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.

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.