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.

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