Lumbering behemoth question

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Slackermagee**

Alright, so I was playing a game against guard and came up on the lumbering behemoth rules for the first time. Reading through it states that they may fire the turret weapon in addition to weapons they are normally allowed to fire. If they move the leman russ at combat speed, will they be able to fire another primary weapon? I did not read this as removing primary weapon status from the turret weapon, just allowing the player to fire other weapons they are normally allowed to fire. The opponents saw the 'in addition to' and claimed that this meant that the turret weapon was NOT counted as a primary weapon in this case. I countered, reasoning that the lumbering behemoth rule simply allowed the LRBT to fire ALL weapons when stationary (as usually ordnance blocks off all other firing) and just the ordnance and maybe a stormbolter/stubber when moving. Dakka ruling?

Here's the actual rule: "If the leman russ has moved at combat speed or is stationary, it may fire its turret weapon in addition to any weapons it is usually allowed to fire".

**frgsinwntr**

yes. if you move at combat speed you can shoot one primary weapon and the turret weapon in addition

**Slackermagee**

Thanks for the quick reply! Could you elaborate on why you think the turret weapon is exempt from being counted as a primary weapon in this case?

**Illeix**

Turret weapons, for all intents and purposes, are defencive weapons with lumbering behemoth.

**Lordhat**

1+1 is the same as "one in addition to one". Simple as that.

It's not that the turret is not counted as a primary weapon, it's that it may always be fired in addition to what the tank may normally fire. I really don't see how you can interpret the sentence any other way.

Then again, maybe it's that 'new math'.

**Orkeosaurus**

"It may fire its turret weapon in addition to any weapons it is usually allowed to fire" seems to imply that the turret weapon is discounted from the restrictions on firing completely. After all, you aren't usually allowed to fire two weapons over S4, but you aren't usually allowed to fire ordinance and another weapon either.

It seems arbitrary to count the turret as having fired in one instance and not the other.

(Also, intent-wise, it seems unlikely that the mentioning of combat speed was only relevant for heavy stubbers; they're not that significant, and there would be a lot of potential for confusion if that's what they were trying to say.)

**nosferatu1001**

Search is your friend - there have been about 3 threads on this.

Essentially the rules tell you how many weapons you can fire at which speeds. The turret may ALWAYS fire in addition to whichever weapons you are told by this chart, so if it tells you you may fire one S5+ weapon you may fire that AND the turret. This even overrides the "no other weapon if you fire ordnance" restriction as well.

Simply put: BRB states X. Codex states X plus turret, therefore codex wins.

**Slackermagee**

From the top:

Illeix - The rules does not state that the turret weapon is a defensive weapon.

Lord Hat - Math? So if I'm stunned/shaken or popped smoke I get to fire 1+0 weapons? This was in the other thread and the synopsis came out: don't use maths.

Orkeosaurus - I think you're right, it would have said 'in addition to any other' if they wanted to include the turret.

Thanks all!

**AffliKtion**

Slackermagee wrote:

Lord Hat - Math? So if I'm stunned/shaken or popped smoke I get to fire 1+0 weapons? This was in the other thread and the synopsis came out: don't use maths.

Thanks all!

You're forgetting the 'normally allowed to fire' part.

**Gwar!**

AffliKtion wrote:You're forgetting the 'normally allowed to fire' part.

Normally is the key word.

So, to recap:
Staying Still:
Vehicle*: Can Fire Ordnance OR All Non Ordnance Weapons
Leman Russ: Can Fire Turret Weapon in Addition to all other Weapons, even if Turret is Ordnance.

Combat Speed:
Vehicle: Can Fire Ordnance OR One main and all Defensive Weapons
Leman Russ: Can fire Turret AND one main and all defensive, even if Turret is Ordnance.

Cruising Speed:
Vehicle and Russ: Cannot Fire.

*Baring Fast Vehicles and other special rules.

**Orkeosaurus**

The Russ only goes 6+d6" for cruising speed also.

**Wehrkind**

Actually, it does sound at first like the turret can fire even if the vehicle is shaken or stunned. That is something I hadn't considered.

It is funny you bring this up too, as over the weekend I was in a tourney and my second round opponant told me that his LR could not fire its turret and a sponson plasma cannon if it moved 6". I thought he was screwing himself (and told him so) but I was dead tired and it wasn't my tank, so we just played it that way. I kind of thought he was giving himself a bit of a handicap there, and now I am certain. Unless he was talking about something else...

**Gwar!**

Wehrkind wrote:Actually, it does sound at first like the turret can fire even if the vehicle is shaken or stunned. That is something I hadn't considered.

No, it doesn't. "Cannot fire" and ""Can Fire 0 Weapons" are very Different.

**Crucius**

So hold on a second.

The russ can "fire its turret weapon in addition to any weapons it is usually allowed to fire", does "any weapons it is usually allowed to fire" include its turret?

**Orkeosaurus**

There you have it folks, the Leman Russ can fire an infinite number of times.

**Slackermagee**

You know Gwar... I'm not entirely convinced by the 'cannot' and 'can fire 0' argument. To play word games, wouldn't the turret be fired in addition to the weapons it is not allowed to fire? Does the "usually allowed to fire" apply to the whole sentence or just the firing of weapons aside from the turret?

It says nothing about when it fires it may do X, just that after moving 0-6 inches it may fire the main turret weapon in addition to any other weapons it is usually allowed to fire.

So now there are three arguments, each support by a different reading of the 'in addition to weapons it is usually allowed to fire' clause and the general sentence in question.

Conservative view: 'in addition to' does not discount the turret weapon, allowing the Russ to fire all ordnance/non-ordnance weapons while stationary and not much else. Seems like a good buff.

Moderate view: Acts as power of the machine spirit but without the escape from shaken/stunned/extra targeting restrictions. Seems like a very good buff. Too good according to the opinions of some people (apparently a few IG players as well!), myself included.

Extreme view: By simply stating that the turret weapon may fire after the Russ moves 0-6 inches, this rule allows all of the above plus the ability to override smoke launchers/shaken/stunned/etc. as only the 'other' weapons are limited by the "usually allowed to fire" clause. Codex>BRB as it was stated earlier. Obviously far beyond what was intended but arguable under the wording.

/0 view: Just no.

**Skinnattittar**

If you read it directly, Lumbering Behemoth says, if you moved at combat speed or remained stationary, you can fire that turret weapon. Then it goes on to say that you can fire any other weapons you are normally allowed to fire under the circumstances. That pretty much means you can fire your turret weapon as long as you either remained stationary or moved at combat speed and the weapon has not been destroyed. So even if you are Stunned/Shaken you can still fire the turret weapon.

Rules As Intended? I would say Stunned/Shaken prevents the turret weapon from firing. But, RAW, it can fire.

**Steelmage99**

Im in the camp of "Turret + one main and any defensive when moving Combat speed".

The LB rule state "it may fire its turret weapon in addition to any weapons it is usually allowed to fire".

How many (and which) weapons is the LR "usually allowed to fire"?
One main and any defensive weapons.

The turret may be fired in addition to this, according to the LB rule.

The LB rule does not stipulate any restrictions (such as the "main weapon/defensive weapon" distinction), thus no such restrictions exist for the purpose of LB.

Turret + one main and all defensive when moving at Combat speed, as far as I can tell.

**Gwar!**

To Claim a Russ can Fire when Stunned is the same as Claiming Orders can be given in the Opponents turn.

Just remember that when you claim it.

**Steelmage99**

Isn't 0 + 1 = 1?

(weapons usually allowed to fire) + (turret from LB) = turret?

**Gwar!**

Steelmage99 wrote:Isn't 0 + 1 = 1?

(weapons usually allowed to fire) + (turret from LB) = turret?

Being stunned does not mean you can fire 0 weapons. It means you cannot fire. LB means you can ignore the Turret when you fire. If you can't fire, there is no chance for you to ignore the turret firing.

**Orkeosaurus**

I don't think "may fire its turret weapon in addition to any weapons it is usually allowed to fire" is enough to overcome the restrictions on firing while shaken.

If it said "always fire its turret weapon" I would go for it, but as is the sentence only seems to imply the turret weapon can fire independently of the restrictions on firing weapons while moving and firing ordinance.

(And once again, I am reminded of the Fleet and close-topped vehicle discussion...)

**Steelmage99**

Yeah, I think my question should have been worded better.

We all know that Codex trumps Rulebook and Specific trumps General.

So is the Lumbering Behemoth codex-rule specific enough to overwrite the general restrictions presented in the rule book?

Lumbering Behemoth: "If the leman russ has moved at combat speed or is stationary, it may fire its turret weapon in addition to any weapons it is usually allowed to fire."

Smoke launchers: "The vehicle may not fire any of its weapons on the same turn as it used its smoke launchers, but count as..."

Crew - Shaken/Stunned: "The vehicle may not shoot (move nor shoot) untill the end of its next player turn."

EDIT: Butterfingers.

**Gwar!**

Think about it this way:
If it can only fire "in addition to any weapons it is usually allowed to fire", if it cannot fire, how can it fire in addition to weapons it can fire?

It can't, because it cannot fire.
This is the exact same as the Fleet/Closed Top argument. Just because it ignores 1 Restriction, does not mean it can ignore them all.

**Steelmage99**

But without being specifically told to, we believe that the LB rule overwrites both the "number of main weapons fired" and the "total number of weapons fired" (as in the original question posed), right?

**Gwar!**

Steelmage99 wrote:But without being specifically told to, we believe that the LB rule overwrites both the "number of main weapons fired" and the "total number of weapons fired" (as in the original question posed), right?

No, it just lets us ignore the turret for the purposes of how many weapons have been fired, allowing you to fire Ordnance+More weapons/2main and all defensive on the move.

If you cannot fire, you still cannot fire.

**Orkeosaurus**

The part where it says "in addition to any weapons it is usually allowed to fire" is sufficient to overwrite those rules. The turret weapon is separated from the the rest of the weapons because it is fired in addition to them. It doesn't count as a main weapon, because the Leman Russ fires "as normal", with the turret weapon discounted.

On the other hand, the only part of the sentence which supports firing while shaken is "may fire", which is akin to allowing units with Fleet assault after disembarking from a closed top vehicle and running.

The specific overrides the general, and the restrictions put in place by the Vehicle Shaken rule are more specific than "may fire". After all, that's not even a new ability. It may fire the turret without the rule, so there's no more specification there than there is in the rules for shooting. The "may fire" part of the rule is only relevant in relation to the second part of the rule, which has nothing to do with Shaken results for a vehicle.

**Steelmage99**

Which is a "Yes, we agree on that".

EDIT: Dammit.

**Trasvi**

This reminds me of the 'Red Orc Vehicles can move 1 inch and count as stationary' argument.

**Slackermagee**

Gwar, the problem is that the wording 'may' fire and not 'can' fire establishes permission and not capability, much like asking 'can I go to the bathroom' instead of 'may I go to the bathroom'.

Also, does 'in addition to' catch the whole sentence or just the end? You could say the the turret weapon, which is a main weapon, has fired; the vehicle is now allowed to fire any remaining options. You could also say that the vehicle is normally allowed to fire all weapons while stationary and so it can fire the turret weapon twice, thus diving by 0 and ending the world. The forum seems to be unable to come to a single conclusion.

Some people look at it and go, "It's simple, GW intended X via this wording." Others look at it and go, "No, no, it's really simple, they actually intended Y." Still others apply bad reasoning, precedents from other codices, etc. and say, "Hey look! It can do everything!".

It's a really, REALLY badly worded rule. In my honest opinion, I think they rushed the playtesting of this alot and subsequently are getting blindsided by rule disputes they didn't anticipate. Another example, hot shot lasguns being referred to as hell guns in the main entry.