether the squadron is a unit.
The issue is that the unit is actually named Squadron.
It was not before. Yes this was a change.
That seems to be the actual issue. The name of the unit changed in the new codex. The name of the models in the unit did not.
You are not referencing a model in the IG codex. You are referencing the unit.

Many things change as the editions change.
Some of those changes add things, some remove things.


shrug

Man am I tired of seeing the letters R-A-W together in a row.

This is a game between 2 people. Playing with these absurdly strict rules will get you no where in real life. It will break the game little by little until no one is sure if what theyre doing is correct. Warhammer rules are not legal documents, they are rules written by normal people, and they try to communicate to you as if you were a normal person. People who play "RAW" just dont get the point behind the game and behind the rule book/codex themselves. The very first page tells you that flat out that there will be situations like these where youre not sure, and there is no right answer (you may *think* you have the right answer on this issue, but you don't).

I tried to read this board so I could be informed of army rules I dont play so if the situation arises, I know what will happen - but when I see ridiculous "rules" being stated that I know are ridiculous and never played that way, how can I trust anything else on the board?

This topic is a perfect example. Luckily to solve this issue you can just use common sense and say "yes, you may take a single tank".

And unsurprisingly, we have another 6 page topic where Gwar is making every other post and is arguing his head off. This does nothing to help anyone, as there is no room for compromise, or more importantly, common sense with him and anyone like him. If you are going to try to argue only a fraction of the stuff "RAW" says in real life, you are going to be left with no one to play with or kicked out of tournaments. So anyone who agrees with him or thinks he's right, beware, because doing something like this will hurt you a lot more than it will hurt your opponent.

I will agree with the poster that says its entertaining though. This topic will just end up locked and because of a certain few people this was an argument instead of a discussion. I cant wait to have my post partially quoted by the "other side" and told how Im wrong because Im playing made up rules, house rules, etc. It doesnt really matter when 99.9% of everyone out there plays it the same way.

kirsanth wrote:Ok, but the unit is Leman Russ Squadron, in the IG codex.

Which is not the unit you were supposed to reference, from the WH or DH codex.

The issue is not whether the squadron is a unit.
The issue is that the unit is actually named Squadron.
It was not before. Yes this was a change.
That seems to be the actual issue. The name of the unit changed in the new codex. The name of the models in the unit did not.
You are not referencing a model in the IG codex. You are referencing the unit.

Many things change as the editions change.
Some of those changes add things, some remove things.


shrug

It says to use the Leman Russ Battle Tank "As it appears in the IG codex", not as it appears in the DH/WH codex......in the IG codex it appears as a LR Squadron......

and we have already shown that a Squadron is a type of unit....page 3 of the BRB says that a "Vehicle" is a type of unit.... it meets both requierments

I am pretty sure Gwar! started ignoring this a couple pages back and stopped responding.

I was actually about to when my mind was totally boggled by what I still can only read as non-sense.

I'd say talk it out with your opponent, since the rules doesn't really comply

DJ Illuminati wrote:

kirsanth wrote:The issue is not whether the squadron is a unit.
The issue is that the unit is actually named Squadron.
It was not before. Yes this was a change.
That seems to be the actual issue. The name of the unit changed in the new codex. The name of the models in the unit did not.
You are not referencing a model in the IG codex. You are referencing the unit.

It says to use the Leman Russ Battle Tank "As it appears in the IG codex", not as it appears in the DH/WH codex......in the IG codex it appears as a LR Squadron......

and we have already shown that a Squadron is a type of unit....page 3 of the BRB says that a "Vehicle" is a type of unit.... it meets both requierments

I responded to that in the post you quoted fyi.

But,

DJ Illuminati wrote:in the IG codex it appears as a LR Squadron

Thank you for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bla_Ze wrote:I'd say talk it out with your opponent, since the rules doesn't really comply

kirsanth, pages ago wrote:Simple answer: Discuss it with your opponent.

Odds are, they would assume it is the same thing.

The thing is, it is entirely possible that the think they are NOT the same thing, as the actual text is quite specific (and not identical).

Kirsanth,

Go to the page in the Imperial Guard codex marked Heavy Support, it clearly lists Leman Russ Battle Tank and then the point cost, it then goes on to list the rest of the variants of the Leman Russ.

We have established that the Leman Russ Battle Tank is an option for the imperial guard, not leman russ, but leman russ battle tank.

The Rulebook for 40k states clearly that a squadron is a type of unit, so the wording in the WH/DH books that states 'the following units' can include any unit therein constituting a squadron.

So, the 0-1 unit (squadron of 1) Leman Russ Battle Tank is a viable option for the WH/DH army list to incorporate. There is no need for any FAQ, the rules as written clearly state this remains a viable option for those (now quite old) codices to continue to incorporate.

It's very clear and working as intended.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Kirsanth,

Go to the page in the Imperial Guard codex marked Heavy Support, it clearly lists Leman Russ Battle Tank and then the point cost, it then goes on to list the rest of the variants of the Leman Russ.

We have established that the Leman Russ Battle Tank is an option for the imperial guard, not leman russ, but leman russ battle tank.

The Rulebook for 40k states clearly that a squadron is a type of unit, so the wording in the WH/DH books that states 'the following units' can include any unit therein constituting a squadron.

So, the 0-1 unit (squadron of 1) Leman Russ Battle Tank is a viable option for the WH/DH army list to incorporate. There is no need for any FAQ, the rules as written clearly state this remains a viable option for those (now quite old) codices to continue to incorporate.

It's very clear and working as intended.

QFT

kirsanth wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:in the IG codex it appears as a LR Squadron

Again does it really matter to you people? Can't you accept that you can't technically take one by RAW, but that it will never effect you, as tournaments will go with the 'ard Boyz ruling, and no one would ever deny you it in a friendly game?

It matters a great deal to me that certain people lord it up around here with the notion that they have some divine link to the writers of this game and can interpret this as 'truth'. I don't like gurus. Especially when they are wrong and especially when they are wrong and don't even have the balls to admit they are wrong.

Leman Russ Battle Tank = one of the choices of leman russ for a squadron (squadron, a type of fething UNIT), also available as a 0-1 tank choice for the owners of DH and WH armies everywhere, subject to Lumbering Behemoth rule, can use the upgrades listed for the leman russ battle tank as listed as one of the leman russ squadron choices.


I cannot accept I technically can't take one since I technically fething can, the WH codex, the imperial guard codex, the daemonhunter codex and the motherloving rulebook clearly state it a viable choice. The dreamed up little prohibitive loophole that has been touted here is total nonsense designed with no further use than wasting peoples time and giving the illusion certain individuals are fonts of all knowledge.

-Yawn-
God-Emperor, you're still arguing?

Look it's simple. The Unit "Leman Russ Battle Tank" no longer exists in the Imperial Guard Codex, it was Replaced by the Leman Russ Squadron.

As such, WH/DH cannot take them. It doesn't matter because most people will cheat and let you use it anyway, or they will just take a IG Parent list and add DH/WH allies, and therefore avoid the whole problem.

Seriously, all you "Gwar is a mean man" people just give it a rest. You are wrong, but me being right doesn't change anything either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Again does it really matter to you people? Can't you accept that you can't technically take one by RAW, but that it will never effect you, as tournaments will go with the 'ard Boyz ruling, and no one would ever deny you it in a friendly game?

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise you ran my tournaments for me or my friendly games.

Oddly enough, when I do it, we play by the rules!

Ok, everyone execpt Gwar, who thinks that GW's rules are perfect.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Ok, everyone execpt Gwar, who thinks that GW's rules are perfect.

Did I ever say they were perfect? No, I didn't. However, they are there for a reason. If you don't follow them, what is the point of playing the game? If you want to have fun while using rules, play 40k, if you want to ignore rules, play D&D or LARP.

So you wouldn't ever play against someone using one of the BoLS minidexes?

What's wrong with using the 'ard Boys clarifications? I'd say it has as much weight as an FAQ.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:So you wouldn't ever play against someone using one of the BoLS minidexes?

In a pre arranged game? Sure. In a Random "lolololololiwannausethisinternetcodexlol" pickup game? No.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:It matters a great deal to me that certain people lord it up around here with the notion that they have some divine link to the writers of this game and can interpret this as 'truth'. I don't like gurus. Especially when they are wrong and especially when they are wrong and don't even have the balls to admit they are wrong.

What you have done , and still doing, is no different. That makes you sir , a hypocrite.

The only difference here really , is more people agree to Gwar's interpretation then yours.

The dreamed up little prohibitive loophole that has been touted here is total nonsense designed with no further use than wasting peoples time and giving the illusion certain individuals are fonts of all knowledge.

Just keep telling yourself that , doesnt make your interpretation any more right.

See as i said again , when ever Gwar is trying to solve a rule issue , there will be people like you , that HAVE to include the extra rubbish in the argument. I'll high light them for you for example.

Keep It Out.

I find it ironic , how Gwar can be banned for saying he is right , all at the same time all these petty attacks that have NOTHING to do with the rules discussion gets
thrown around freely with 0 consequences.

Gwar! wrote:In a pre arranged game? Sure. In a Random "lolololololiwannausethisinternetcodexlol" pickup game? No.

But by RaW (Rambings Articulated by gWar) you only play with GW's rules!

Even Ard Boyz rules are inconsistent. One year Dedicated Transports aren't KPs and the next year they are.

Gwar! wrote:
Oddly enough, when I do it, we play by the rules!

As you see fit to interpret them, wrongly.

Oh and /yawn yourself, your inability to admit defeat speaks volumes about your 'friendly' games... All I can see is you getting stuck on a daily basis trying to push doors clearly marked 'pull'.

Gwar! i have just read this whole thing , let me sum up what i see.

Page 1 question is raised , debate starts.
Page 2 debate ended , with 2 sides unable to agree.
Page 3 same reasoning / lack of reasoning is used / recycled
Page 4 same reasoning / lack of reasoning is used / recycled small personal attacks thrown in to attack gwar
Page 5 same reasoning / lack of reasoning is used / recycled even more attacks
Page 6 Discussion turns into more about attacking gwar then original topic.
Page 7? Gwar runs out of patience from the attacks / he retorts .
Page 7 - X (days for 1 month ) Gwar is banned on Dakka dakka.

So, because there is no such thing as a "leman russ" anymore they cant be taken? feth it, i would allow it without any problems what so ever.
If anyone denied it i would just think they are a dick.
Just because they are now available to guard in a squad rather than a single tank does not mean that that type of tank in its self has been removed from the game, it still exists and it is still used.

Now, there is sticking to the rules, and then being a dick head about rules, this would fall under the 2nd catagory in my books.

For those that complain that word changes should be . . . glossed over, see: Daemonic Infestation.


Still.

LunaHound wrote:Gwar! i have just read this whole thing , let me sum up what i see.

Page 1 question is raised , debate starts.
Page 2 debate ended , with 2 sides unable to agree.
Page 3 same reasoning / lack of reasoning is used / recycled
Page 4 same reasoning / lack of reasoning is used / recycled small personal attacks thrown in to attack gwar
Page 5 same reasoning / lack of reasoning is used / recycled even more attacks
Page 6 Discussion turns into more about attacking gwar then original topic.
Page 7? Gwar runs out of patience from the attacks / he retorts .
Page 7 - X (days for 1 month ) Gwar is banned on Dakka dakka.

QFT. However I have decided to not take the bait this time and as such am not going to make any sort of attacks against others no matter what I receive (because I am such a nice guy).

@JD21290: Yes, it sucks. Even I say it Sucks. But them's the breaks. This is GRIMDARK40k™, not Happy Fluffy Hello Kitty

Gwar, lets face it here mate, if someone was to use a russ in a game against you would it bother you?
for me, i wouldnt give a feth. (lets face it, witch hunters need help)

To be honest, its one of those dumbass things GW never took into account when writing (shock horror!, this is a 1st) rules.
I would just ignore the new "russ squadren" and take a single one using options available to witch hunters previously.

Im willing to bet that if/when witch hunters do get an update (and the question gets raised) it will be allowed to take them as RAI rather than how GW has fethed them about.

JD21290 wrote:So, because there is no such thing as a "leman russ" anymore they cant be taken? feth it, i would allow it without any problems what so ever.

They do exist in the codex, they have a point value they are the exact same name as stated in the WH codex, in one out of 3 listings they fall into a squadron,that one listing is what the fuss is about, and most non TFG players dont view this as an issue.

The problem with these threads as it sets a precedence for rulings....some new player decides to google it and see's the TFG interpretation of RAW and plays that way.

JD21290 wrote:Gwar, lets face it here mate, if someone was to use a russ in a game against you would it bother you?

Would you be annoyed if my Grey Hunters Disembarked from a Rhino that had moved 12", Shot then Charged you?

I would just ignore the new "russ squadren" and take a single one using options available to witch hunters previously.

So can I ignore the 4th and 5th editions of the game so I can make my Grey Hunters better?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

R3con wrote:They do exist in the codex, they have a point value they are the exact same name as stated in the WH codex, in one out of 3 listings they fall into a squadron,that one listing is what the fuss is about, and most non TFG players dont view this as an issue.

The problem with these threads as it sets a precedence for rulings....some new player decides to google it and see's the TFG interpretation of RAW and plays that way.

Yes, they exist in the codex, but not as a unit the IG can buy. They can buy The unit "Leman Russ Squadron", but not the unit "Leman Russ Battle Tank".

As for your TFG attack, how is it bad to get newbies to play by the rules?

Gwar, please state how GK's are similar in effect to losing a vehicle due to the wording in a new dex.

and if you got your gak together and came down to london for a game i wouldnt mind your grey hunters moving 12, shooting then charging me, bloodletters would do fine


Edit: Saw your edit
The leman russ battle tank still exists, and guard use them.
Squadren is just a collective term for them.
Much like a flock of birds, or a swarm of trolls.


As for the TFG attack, i take offence to that!

Gwar is not "that fething guy" he is "THE FETHING GUY"

JD21290 wrote:

As for the TFG attack, i take offence to that!

Gwar is not "that fething guy" he is "THE FETHING GUY"

If he's not TFG, what in the world could be? haha. Arguing over a slight difference in wording is pretty hard to beat.

Simple, Gwar is a 1 of a kind critter, he is not in status of TFG as they tend to be complete and utter donkey-caves, Gwar on the other hand isnt, he aint a bad guy
He simply states how the rules have been written and what effect they have due to wording, may piss off some people, but lifes a bitch eh?

LunaHound wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:It matters a great deal to me that certain people lord it up around here with the notion that they have some divine link to the writers of this game and can interpret this as 'truth'. I don't like gurus. Especially when they are wrong and especially when they are wrong and don't even have the balls to admit they are wrong.

What you have done , and still doing, is no different. That makes you sir , a hypocrite.

The only difference here really , is more people agree to Gwar's interpretation then yours.

The dreamed up little prohibitive loophole that has been touted here is total nonsense designed with no further use than wasting peoples time and giving the illusion certain individuals are fonts of all knowledge.

Just keep telling yourself that , doesnt make your interpretation any more right.

See as i said again , when ever Gwar is trying to solve a rule issue , there will be people like you , that HAVE to include the extra rubbish in the argument. I'll high light them for you for example.

Keep It Out.

I find it ironic , how Gwar can be banned for saying he is right , all at the same time all these petty attacks that have NOTHING to do with the rules discussion gets
thrown around freely with 0 consequences.

I am interested why you have weighed in on this thread whilst contributing nothing to the debate whatsoever, that Lunahound, is trolling. In fact the only reason you're posting seems to be in order to elicit drama. Gwar is not 'right' any more than I am, you seem under the impression his answer holds more validity. I hate to tell you this considering your own level of input to this site, but number of posts is not directly proportionate to level of mental competency, in certain cases it seems to mean the exact opposite.

So, chill out man.

Night Lords wrote:If he's not TFG, what in the world could be? haha. Arguing over a slight difference in wording is pretty hard to beat.

Would you rather I just say "Sod the rules"?

Please stop with the personal attacks (you guys know who you are). If you don't have anything constructive to the debate (which has been rinsed and repeated since page 2) then stay out of the tread.

To summorize:

Yaysayers: Squadron=Unit
Naysayers: Squadron!=Unit

Please continue, using these as your template. Put in your supporting facts and conclusion (the basis for all YMDC formats).

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I hate to tell you this considering your own level of input to this site, but number of posts is not directly proportionate to level of mental competency, in certain cases it seems to mean the exact opposite.

So, chill out man.

Hmm, thinly veiled personal attacks against me and Lunahound. Accusing Lunahound of Gender ambiguity?

QUICK BAN GWAR BECAUSE HE IS A BIG MEANIE!

Stompa, in luna's defence here she is nowhere near a troll, i think to some degree she is actually one of the top people on here as she doesent shout and scream opinions about, and she rarely gets involved in any arguments, like Gwar, she stated facts.

And not to be picky, but dont you mean chill out girl? not man




Gwar, dont give up, non-believers will turn around some day
Just need to either run them over or throw a few threats about

Harkainos wrote:Please stop with the personal attacks (you guys know who you are). If you don't have anything constructive to the debate (which has been rinsed and repeated since page 2) then stay out of the tread.

To summorize:

Yaysayers: Squadron=Unit
Naysayers: Squadron<>Unit

Please continue with these. Put in your supporting facts and conclusion (the basis for all YMDC formats).

I prefer:

Yaysayers: Squadron=Unit
Naysayers: Squadron!=Unit

But I am a giant Nerd


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JD21290 wrote:Gwar, dont give up, non-believers will turn around some day
Just need to either run them over or throw a few threats about

That didn't work last time. I am planing on a Hostile takeover of GW and then going to make myself king of all Roolz.

Gwar! wrote:I prefer:

Yaysayers: Squadron=Unit
Naysayers: Squadron!=Unit

But I am a giant Nerd

Edited

Gwar, in theory mate every choice you take from the FOC is a unit

and in all fairness here, im actually wondering how Gwar got suspended for what he said, when to be honest i have had a few arguments that pushed the limits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

That didn't work last time. I am planing on a Hostile takeover of GW and then going to make myself king of all Roolz.

Take me with you then, ill do product design

Gwar! wrote:

Night Lords wrote:If he's not TFG, what in the world could be? haha. Arguing over a slight difference in wording is pretty hard to beat.

Would you rather I just say "Sod the rules"?

Id rather hear how its actually played out and not something thats going to get me kicked in the nuts, thanks. Nothing wrong with posting how its RAW but then stating how it is actually played in the real world. Maybe you should try restricting yourself from using the words "House rules" and "Youre wrong" if you dont want to be deemed TFG.

Just because Im so nice and I see potential in you, Ill give you one for free. What Ive come to the conclusion of this topic is "Technically if youre a douche, you could try to argue that they cant use the LR tank because they are no longer listed as a single unit. However, unless you want to be TFG, you should use common sense and allow your opponent to do so."

You're welcome

unless you want to be TFG, you should use common sense and allow your opponent to do so."

Way to kick yourself in the nuts there
Gwar has allready stated its stupid, but then went on to how it has been written, noting that even he dislikes how it has been worded and worked out.

It is not at all about whether a squadron is a unit.

kirsanth wrote:Ok, but the unit is Leman Russ Squadron, in the IG codex.

Which is not the unit you were supposed to reference, from the WH or DH codex.

The issue is not whether the squadron is a unit.
The issue is that the unit is actually named Squadron.
It was not before. Yes this was a change.
That seems to be the actual issue. The name of the unit changed in the new codex. The name of the models in the unit did not.
You are not referencing a model in the IG codex. You are referencing the unit.

JD21290 wrote:

unless you want to be TFG, you should use common sense and allow your opponent to do so."

Way to kick yourself in the nuts there
Gwar has allready stated its stupid, but then went on to how it has been written, noting that even he dislikes how it has been worded and worked out.

Except he's actually stated he "plays by the rules", meaning he wouldn't allow his opponent to do so.

Except he's actually stated he "plays by the rules", meaning he wouldn't allow his opponent to do so.

Im willing to bet Gwar would allow this.


anyways, back in 10 or so, need to get some ciggies from the shop -_-

Look lets put this another way you may have lost a couple of things with GW not bothering to errata DH/WH so they can't take a Leman Russ Squadron. Now you could reasonably use the old IG codex to get the options .... this is fair. You can't pick and choose, In the new IG codex you've lost the Leman Russ unit, since its been replaced with the Leman Russ Squadron...

... but you have gained the unquestionable might of the new IG platoon each containing : 1Platoon Command Squad, 2-5Infantry squads (+1-5 Commissar), 0-5 heavy weapon squads, 0-2 Special Weapon squads, 0-1 conscript squads and Dedicated transports (New Chimeras)

and believe me Sisters of battle and grey knights both prefer to travel in the new Chimeras, which the above squad can take (giving you a fire base and up to 6 Chimeras)...
...The new Chimeras can seat 12 and has a enough fire points for 5 people (and can take a pair of heavy flamers to make the sisters happy).

JD21290 wrote:

Except he's actually stated he "plays by the rules", meaning he wouldn't allow his opponent to do so.

Im willing to bet Gwar would allow this.

Nope, I wouldn't. The rules are there for a reason.

Never fear, the missus had a pack


In that case, i refer to Tri's point

Harkainos wrote:Please stop with the personal attacks (you guys know who you are). If you don't have anything constructive to the debate (which has been rinsed and repeated since page 2) then stay out of the tread.

To summorize:

Yaysayers: Squadron=Unit
Naysayers: Squadron!=Unit

Please continue, using these as your template. Put in your supporting facts and conclusion (the basis for all YMDC formats).

Squadron = Unit:

Page 64 of the WH40K rulebook, Squadrons:
"...However, some small vehicles, like Ork Warbuggies and Eldar Vypers, operate in units of more than one vehicle, known as squadrons. These follow the rules for normal units, with the following exceptions..."

The term Unit can and does incorporate the term squadron, it is entirely appropriate within the rule set to refer to squadrons as units in coverage. The rules for squadrons only come into effect if there is more than one model in the squadron, the term squadron is used with the Imp G codex as a catch all for those using more than one tank and up to three. The allusion to 'squadron' as a preventative in relation to the older produced codices for WH/DH is false, there is no preventative statement in the wording of the text of:
-The Rulebook
-Either Inquisition Codex
-The New Imperial Guard Codex
It should be noted that since squadron is clearly stated to be a type of unit, that when referring to units, this can incorporate those units that are further categorised as squadrons.

Page 48 and the Heavy Support listings in the Imperial Guard codex reference the Leman Russ Battle Tank, it has a points value as an individual model and may be taken solo, thereby fulfilling the requisite of the WH/DH codices. In the instance of the new imperial guard codex, it can be seen clearly that the term Leman Russ squadron is a catch all term, used to indicate a collection of variant types of Leman Russ, many with variable points costs and attributes, the Leman Russ Battle Tank is one such choice and the only one stated as viable for the WH/DH codices as listed by them by name.

Maybe if Gwar! posted it instead. . .

Anyway.

The unit or squadron red herring is a joke.

"Leman Russ Battle Tank" is the name of the unit you are aloud to take with DH/WH

"Leman Russ Squadron" is the only unit that can be found in the IG codex

since there is no "Leman Russ Battle Tank" unit in the IG codex it cannot be take by the DH/WH

-sigh- You still don't understand. It doesnt even matter that Unit = Squadron or whatever that is. The fact is, there is no Unit named Leman Russ Battle Tank in the IG Army List, only a Leman Russ Squadron.

DH/WH cannot take Leman Russ Squadrons, therefore it is a duff entry, just like Armoured Fists, Sentinels and Tornadoes

@MGS: "it has a points value as an individual model and may be taken solo" Wrong, it has a Points value and may be taken in a Leman Russ Squadron. A Leman Russ Squadron Consisting of a Leman Russ Battle Tank is still a Unit called Leman Russ Squadron.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I am interested why you have weighed in on this thread whilst contributing nothing to the debate whatsoever, that Lunahound, is trolling. In fact the only reason you're posting seems to be in order to elicit drama. Gwar is not 'right' any more than I am, you seem under the impression his answer holds more validity. I hate to tell you this considering your own level of input to this site, but number of posts is not directly proportionate to level of mental competency, in certain cases it seems to mean the exact opposite.

Glad you went out with the personal attacks again , not directly though only a slow wouldnt be able to catch that ( even i caught it )

Now , even you agree yourself to a degree what you and gwar! are at a stalemate in this debate ( atleast you think it is , which is ok )
but thats where the difference ends . Because unlike Gwar! , he has class and he sticks to the debate , and lets look at what you have thrown around already?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:It matters a great deal to me that certain people lord it up around here with the notion that they have some divine link to the writers of this game and can interpret this as 'truth'. I don't like gurus. Especially when they are wrong and especially when they are wrong and don't even have the balls to admit they are wrong.

You just dont get it do you? those are all forms of attacks .

Let me remind you again MGS , me "trolling" is nothing but reminding you of your ( insert what ever excuse you want to justify the sentence below ^^ )

MeanGreenStompa wrote:It matters a great deal to me that certain people lord it up around here with the notion that they have some divine link to the writers of this game and can interpret this as 'truth'. I don't like gurus. Especially when they are wrong and especially when they are wrong and don't even have the balls to admit they are wrong.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The dreamed up little prohibitive loophole that has been touted here is total nonsense designed with no further use than wasting peoples time and giving the illusion certain individuals are fonts of all knowledge.

by raw, Gwar is correct.

You can't buy a Leaman russ for your WH or DH codex any more than you can buy a armored fist squadron.

The wording, until it is an errata, says you purchase a leman russ... not a leaman russ squadron

I think this kind of unnecessary rehashing stems directly from the fact that the two sides are arguing for two different things.

---Situation 1---
Anti-Russ - (says) "You can't take a Leman Russ because the rules don't allow it."
Anti-Russ - (actually means) "In a tournament or pick-up game with a stranger, be prepared to not be allowed to field your Russ. I know it sucks but I don't want you to be caught off guard. It could go either way, however, so you should talk to your opponent before the game and figure it out."
Pro- Russ - (hears) "You can't take a Leman Russ so don't even try. In fact if you do, you're a cheater and everyone will hate you and call you TFG.

---Situation 2---
Pro-Russ - (says) "I can take a Leman Russ because the rules say I can."
Pro-Russ - (actually means) "The fact that the name in the Codex has changed really shouldn't affect my ability to take the model or not. I'm not trying to cheat, I just think it's silly that just because the name of the unit - and not the model - has changed that I shouldn't be able to still play with my army the way I did before."
Anti-Russ - (hears) "I don't care what you say, I can take a Russ and I'm going to. Anyone who tries to stop me is TFG and can go to hell."

It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion if the playing field isn't level. The Anti-Russ are just trying to let people know what the rules actually say so that they aren't blindsided at their first tournament or if they run into someone who has the opposing point of view. The Pro-Russ are trying to retain their ability to play the game how they would like to play it and not have other people try and force them to play a certain way.

The Anti-Russes should chill because you've made your point. Everyone is now aware of what the rules say and regardless they will play their games howsoever they choose. When they show up at a tournament with their potentially illegal Russ they may be disappointed if they are asked to remove it, but at least they can't say "I had no idea!"

The Pro-Russes should chill because no-one cares how you actually play your games and you're not going to convince everyone that they can't tell you what to do because that's not what they're trying to do. If someone doesn't want to play against your army because you are interpreting the rules in a way they are not comfortable with, then they have every right to play against someone else without any repercussions.

Seems straightforward enough to me.

DoW

Funny how when this epic Storm hits there are no mods online?

CONSPIRACY!

And COWBELL!

Frazz is on isnt he? i think gonads and aph may be too

You think they're not on? They've got the popcorn in the micro and are fluffing the pillows so they can watch and laugh comfortably.

kirsanth wrote:Ok, but the unit is Leman Russ Squadron, in the IG codex.

Which is not the unit you were supposed to reference, from the WH or DH codex.

The issue is not whether the squadron is a unit.
The issue is that the unit is actually named Squadron.
It was not before. Yes this was a change.
That seems to be the actual issue. The name of the unit changed in the new codex. The name of the models in the unit did not.
You are not referencing a model in the IG codex. You are referencing the unit.

I appreciate your view, I disagree because we can (and should*) infer that ALL vehicle squadrons will have the word squadron in its title. What I mean by this is 2+ vehicles = squadron and 1 vehicle = unit. I fail to accept taking 1 LRBT from that Squadron will sustain it as a Squadron and not a unit**. That is simply asinine and against language composition/comprehension. You are suggesting that GW note somehow that it is called Squadron because it can have more than one vehicle makes me laugh...

I've stated so many times WHEN RaW breaks (as it always does) the game, move on and create a solution on play. if GW fails to do this, then it is our own responsibility.

---Footnotes--

* Lets not forget that we all have reasoning skills. GW hasn't and that is why it is up to us make these inferences.
** The whole its a squadron until it is fired upon is bullshavic and a prime example of how RaW breaks games.

I already proved that a Squadron that begins the game with 1 tank is still a squadron (and follows the rules for them) until shot at. So yea, a Squadron of 1 is Still a Squadron until the criteria for making it revert to the normal rules has been met.

I'm sorry you feel that RaW breaks games. Would you prefer we use no rules?

No mods online? Can I do whatever I want now? PEEEEEEEEE- Modquisition on. Blast it!

Gwar! is correct, and it is completely irrelevant. RAW says you can't take LRBT in Sisters or DH, but most people don't like that. You don't like it? House rule it. Most tournements would house rule it too, and to be perfectly honest you'd be stronger with Sisters allied to IG anyway.

I believe what Gwar! is trying to say ( or how i see it )

He is stating the rules that would make sense with solid proof .

He is saying GW rule should be respected no matter how badly it is. Because rules are rules.

BUT he is also saying he isnt disagreeing the GW rules are awful , but this ISNT gwar's fault . Its GW's.

So play by house rule , or go complain to GW.
neither should be anything to do with yelling at gwar.

And to answer to the question before whether im trolling or not .

No im not , no one on board is worth me going down to that lvl for , and especially not you MGS, sorry but dont flatter yourself.
Im just a by stander here watching people flame baiting gwar , and have sympathy because mods decided to ban him and not the ones baiting.

So, am I the only person that's uncomfortable with RAW analysis being about literal interpretations of words, with no thought whatsoever given to context or meaning? If so, than I'm gonna shut up.

BTW, has anybody ever informed Gwar that his RAW are just house rules? That trying to decipher the one true way to play 40k results in a version that's more alienating and further from designer intent and universality than what most people play?

LunaHound wrote:I believe what Gwar! is trying to say ( or how i see it )

He is stating the rules that would make sense with solid proof .

He is saying GW rule should be respected no matter how badly it is. Because rules are rules.

BUT he is also saying he isnt disagreeing the GW rules are awful , but this ISNT gwar's fault . Its GW's.

So play by house rule , or go complain to GW.
neither should be anything to do with yelling at gwar.

And to answer to the question before whether im trolling or not .

No im not , no one on board is worth me going down to that lvl for , and especially not you MGS, sorry but dont flatter yourself.
Im just a by stander here watching people flame baiting gwar , and have sympathy because mods decided to ban him and not the ones baiting.

-Huggles- yay you understandz me!

Yes, that is exactly what I am getting at. GW write the rules, not me. I have decided to become a staunch defender of the GW Rules when it comes to debates. Are the rules sometimes poorly worded and arbitrary. Yes. But that does not mean you should ignore them.

Personal slights from those not even contributing to the discussion aside, and in the interests of resuming normal service:


The rulebook further states on the subject of squadrons '...operate in units of more than one vehicle...' the rules for squadrons, ie the rules that mark a squadron out as specialised from a Unit, relate to the binding targeting, damage allocation etc specific to multiple models in the unit. Thereby the Title used in the Imperial Guard codex is a catch all for many units, as can be seen under the Heavy Support section of the codex, marked as individual named types of Leman Russ and appropriate individually listed stats and points for each unit type.

There is distinction here, you tell any sensible WH or DH army owner they cant take a LRBT to the table and they will laugh at you for it, it is a highly subjective angle on the words as written. The LRBT has a points value and individual statline, the other tanks are not listed as upgrades for it, but separate entities.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:There is distinction here, you tell any sensible WH or DH army owner they cant take a LRBT to the table and they will laugh at you for it, it is a highly subjective angle on the words as written. The LRBT has a points value and individual statline, the other tanks are not listed as upgrades for it, but separate entities.

But does it form it's own unit called "Leman Russ Battle Tank"?

No, it does not. It forms a 1 Vehicle Squadron Called "Leman Russ Squadron" that consists of a Leman Russ Battle Tank and remains a squadron until such time as the criteria for the removal Squadron status is fulfilled. As such, it does not fufil the criteria laid out in the WH/DH codex. This is a result of the edition changes.

As a Wise man once said:
S*** Happens, deal with it.

A squadron of one vehicle cannot be a squadron by the very definition of a squadron in the rulebook, the very defining rules that bind squadrons do not apply to individual vehicles.

I think luna just summed up what Gwar has been trying to say in a quick and simple post.

RAW = they are rules to be followed, bad rules are still rules, and are even better than no rules.

Simple way of doing it = Play house rules for it and enjoy, check with tourneys before hand on the rule.

I fething hate this part, but yea, Gwar is right (quote it and die Gwar )


MGS, usually i would agree.
but the codex states the entry as a squadren, it makes no difference if there is 1, 2 or 3 in that unit, they have still been deemed as a squadren.

Perhaps gw should just tell everyone to grab a sharpie and insert the word "squadron" somewhere in that description.

It saves them money, and the world can sleep tonight.

A squadron of one vehicle cannot be a squadron by the very definition of a squadron in the rulebook, the very defining rules that bind squadrons do not apply to individual vehicles.

Codex > rulebook here.
the dex states they are a squadren, rather than making an allowence for a single tank.

@MGS: It seems like you're answering a question no one is asking. IG can take a Leman Russ Battle Squadron of 1 containing a Leman Russ Battle Tank. That's not the same as taking a Leman Russ Battle Tank. No one cares whether it's a "unit" or not, it's not called the same thing.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:A squadron of one vehicle cannot be a squadron by the very definition of a squadron in the rulebook, the very defining rules that bind squadrons do not apply to individual vehicles.

I think you need to check your rulebook again. As you can see, a Squadron that has 1 vehicle only reverts to the rules for Individual vehicles if it is shot by the enemy. This applies to vehicles that have a Squadron size of 1 at the start, because they are still a squadron of potentially 1-# models.

Not to mention the Unit name is "Leman Russ Squadron" not "Leman Russ Squadron unless you only have one then I guess we could change the name to something else".

MeanGreenStompa wrote:A squadron of one vehicle cannot be a squadron by the very definition of a squadron in the rulebook, the very defining rules that bind squadrons do not apply to individual vehicles.

Sure they do.

BRB - "If a squadron consists of a single vehicle..."

That's clearly stating that a squadron can consist of a single vehicle. Where is the disconnect?

DoW

EDIT: Rats. It appears that Gwar! is just too fast.

Gwar! wrote:But does it form it's own unit called "Leman Russ Battle Tank"?

No, it does not. It forms a 1 Vehicle Squadron Called "Leman Russ Squadron" that consists of a Leman Russ Battle Tank and remains a squadron until such time as the criteria for the removal Squadron status is fulfilled. As such, it does not fufil the criteria laid out in the WH/DH codex. This is a result of the edition changes.

As a Wise man once said:
S*** Happens, deal with it.

If a tactical squad is reduced to one man, it is a tactical marine. It ceases to be a squad when there is only one guy, you refer to it in the singular. A lone tank cannot make a squadron, it can certainly be a unit, but 1 Leman Russ Battle Tank, is not Leman Russ Squadron, it is not subject to the rules as such. The heading you refer to and cite as proof is a catch all heading for the Leman Russ family of tanks, each is defined, each has stats and points that are separate. The unit of 1 Leman Russ Battle Tank is a viable creation from the list provided, it counts under the rules as a Unit, one unit of one Leman Russ Battle Tank. We have already established that differentiating on the subject of the word Squadron is a red herring. Squadron = Unit = 0-1 Unit of Leman Russ Battle Tank.

The choice remains valid.

MGS, I'm afraid I can't agree here. The last marine is still tactical squad.

The argument needs to be that the rules allow for some entity known as a Leman Russ Battle Tank. The Leman Russ Squadron includes that, and as long as a single LRBT is the only element taken, taking a leman russ squadron should be allowed to WH/DH.

The question really comes down to what's more important: the literal wording of the rules or the actual content of those rules.

Titles of units aren't open to interpretation. They are what they are. I don't know why you would think they could be called anything but what is printed.

Here's a fun way of putting it: Why would GW need to rule it that way for Ard Boyz if it was so obvious?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:It matters a great deal to me that certain people lord it up around here with the notion that they have some divine link to the writers of this game and can interpret this as 'truth'. I don't like gurus. Especially when they are wrong and especially when they are wrong and don't even have the balls to admit they are wrong.

Leman Russ Battle Tank = one of the choices of leman russ for a squadron (squadron, a type of fething UNIT), also available as a 0-1 tank choice for the owners of DH and WH armies everywhere, subject to Lumbering Behemoth rule, can use the upgrades listed for the leman russ battle tank as listed as one of the leman russ squadron choices.


I cannot accept I technically can't take one since I technically fething can, the WH codex, the imperial guard codex, the daemonhunter codex and the motherloving rulebook clearly state it a viable choice. The dreamed up little prohibitive loophole that has been touted here is total nonsense designed with no further use than wasting peoples time and giving the illusion certain individuals are fonts of all knowledge.

MeanGreenStompa, this thread has been repeatedly reported, and in the judgment of this Moderator, you escalated the disagreement into flames and personal attacks. This is a warning. I know you normally do a better job of avoiding such bad practices, but that does not mean I can overlook this one. I also recognize and appreciate that later in the thread you made a genuine effort to get back on track. Thank you for that.

On a more general note, stick a fork in it, this thread is done. Anyone curious for the outcome should look at DogofWar's lovely summary toward the end, which shows up on page 7 for me.