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 just want to make sure I'm doing this right: Lumbering Behemoth allows a Leman Russ tank to "fire it's turret weapon in addition to any other weapons it is usually allowed to fire". This means that when stationary, it may fire all weapons, and when moving combat speed, it may fire the turret + one main weapon (sponson or hull) + all defensive weapons, right?

That's correct. It's virtually identical to the gun drone rules in the Tau Codex.

K tx. I'm just finding some people are interpreting that as move and fire everything, turret + hull + sponsons.

NO that is not the case, it allows the main cannon to fire IN ADDITION to what would normally be able to fire.

Just pretend that it reads:

Lumbering Behemoth: You may treat a Leman Russ' turret weapon as a Defencive Weapon, even if it's Ordanance.

This would make more sense, as the 'Lumberhemoth' rule just repeats the definition of a defencive weapon anyway...

Illeix - except defensive Ordnance would still prohibit the vehicle from firing any other weapon.

Right, so it counts as defencive and doesn't prevent other weapons from firing, even if it's an ordenance weapon.
Meh...

Which is pretty much the same as the rules they came up with - just means it is not reliant upon the term "defensive" staying the same.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Which is pretty much the same as the rules they came up with - just means it is not reliant upon the term "defensive" staying the same.

This is an important statement. Just look at Tau Disruption Pods. The term for a vehicle being concealed changed ever so slightly, and now it is possibly one of the greatest pieces of wargear in the game. And for only 5pts!

EDIT : If I mount my Hunter Killer missile on the turret, does it count as a turret mounted weapon? Meaning, when I go to fire my weapons after moving, does that allow me to fire my Vanquisher Cannon, Lascannon, AND Hunter-Killer Missile?

I would say no to the hunter-killer question.

Shas'O Dorian wrote:I would say no to the hunter-killer question.

I actually agree, but none-the-less, that is simply how I would play it. Could I ask for further elaboration as to why not?

Where you glue it has no relation -- it is its own weapon mount, iirc.

Neither on page 48, 49, nor 102 of the Imperial Guard codex are any weapons described as being hull or turret mounted. The only weapons with a described position at the Sponson mounted weapons and the "pintle-mounted" weapons. Though I can't be certain, I don't think either of those types of weapons are described in the Main Rulebook either.... I think they might be but I am not certain, and there is a lot to read for that. If anyone happens to actually know, I would appreciate confirmation one way or the other.

Modeled on the turret != turret mounted weapon. Turret weapons are defined as such. Unfortunately the IG codex didn't do a good job labelling the vehicle weapon positions... :-/

Well, in GW's defense, it would have required both effort and additional ink to include some simple weapons labelling, or at least something like:

Turret Mounted Wargear
Leman Russ [Widget]:
-[Widget] Cannon

rather than just:

Wargear
Leman Russ [Widget]:
- [Widget] Cannon


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They were thinking of their customers, making sure they could supply them with the cheapest codex they cold. It probably saved them money!

jmurph wrote:Modeled on the turret != turret mounted weapon.

That's pretty much why. Sorry I didn't respond quickly I was in class.

I play guard and I would never play this way, but I have heard some people argue that Lumbering behemoth allows them to fire the turret weapon even if stunned or shaken because of the whole codex overruling rule book, and I dont really have a RAW argument against it

Volkov wrote:I play guard and I would never play this way, but I have heard some people argue that Lumbering behemoth allows them to fire the turret weapon even if stunned or shaken because of the whole codex overruling rule book, and I dont really have a RAW argument against it

That got FAQ'ed. It doesn't work that way and as an IG player, I would never have played that way by RAI.

Skinnattittar wrote:

Volkov wrote:I play guard and I would never play this way, but I have heard some people argue that Lumbering behemoth allows them to fire the turret weapon even if stunned or shaken because of the whole codex overruling rule book, and I dont really have a RAW argument against it

That got FAQ'ed. It doesn't work that way and as an IG player, I would never have played that way by RAI.

While I agree that it cannot fire while shaken or stunned, GW has not FAQed it. Just went and pulled up the 24August2009 FAQ to make sure.

don_mondo wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:

Volkov wrote:I play guard and I would never play this way, but I have heard some people argue that Lumbering behemoth allows them to fire the turret weapon even if stunned or shaken because of the whole codex overruling rule book, and I dont really have a RAW argument against it

That got FAQ'ed. It doesn't work that way and as an IG player, I would never have played that way by RAI.

While I agree that it cannot fire while shaken or stunned, GW has not FAQed it. Just went and pulled up the 24August2009 FAQ to make sure.

Oh! I think you're right. It's in the INATFAQ, however. My mistake.

"fire it's turret weapon in addition to any other weapons it is usually allowed to fire"

RaW I would say that when stunned or shaken it is NOT usually allowed to fire the turret weapon so it still could not fire it. But then again it's all how you look at it, some people could argue stunned/shaken is an unusual circumstance.

I think that the interpretation is that when stunned you are usually not allowed to fire anything. So "...in addition to any other weapons it is usually allowed..." would mean "no weapons plus the turret weapon." i.e. only the turret weapons are allowed to fire.

Like i said, it's virtually identical to the gun drone rules. The gun drone "in addition to any other weapons it is usually allowed to fire" HAS been FAQ'd to say drones can't fire when the vehicle is stunned/shaken.