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 wrote: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'.

The difference is that 40k is a permissive ruleset; there is no difference between receiving permission from the rules to do something and gaining the ability to do something.

In your example there is an appeal to an authority (may I) and a statement of physical capability (can I), but there's no such division in a set of rules, as what you can do in the game (a capability) is outlined in the rulebook (an authority).

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.

The actual reasoning behind the dividing by zero comment was that the Leman Russ can fire its turret in addition to "normally" firing it's turret in addition to "normally" firing it's turret in addition to "normally" firing it's turret until it has fired an infinite number of times.

It seems that the intent of the writer is for the turret to be excluded from the weapons that can be fired in addition to the turret on account of the turret being unable to fire in addition to itself. Which makes sense, I think, it's just the way the English language is set up. Regardless, having a Leman Russ fire it's turret twice (or an infinite number of times) is so absurdly unbalanced that no TO would rule in favor of it, making it kind of a moot point.

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.

Yeah, Games Workshop in general has a poor track record with this sort of thing.

In the ork codex, they misprinted the number of wounds for warbike nob. Then they went back and fixed the error, but also changed the number of wounds a warbiker has. (But only in one of the three profiles, thankfully.)

Gwar! wrote: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 what I thought until a discussion and I really thought about it.

Consider the Land Raider Machine Spirit:

The Land Raider 'can fire one more weapon than would be normally be permitted' While shaken normally 0 weapons are permitted.
The Leman Russ 'can fire its turret in addition to any other weapons it is usually allowed to fire' While shaken usually 0 weapons are allowed to fire.

The Land Raider does NOT have a rule saying it can fire while shaken. It says because of the rule that it can fire 1 more weapon than normal, it can now fire while shaken (or cruising).

The same logic that says a Russ cannot fire the turret while shaken, also results in the Land Raider not firing while shaken. But they give the example saying that a Land Raider can fire while shaken because its fire an additional weapon. If you say 'It can't, because it cannot fire.' then a Land Raider is not allowed to fire while shaken either, which contradicts the example given in the codex.

Land Raider != Leman Russ

"can fire one more weapon than would be normally be permitted" is nowhere near the same as "in addition to any other weapons it is usually allowed to fire". One allows firing when not permitted, one allows extra when you are.

I don't see how they are nowhere near the same. Aside from the restriction on Lumbering speed I don't see anything in either rule that says that they treat shaken differently than the other.

Raider is normally permitted to fire 0, rule says fire 1 more
Russ is usually allowed to fire 0, rule says fire turret in addition

Gestalt wrote:I don't see how they are nowhere near the same. Aside from the restriction on Lumbering speed I don't see anything in either rule that says that they treat shaken differently than the other.

Raider is normally permitted to fire 0, rule says fire 1 more
Russ is usually allowed to fire 0, rule says fire turret in addition

The difference is this: The Land Raider may fire even when not permitted to due to shaken, stunned or movement. The Leman Russ can Fire the Turret in Addition to whatever they may fire. Being Unable to fire is not the same as being able to fire no weapons. The Land Raider allows you to fire when you are not permitted to fire, the Leman Russ can fire the turret in addition to whatever weapons it is permitted to fire. If the Leman Russ is not Permitted to fire, it cannot fire the Turret in Addition to them.

Gwar! wrote:Being Unable to fire is not the same as being able to fire no weapons.

I don't understand where this part is from.

Shaken says the vehicle 'may not shoot'.
Both rules allow you to fire 1 (more/addition) weapon than normal, just for the Russ its only the turret and not at cruising.

I don't see how firing one weapon 'in addition' to what is allowed is different than firing one weapon more than what is permitted. Permitted and allowed mean the same thing.

Gestalt wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Being Unable to fire is not the same as being able to fire no weapons.

I don't understand where this part is from.

Shaken says the vehicle 'may not shoot'.
Both rules allow you to fire 1 (more/addition) weapon than normal, just for the Russ its only the turret and not at cruising.

I don't see how firing one weapon 'in addition' to what is allowed is different than firing one weapon more than what is permitted. Permitted and allowed mean the same thing.

It is a subtle difference I will give you that, but think of it this way:
The Land Raider lets you Fire when normally not permitted. This means you can fire 1 weapon no matter what has happened.
The Leman Russ lets you fire In addition to whatever could be fired if you didn't fire the Turret Weapon. If you cannot fire, you cannot fire the Turret Weapon In Addition to anything because you cannot fire. When you fire Ordnance normally, you can fire no other weapons, which is different to being unable to fire them. You could fire them, but you chose not to. In this case, you can fire the Tuuret in addition to the Main+All Defensive if you can fire. If you are prevented from firing, LB doesn't help.

Gwar! wrote:The Leman Russ lets you fire In addition to whatever could be fired if you didn't fire the Turret Weapon. If you cannot fire, you cannot fire the Turret Weapon In Addition to anything because you cannot fire.

But thats not what LB says. It says 'in addition to any other weapons it is usually allowed to fire' not 'In addition to whatever could be fired if you didn't fire the Turret Weapon'

Gwar! wrote:If you cannot fire, you cannot fire the Turret Weapon In Addition to anything because you cannot fire.

"turret weapon in addition" = "1 more weapon"

My point is the 'may not shoot' part of Shaken is not ignored by Machine Spirit any more than Lumbering Behemoth. They get around it by shooting an additional weapon when not usually/normally allowed/permitted. The only difference is that Machine Spirit has an extra line (not an additional rule) that since it shoots an additional weapon it results in shooting a weapon while shaken.

Gestalt wrote:My point is the 'may not shoot' part of Shaken is not ignored by Machine Spirit any more than Lumbering Behemoth.

It is, though.

PotMS allows the model to always fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted. It's not based on movement, and it doesn't remove any weapons from the equasion when it comes to working out what the vehicle can fire; it simply allows you to fire +1 weapon in any conditions. Moved 12"? Shaken? Stunned? Popped Smoke? Any combination of the four? You can normally fire 0 weapons; PotMS makes it 0+1 weapon of any type (main or defensive). Moved 6"? Normally 1 main weapon & all defensive ones; PotMS makes it 1 main weapon, all defensive ones, and +1 weapon of any type (which is basically +1 main weapon since you don't need a special rule to fire defensive weapons after moving 6").

The only difference Lumbering Behemoth makes to a Russ' shooting is that it allows the model to fire it's turret in addition to any other weapons it would normally fire, even if the turret weapon is Ordnance, providing it moves at Combat Speed or slower. LB's only effect is to remove the Russ' turret weapon (and any special properties, such as Ordnance, that the turret weapon may have) from the equasion when it comes to working out how many weapons the vehicle can fire. It provides no special benefit when it comes to damage, movement or other actions that affect shooting; Stunned and Shaken Russes or Russes that pop smoke simply aren't allowed to fire any weapons. There's no "+1 weapon" provision in the LB text.

While I think it's wrong that a Russ should be able to fire while shaken as per RAI, I can't shake the feeling that the RAW does indeed support that assertion.

Quoted again just so you don't have to scroll up.

CS: "The vehicle may not shoot until the end of its next player turn."
LB: "A Leman Russ that moved at combat speed or remained stationary can fire its turret weapon in addition to any other weapons it is usually allowed to fire (even if the turret weapon is ordnance!)."

So we take a CS and now "the vehicle may not shoot." Fair enough. The problem I see is that "the vehicle may not shoot" can be interpreted as "no weapons may fire whatsoever." Okay, so the weapons the Russ is allowed to fire are none. In addition to those weapons it may not fire, it CAN fire it's turret weapon.

A random and silly analogy:

An ice-cream store has many kinds of toppings for your sundae. If you get a large sundae (remain stationary) you may choose any toppings (fire all weapons - which includes defensive weapons), if you get a medium sundae (move at combat speed) you may choose one topping (fire one weapon) and any amount chocolate/strawberry/caramel sauce (defensive weapons) and if you get a small sundae (move at cruising speed) you may not have any toppings (may not fire) because you're cheap.

Hungry yet? I am, but bear with me.

Shooting with a Russ is like getting a coupon for your sundae. If you get a large sundae you're allowed to take one of those extra delicious toppings (like kit-kat bits = Ordnance weapon) in addition to all the rest of your toppings. If you get a medium sundae (combat speed) your coupon still lets you take kit-kat bits (may fire the turret weapon) in addition to your normal toppings (one weapon, plus defensive). Cheap, small sundae buyers (cruising speed) don't get the benefit of the coupon, unfortunately (since the Russ specifically states stationary or combat speed).

So now you go to the store on "No topping sundae Sunday!" (why? Don't ask) and get your ice cream. Sadly they tell you they aren't allowed to put any toppings on your sundae, no matter what size you get. Outraged you wave your coupon in their face and say "But this lets me get kit-kat bits, dammit! In addition to any toppings I am usually allowed to put on my sundae!" The store, fearing litigation and violence from an angry ice-cream devotee, hands you some kit-kat bits and tells you to bugger off.

Not the best solution, but better than getting sued. Damn coupons.

Food for thought?

DoW

P.S. I promise that whole thing wasn't JUST for the pun. Honest.

Using LB to fire the turret weapon when Stunned or Shaken is a case of "it doesn't say I can't so I can". It doesn't say you can, either; the wording of the rule specifically deals with movement.

PotMS is a general statement; the vehicle is always allowed to fire one more weapon than would normally be allowed, subject to the normal rules for Shooting (which means you have to treat the PotMS vehicle as a single unit for the purposes of nominating targets, targets have to be in range and LoS of the weapon firing at them, etc).

LB is a specific statement relating to a specific set of circumstances. Trying to use it to do anything other than fire the turret weapon in addition to any other weapon the vehicle is normally allowed to fire (even if the turret weapon is Ordnance!) goes outside the Rule as Written.

Frank Fugger wrote:LB is a specific statement relating to a specific set of circumstances. Trying to use it to do anything other than fire the turret weapon in addition to any other weapon the vehicle is normally allowed to fire (even if the turret weapon is Ordnance!) goes outside the Rule as Written.

Then RAW PotMS cannot fire while stunned either. If there wasn't an example of the rule ignoring stun I can't see anyone treating it different than LB. I'm not really all that concerned with if these vehicles can fire while stunned or not, but that there is consistency in people's interpretations.

This is how it was brought to my attention when someone said LB worked like PotMS and I thought "That can't be right" and looked it up. The issue is that people treat 'permitted' and 'allowed' as different definitions. It may have been intended to be different than PotMS, but both rules essentially say you fire one more weapon than permitted/allowed, just LB says it has to be the turret weapon and only at certain speeds.

Frank Fugger wrote:There's no "+1 weapon" provision in the LB text.

"...fire turret weapon in addition to..." +1 (turret) weapon

Gestalt wrote:Then RAW PotMS cannot fire while stunned either. If there wasn't an example of the rule ignoring stun I can't see anyone treating it different than LB.

Permissive ruleset. It doesn't specifically say that PotMS can ignore Stun (although, if you read the rule, Stunned is one of the conditions which is given as an illustrative example) because it doesn't need to. Instead of making specific statements, it makes a general one. The vehicle may always fire one more weapon than would normally be allowed. No circumstances are to be taken into consideration, and thus the vehicle may always fire a single weapon as long as it has a single weapon to fire and isn't Wrecked.

I'm not really all that concerned with if these vehicles can fire while stunned or not, but that there is consistency in people's interpretations.

That's fine. Consistency in a permissive ruleset is all-important. What you have to do, though, is ensure you're interpreting everything in the correct way before trying to impose consistency.

This is how it was brought to my attention when someone said LB worked like PotMS and I thought "That can't be right" and looked it up.

It's not right.

The issue is that people treat 'permitted' and 'allowed' as different definitions.

Then they are focussing on the wrong part of the text. The pertinent sections to look at are the ones relating to the circumstances under which both rules take effect.

It may have been intended to be different than PotMS, but both rules essentially say you fire one more weapon than permitted/allowed, just LB says it has to be the turret weapon and only at certain speeds.

... and LB is therefore a conditional statement, whereas PotMS is not.

Frank Fugger wrote:There's no "+1 weapon" provision in the LB text.

"...fire turret weapon in addition to..." +1 (turret) weapon

Frank Fugger wrote:
Permissive ruleset. It doesn't specifically say that PotMS can ignore Stun (although, if you read the rule, Stunned is one of the conditions which is given as an illustrative example) because it doesn't need to. Instead of making specific statements, it makes a general one. The vehicle may always fire one more weapon than would normally be allowed. No circumstances are to be taken into consideration, and thus the vehicle may always fire a single weapon as long as it has a single weapon to fire and isn't Wrecked.

So a Land Raider can use PotMS to fire while it's also launched smoke?

Frank Fugger wrote:

It may have been intended to be different than PotMS, but both rules essentially say you fire one more weapon than permitted/allowed, just LB says it has to be the turret weapon and only at certain speeds.

... and LB is therefore a conditional statement, whereas PotMS is not.

LB is conditional yes. If the conditions of speed (stationary or combat) and that the extra weapon is the turret weapon, then you get to fire one additional (turret) weapon. It does not have any conditions beyond speed and which weapon however. With both conditions met, then it becomes "...fire turret weapon in addition to..." +1 weapon

So a Land Raider can use PotMS to fire while it's also launched smoke?

I wanted to ask this too but was afraid it was going to get off topic. I would agree RAW PotMS can shoot through smoke for the same reasons as stunned (and LB but thats besides the point). I just don't know many that play it that way for whatever reason. See every other RAW vs RAI discussion ever. /shrug

This really isn't that hard.

The rule is

IG Codex, p48, Special Rules wrote:

Lumbering Behemoth.A leman russ that coved at combat speed or remained stationary can fire its turret weapon in addition to any other weapons it is usually allowed to fire (even if the turret weapon is ordnance!).

Emphasis mine.

The rules for moving at crusing speed, being crew stunned/shaken or using smoke launchers do not allow you to fire 0 weapons, they do not alow you to fire at all.

This is a subtle distinction but an important one.

Because you cannot fire at all there cannot be an addition that allows you to fire your turret weapon.

It is not a case of being able to fire 0+1 weapons because you cannot even fire 0 weapons.

Being unable to fire means that you cannot declare a target, measure range or do any of the other things that you would notmally do when you fire. This also includes being unable to fire the turret weapon on a leamn russ.

Gestalt wrote:LB is conditional yes.

Yes.

If the conditions of speed (stationary or combat) and that the extra weapon is the turret weapon, then you get to fire one additional (turret) weapon. It does not have any conditions beyond speed and which weapon however. With both conditions met, then it becomes "...fire turret weapon in addition to..." +1 weapon

I think I'm beginning to see where the confusion is arising... what you're suggesting is that, as long as the Russ has remained stationary or moved at combat speed, it is always allowed to fire it's turret weapon regardless of circumstances because the conditions which activate the special rule have been met.

That would be fine; however, where you're going wrong is that the conditions given in the rule are NOT the conditions which must be met to activate the benefit. The conditions given in the rule are the ONLY conditions under which the benefit is conferred. If the vehicle remains stationary, it is able to fire the turret weapon in addition to any other weapons it is normally allowed to fire. If the vehicle moves at combat speed, same thing. If the vehicle suffers a Shaken result and subsequently moves at combat speed, it may not fire any weapons since it has no rule which grants it the specific ability to ignore the effect damage results have on it's shooting rules. LB removes the effect movement has on your ability to fire the turret weapon if the vehicle moves at combat speed, in addition to removing the penalty that the Ordnance weapon profile normally forces upon a vehicle's ability to fire other weapons. That's ALL it does.

PotMS is an unconditional rule, and as such no qualification or clarification is necessary. You're always allowed to fire one more weapon than is normally allowed, and the net effect is that as long as your Land Raider is alive and has a weapon, you may always fire it, no matter what else happens.

So a Land Raider can use PotMS to fire while it's also launched smoke?
I wanted to ask this too but was afraid it was going to get off topic. I would agree RAW PotMS can shoot through smoke for the same reasons as stunned (and LB but thats besides the point). I just don't know many that play it that way for whatever reason. See every other RAW vs RAI discussion ever. /shrug

"May always fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted" = yep. Popping smoke disallows shooting. PotMS says you're always allowed to fire one more weapon than would normally be allowed; ergo, you can pop smoke and fire a weapon. This trick is a staple of some Daemonhunters' builds, and for them it's even more effective because they use 3rd Edition smoke which is completely broken.

Frank Fugger wrote:I think I'm beginning to see where the confusion is arising... what you're suggesting is that, as long as the Russ has remained stationary or moved at combat speed, it is always allowed to fire it's turret weapon regardless of circumstances because the conditions which activate the special rule have been met.

That would be fine; however, where you're going wrong is that the conditions given in the rule are NOT the conditions which must be met to activate the benefit. The conditions given in the rule are the ONLY conditions under which the benefit is conferred.

I'm sorry but I don't understand these last 2 lines, they are contridictory. The conditions given in the rules ARE the conditions which must be met to activate it (by definition), AND they are the ONLY conditions under which you get benefit (again by definition of the rule). You seem to be saying LB ONLY works when at combat or stationary speed, which of course I agree with.

Frank Fugger wrote: If the vehicle remains stationary, it is able to fire the turret weapon in addition to any other weapons it is normally allowed to fire. If the vehicle moves at combat speed, same thing. If the vehicle suffers a Shaken result and subsequently moves at combat speed, it may not fire any weapons since it has no rule which grants it the specific ability to ignore the effect damage results have on it's shooting rules.

What line in PotMS allows it to shoot while shaken? I am saying it is because of "..can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted." which is not a rule that grants it the specific ability to ignore the damage results have on its shooting rules RAW. If there was not the example of PotMS being used to shoot through shaken, what justification or precedent would you use?

Gestalt wrote:I'm sorry but I don't understand these last 2 lines, they are contridictory. The conditions given in the rules ARE the conditions which must be met to activate it (by definition), AND they are the ONLY conditions under which you get benefit (again by definition of the rule). You seem to be saying LB ONLY works when at combat or stationary speed, which of course I agree with.

That's a natch.

What I'm saying is that the effect movement has on the vehicle's shooting and the effect firing an Ordnance weapon has on the vehicle's shooting are the only things which LB circumvents. If you stay still and fire the Battlecannon, LB allows you to ignore the Ordnance rules and fire all your other weapons. If you move at combat speed and fire the Battlecannon, you may also fire the hull heavy bolter, since LB ignores the penalties movement AND Ordnance rules apply to a vehicle's shooting.

Those, however, are the only penalties it is specifically stated to ignore, and as such using it to justify ignoring other penalties (such as damage results) goes outside the RaW. Using this logic I could fire the Battlecannon and Heavy Bolter at a target that was out of range and/ or LoS; both of those conditions would normally disallow shooting too, but it'd be okay since the rule says I can always fire the turret weapon.... right?

What line in PotMS allows it to shoot while shaken?

PotMS does not contain any conditional statements which would disallow shooting under certain circumstances. Because it excludes nothing, the benefit it confers is not conditional; thus, any and all effects that would normally disallow shooting (with the obvious exception of the vehicle being Wrecked or Destroyed) can be ignored for the purposes of firing a single weapon. The vehicle may always fire one more weapon than would normally be allowed following the normal rules for Shooting. The "normal rules for Shooting" don't allow me to fire at targets my vehicle can't see or reach, nor do they allow me to nominate targets for each weapon seperately and thus I have to treat the PotMS vehicle as a single unit when nominating targets, then check range, LoS, roll to hit/ scatter/ whatever, etc etc...

Inb4 "normal rules for shooting say Shaken and Stunned vehicles can't fire at all". PotMS means I can always fire one more weapon than would normally be allowed, unconditionally. The other "normal rules for shooting" have no bearing on the number of weapons a vehicle can fire, but rather deal with the function of weapons I do fire, and are thus not affected by PotMS which only concerns the number of weapons a vehicle can fire and circumvents the usual circumstances that would prevent a player from firing weapons.

I am saying it is because of "..can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted." which is not a rule that grants it the specific ability to ignore the damage results have on its shooting rules RAW.

Again, it's an unqualified statement, and as such is unconditional. One more weapon than would normally be allowed may ALWAYS be fired.

If there was not the example of PotMS being used to shoot through shaken, what justification or precedent would you use?

It doesn't need justification or precedent; it is what it is, and that is an unconditional statement within a ruleset that relies on telling you what you CAN do, rather than listing what you CAN'T do. PotMS permits me to always fire one more weapon than is normally allowed. Because that permission is unqualified by a statement regarding specific conditions, the permission is therefore unconditional, and I am always allowed to fire one weapon regardless of any game circumstances which would prevent me from doing so.

LB permits you to fire the turret weapon in addition to any other weapon the vehicle is normally allowed to fire, even if the turret weapon is Ordnance, if the vehicle remains stationary or moves at combat speed. The permission is qualified by a statement regarding specific conditions under which the benefit is conferred, and is thus conditional and takes other game circumstances into account.

Using this logic I could fire the Battlecannon and Heavy Bolter at a target that was out of range and/ or LoS; both of those conditions would normally disallow shooting too

Nitpicking, but you may fire a weapon at a target even if it's out of range. All that happens, of course, is that the shots automatically miss. The LoS issue I will grant you, however.

I think I've been swayed to the Leman Russ 'not able to fire it's turret when shaken/stunned' camp with this one. I'd certainly still like to! But c'est la vie...

DoW

Considering the Russ is such a seminal Guard model I'm actually a bit surprised they DIDN'T give it some sort of PotMS ability. Allowing it to always fire the turret weapon would make Russes a lot more powerful and pretty much ensure that your opponent HAS to deal with them, whereas the current set-up allows him to throw a bit of bolter-spam into the rear armour and then ignore the whole squadron for a turn.

Frank Fugger wrote:Considering the Russ is such a seminal Guard model I'm actually a bit surprised they DIDN'T give it some sort of PotMS ability. Allowing it to always fire the turret weapon would make Russes a lot more powerful and pretty much ensure that your opponent HAS to deal with them, whereas the current set-up allows him to throw a bit of bolter-spam into the rear armour and then ignore the whole squadron for a turn.

Simple reason why it hasn't got copy and paste POTMS rules is that GW wants some diversity between its armys. It's the reason that chaos get daemonic possession on their LRs (,ect)

I'll be honest and say that I just skimmed the last page of responses. But I'll put it like this.

Say the Lumbering Behemoth rule didn't exist, and the LRBT could only use the standard Vehicle shooting rules...

So if it moved 1 weapon...or 1 ord...

So if the Lumbering Behemoth doesn't give the 1+1, why is in the book, if the standard rule already covers it?

Tri wrote:Simple reason why it hasn't got copy and paste POTMS rules is that GW wants some diversity between its armys. It's the reason that chaos get daemonic possession on their LRs (,ect)

They don't need to copy-paste anything. A similar yet distinctly different ability would've been fine. They didn't get one though, which came as a surprise to me.

@Rangerrob - Not sure if I quite know what you're asking, but the question isn't so much about LB and ordnance but rather if the LRBT (or other variant) may fire its turret weapon (ordnance or otherwise) - if it received a stunned or shaken damage result - thanks to the LB rule's ambiguity.

Yes - LB allows the LR to 'always' fire its turret, provided it either remained stationary or moved at combat speed, regardless of stunned/shaken.

No - LB does not allow the LR to avoid stunned/shaken results for its turret weapon as they prevent the tank from firing at all.

Interesting arguments for both, but I'm leaning towards the 'no' camp. The LB rule doesn't seem concrete enough to override shaken/stunned imo.

In addition, I know the fluff isn't usually something to base your rules from, but it mentions that shaken/stunned results could be the tank's occupants abandoning the vehicle and seeking cover for a turn rather than just sitting inside it. For a SM Land Raider or CSM Land Raider that's cool, the Machine Spirit/Daemon can take over. For the Leman Russ, it's a little more far fetched that it can fire its turret by itself.

DoW