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.

phillosmaster wrote:I don't understand what the problem is here?

Welcome to YMDC

The point of RAW is to treat the rules in the most literal form possible. If you argue RAW, you can't tweak things and say "well it's close enough" just because you'd like it to be so. GW makes mistakes and a lot of those mistakes cause irritating problems in the most mundane of situations.

This is a prime example. A DH can take IG infantry platoons and Rough Rider Squad. Those are the word-for-word units that were present in the last IG codex and meant to be allowed as inducted guard. Like it or not, because DH and WH haven't been updated, it is currently impossible for them to induct an "IG Armoured Fist Squad", "Sentinel Squadron" or "Leman Russ Battle Tank" because these units now exist under different names ("Doesn't exist", "Scout/Armoured Sentinel Squadron" and "Leman Russ Squadron" respectively).

RAI, I agree it makes sense to do your own, personal update to the names and agree between friends to allow DH and WH access to these units but that's definitely NOT what is allowed by RAW. You can argue til the cows come home that you should be able to take whatever you want, but in this case you are not supported by the RAW.

To add insult to injury, even if you're an IG player and take a Leman Russ Battle Tank as a member of one of your Leman Russ Squadrons, it doesn't come equipped with a turret weapon. The model with a Battle Cannon is a "Leman Russ" as per the codex. RAW, you dont' get a gun. Now if that isn't a time to discuss RAI with your opponent, then I don't know what is.

DoW

Also to add to the last comment. RAW can and often does lead to unplayable or just outright silly situations. So many do not take RAW all that seriously when RAI is pretty glaring. Dakka excels in making RAW a science and will often come to the conclusion that something is a certain way. In most games and many, if not most, tournaments extreme RAW is tossed right out, when it is pretty obviously not RAI. Like the no turret on a Russ, Cannot disembark from a Valkarie, no doors or BA rhinos and so on and so forth. In most places RAI takes actual president and RAW is used to support RAI. So take all that is said here with a grain of salt. If I believed all that was said in these discussions I would not play this game as it would be unplayable. With a touch of common sense it is a great and fluid game. Just my word of advise on the YMDC threads.

I'm not arguing that this is RAW. I'm arguing it's RAI. People make it seem on this board that RAW is the only way to play, and if you don't you are a cheater. I'm arguing that the rules are now broken and it's not hard to fix it, and except for a minor detail the solution is RAW. These threads should have some basis in reality. I'm arguing that most reasonable people who play this game in the real world will see that the words Leman Russ Battletank appear in the IG codex with rules to field one Leman Russ Battletank and put two and two together. I don't think DH players should sell their LRBTs because GW decided to change a label.

When my tire breaks I don't drive on it until the rim is worn down and bent. I fix the situation.

I'm arguing that these discussions should be more constructive, and not just dogmatic stonewalls. I mean these threads should be the birth place for topics on the proposed rules forum. I think it's very easy to identify something is broken. The question is how are people fixing it when they actually play in tournaments or friendly games.

Phillosmaster, I understand completely and I agree with your well-thought out and logical RAI interpretation of how to remedy an outdated codex. I also agree that YMTD does invariably turn into a RAW headbutting session (I like to refer to these as RAWR!!! sessions) but that's somewhat part of the appeal.

Personally, I'm often glad that there are different interpretations to a particular rule because healthy debate and even the odd argument can be not only entertaining but also informative.

I haven't been a member for very long but I've lurked a good while and it's pretty clear that the biggest cause of dissention in the ranks is when someone attempts to pass their RAI as RAW. Sometimes RAW can be blurry, but there is generally a pretty clear line between what is a reasonable interpretation and what is "interpretation for advantage." I think the latter is what annoys the RAW proponents the most because it's like someone trying to take the way they WANT to play it, and squeeeeeze it into the rules somehow.

This being said, certain people are rather amazingly inflexible (not mentioning names) and there is really no point trying to argue why you think following the RAW is a little ridiculous and what you think is a logical solution. To be fair, I doubt these people are as crazy as they sound, they are most likely playing the Devil's Advocate to both make a point (that rules are there for a reason) and probably have a bit of fun at your expense.

When my tire breaks I fix it too. But I don't replace it with a tank tread because I think it would be cooler. (Though that is an excellent idea...)

DoW

Orkeosaurus wrote: I just take things besides the RAW into consideration as well. Things such as balance, designer's intent, precedence, fluff, realism, intuitiveness to gamer who doesn't research such things, etc. I use RAW for the vast majority of the game's rules, as I'm sure nearly everyone does, but I don't see it as the end-all be-all of resolving rules disputes. I think the lack of support the design studio has for RAW, the 4+ mechanic to "keep the game going smoothly", the fact that many RAW "issues" never come to mind until someone starts to announce them, and GWs evident dislike for useful FAQs and Errata, are evidence enough that RAW is flawed in many ways. I'd like to be able to play a game with well-understood, balanced, non-conflicting rules as much as anyone, but I don't think RAW is a realistic method for trying to attain that. Not with GW, at any rate, I know there are some games that are a lot tighter

I saw this in another thread and I like it.

IMO, RAW can't possibly be strictly applied to codices that are 2 editions out of date. Too many things just don't make sense. Rules should be intuitive; this isn't intuitive, and in an unclear situation the most intuitive (imo) option is to let DH players take one single LRBT.

I also don't see a mandate on this forum that says its is the RAW forum. (shrug).

True, good point Trasvi.

Orkeosaurus' comments are exactly how I feel. Why would I even entertain the notion of playing by broken rules? I understand the merit of establishing what the RAW really are, but I think that's only the first step toward presenting a constructive solution. The debate doesn't just stop there. Nothing is more ridiculous to me than the fact that GW could easily fix all this by releasing official errata for all these grey areas. Especially the grey areas they create by updating their own books. Would it have been hard to have one page describing how to handle old codices that reference the IG codex. Though to be fair I do feel the newer books are getting better, but the poor out of date armies always seem to get the shaft in these RAW debate.

I may seem like I'm upset about this, but in reality I find it so absurd that it's actually really funny to me. I mean that Leman Russ Squadron Wargear entry that reads "Leman Russ" is just comedy gold. I just don't want people new to the game to get the impression that they can't take a Battle cannon for example because GW can't be bothered to properly edit their books.

Trasve wrote:I also don't see a mandate on this forum that says its is the RAW forum. (shrug).

Exactly

I'm glad you're not upset, I don't want people to be angry about forums, or wargaming or any of the above. It's really not worth the stress as real life is quite stressful enough!

My last 'two cents' will be that everyone knows each person has their own limit to which they will take RAW. Some people go to the ends of the earth to play by the exact ruling and in the most literal sense and some people feel free to fluff up their rules whenever it seems they feel like it and everywhere in between.

My point is that you need the hardcore sticklers to anchor the discussion to remembering that this isn't the "proposed rule forum" where you can just make up whatever you want and let people know what you think. It's to find out what people could possibly construe as the actual rule and, hopefully, not be surprised when the next guy (or gal) foolish enough to challenge your forces at your LGS has a completely different interpretation of the rule and won't budge an inch.

I guess I'm just saying that you take everything on here with a grain of salt and of course you'll play the game how you want to play it. But without people who take the most obnoxiously literal meaning of a GW rule, you might not know where in the spectrum of RAW to RAI your own personal ruling falls. And then it's just a slow creep towards everyone just making up rules as they go and that's only going to end in tears.

Without staunch, unwavering leftists, the guys on the right would probably just get bored.

DoW

I'm a strong supporter of a check and balance system. In fact I believe it is usually the preferable way to handle these situations. I'm just trying to check and balance in the opposite direction from the RAW sticklers. I just don't want things to swing too far in the wrong direction, and give people with less experience the impression that the strict RAW stance for broken rules is the only stance, when it is in fact usually not the stance of tournament runners or FLGS groups.

revisiting our previous metephor:

While I don't want to turn my tire into a tank tread, I do want to make my tire work the way it did before it broke. If an answer presents itself that opens up this possibility I believe it is the correct answer.

I both acknowledge and respect your stance DogOfWar. This is probably the best debate I've had on this subject so far. Yes I agree we need rules sticklers to ground our debates.

RAW allows DH to take a Leman Russ Battle Tank.

The "Leman Russ Squadron" entry is irrelevant.

To paraphrase the DH codex: "The following units may be used exactly as they appear in [Codex: IG], and have access to any upgrade options listed there."

0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank is listed in this box.

As per RAW, the core codex for the army takes precedent over everything else, unless otherwise stated.

The DH codex allows you to take 0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank.

Looking in the IG codex, I do in fact find the unit "Leman Russ Battle Tank" listed with a point cost, rules, and upgrades.

"Leman Russ Squadron" is an irrelevant heading as it has to do with army organization in another codex. There is no RAW that says that a Leman Russ Battle Tank is the same as a Leman Russ Squadron; IG players have access to Leman Russ Battle Tanks via Leman Russ Squadrons, and DH have access to Leman Russ Battle Tanks via the "By the Authority of the Eternal Emperor of Man..." rule found IN THEIR CODEX.

Emphasis added to highlight the crux of my argument. Go ahead and try.

I myself, would let an oppenent playing DH to take a Leman Russ Tank, and an armoured fist would be a single infantry squad in a chimera as per IG codex. DH's codex is gimpy enough. They don't get the AP 3 gun on the Inquisitional Stormtroopers, and your paying points to affect the stability tests of daemons. What the hell is a stability test lol.

Furthermore, "Leman Russ Squadron" appears only in the army list of the book, whereas "Leman Russ Battle Tank" appears as the main heading in the earlier army rules section.

Seeing as though the first appearance of Leman Russ anywhere in the IG codex is in the rules section as a unit where the word "squadron" doesn't even appear ON THE SAME PAGE, and the appearance of "Leman Russ Squadron" in the ARMY LIST section of the codex later ( which is IRRELEVANT to the DH codex ) renders the conclusion that I've been right all along.

Faking READ people.

Even furthermore, the IG codex states directly underneath the "Forces of the Imperial Guard" heading: "Each entry describes the unit and specific rules..."

and the "Wargear" section states: "this section lists the weapons and equipment used by the armies of the IMPERIAL GUARD, along with the rules for using them..."

Am I playing an Imperial Guard army? No. What am I looking for? A unit with the name "Leman Russ Battle Tank" with "specific rules."

And finally, to put this to bed:

Gwar! wrote:There are no Points for a Unit Called "Leman Russ Battle Tank", only Leman Russ Squadron. Therefore, you cannot take it. Of course, you can claim the Unit Entry lets you buy it, but as there are no Points in the Unit Entry, you cannot buy the unit.

You are plainly wrong, as the DH codex states "...for the points cost listed there." Where in the codex the points are listed is irrelevant, Gwar, for all the reasons above.

The Leman Russ Battle Tank is pretty clearly listed in the IG codex with a point value that is obvious and beyond debate, yet you invoke it as proof positive of your ridiculous reading of the RAW?

Bingo! Goodnight.

Edited for clarity.

@ColonelEllios - Sir I salute your arguments and I think you have made some valid points.

But since you invited me to "go ahead an try" I'll be more than happy to oblige:

RAW allows DH to take a Leman Russ Battle Tank.
The "Leman Russ Squadron" entry is irrelevant.
I disagree, but I'll humour you to see where your argument is going.

To paraphrase the DH codex: "The following units may be used exactly as they appear in [Codex: IG], and have access to any upgrade options listed there."
Fair enough.

0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank is listed in this box.
As per RAW, the core codex for the army takes precedent over everything else, unless otherwise stated.
The DH codex allows you to take 0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank.
It allows you to take 0-1 Units of Leman Russ Battle Tank

Looking in the IG codex, I do in fact find the unit "Leman Russ Battle Tank" listed with a point cost, rules, and upgrades.
Actually you don't. What you find is a "Leman Russ Squadron" Unit with specific instructions to choose 1-3 of the following tanks below (which may or may not include LRBT models). It is *exactly* the same as the listing for a Rough Rider Squad, which consists of 1 Rough Rider Sergeant and 4 Rough Riders. The individual models are part of the unit. The 'Unit' of LRBT does not exist, the model does, but the 'Unit' does not.

"Leman Russ Squadron" is an irrelevant heading as it has to do with army organization in another codex. There is no RAW that says that a Leman Russ Battle Tank is the same as a Leman Russ Squadron; IG players have access to Leman Russ Battle Tanks via Leman Russ Squadrons, and DH have access to Leman Russ Battle Tanks via the "By the Authority of the Eternal Emperor of Man..." rule found IN THEIR CODEX.
Absolutely and categorically not true. By your own statement above, the 'Units' must be taken exactly as they are listed in the codex. This clearly means you must abide by the Unit rules for Codex: IG. Which includes the requirement that any and all LRBT models must be part of a Leman Russ Squadron.

Emphasis added to highlight the crux of my argument. Go ahead and try.
The crux of the argument is unfortunately that Codex: DH uses the word 'Unit' to describe the rule "By the authority of the immortal emperor of mankind." If they had used 'model' then yes, you could take a single LRBT at the points value and stat line depicted. However, since you must take a 'Unit' of LRBT and it must be taken exactly as it appears in Codex: IG, you are unable to do so, and therefore cannot take the model as per RAW.

Honestly, if we were to play a game, I would totally let you take one... but not because of RAW. I believe you should be able to take one because the intent is clear from the previous IG codices. If you are trying to prove that this is RAW, I think that you are mistaken.

Furthermore, "Leman Russ Squadron" appears only in the army list of the book, whereas "Leman Russ Battle Tank" appears as the main heading in the earlier army rules section.
These are fluff names and do not necessarily reflect the name of the unit nor how it is deployed as part of the Force Organization Chart. Some other examples of fluff names vs actual unit names: 'Veterans' (Veteran Squad), 'Penal Legion Troopers' (Penal Legion Squad), 'Ogryns' (Ogryn Squad), 'Ratlings' (Ratling Squad), 'Rough Riders' (Rough Rider squad), 'Sentinels' (Scout Sentinel Squad/Armoured Sentinel Squad), 'Storm Troopers' (Storm Trooper Squad) etc.

Seeing as though the first appearance of Leman Russ anywhere in the IG codex is in the rules section as a unit where the word "squadron" doesn't even appear ON THE SAME PAGE, and the appearance of "Leman Russ Squadron" in the ARMY LIST section of the codex later ( which is IRRELEVANT to the DH codex ) renders the conclusion that I've been right all along.
Would you argue that you can take a single Storm Trooper as a unit? How about a single Sentinel (would it be Armoured or Scout?). If not, then why should a LRBT be allowed to be fielded apart from its unit just because it is described as such in the Force Details section?

Faking READ people.

Even furthermore, the IG codex states directly underneath the "Forces of the Imperial Guard" heading: "Each entry describes the unit and specific rules..."
and the "Wargear" section states: "this section lists the weapons and equipment used by the armies of the IMPERIAL GUARD, along with the rules for using them..."
Am I playing an Imperial Guard army? No. What am I looking for? A unit with the name "Leman Russ Battle Tank" with "specific rules."
Except that the Codex: DH specifically states that "all units must be taken exactly as they appear in Codex: IG and may only use the options and upgrades listed there." So yes, you are using an Imperial Guard Army, for the purposes of inducting any and all units you are attempting to.


And finally, to put this to bed:

Gwar! wrote:There are no Points for a Unit Called "Leman Russ Battle Tank", only Leman Russ Squadron. Therefore, you cannot take it. Of course, you can claim the Unit Entry lets you buy it, but as there are no Points in the Unit Entry, you cannot buy the unit.


You are plainly wrong, as the DH codex states "...for the points cost listed there." Where in the codex the points are listed is irrelevant, Gwar, for all the reasons above.
The Leman Russ Battle Tank is pretty clearly listed in the IG codex with a point value that is obvious and beyond debate, yet you invoke it as proof positive of your ridiculous reading of the RAW?
I'm not here to defend Gwar! (emperor knows he can do THAT by himself!) but I think it's pretty clear I've debunked your reasoning and disproof of his statement. If you STILL disagree, well then there's nothing more to discuss except that I would be more than happy to let you take a LRBT in your DH army. Not because it's RAW, but because I'm a lovely person.

Bingo! Goodnight.
I'm still trying to figure out whether you're intentionally being condescending in your posts. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, though, because I enjoy debating things that interest me.

Edited for clarity.

All things considered, I must admit I had quite a bit of fun learning more about the colours and text sizes. I'm such a nub when it comes to forums...

DoW

Um, it doesn't say Leman Russ Battle Tank unit.

It just says you may take THESE units at the top which may include:
Such and such for a while,
then:
0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank (note: It does not say unit here)

I'm not sure if I'm completely understanding what you're saying. If I'm missing your point, please correct me.

Some quick word swappage for clarification (edited words in cyan):

It just says you may take THESE flavours at the top which may include:
Such and such for a while,
then:
0-1 Chocolate (note: It does not say flavours here)

It's still clear that chocolate is a flavour, even if it's not specifically stated immediately after the actual word. I would argue the same applies to the words "Unit" and "Leman Russ Battle Tank."

DoW

okay, no need to be cheeky. But you WERE sligthly misquoting. It doesn't mention unit AND LRBT in the same breath. But i see what you mean.

Cheeky? Moi!?

I just like ice-cream, it's my favourite analogy

But seriously, no offense intended. I actually appreciate you having the patience to read my post enough to find a misquote and calling me on it. I think most people probably skim quite liberally.

DoW

lol,
Guilty of skimming here.

But I do pay attention every now and then.

DogOfWar wrote:@ColonelEllios - Sir I salute your arguments and I think you have made some valid points.

0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank is listed in this box.
As per RAW, the core codex for the army takes precedent over everything else, unless otherwise stated.
The DH codex allows you to take 0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank.
It allows you to take 0-1 Units of Leman Russ Battle Tank

Mostly irrelevant. A single LRBT can be and is a unit.

Looking in the IG codex, I do in fact find the unit "Leman Russ Battle Tank" listed with a point cost, rules, and upgrades.
Actually you don't. What you find is a "Leman Russ Squadron" Unit with specific instructions to choose 1-3 of the following tanks below (which may or may not include LRBT models). It is *exactly* the same as the listing for a Rough Rider Squad, which consists of 1 Rough Rider Sergeant and 4 Rough Riders. The individual models are part of the unit. The 'Unit' of LRBT does not exist, the model does, but the 'Unit' does not.

Check pp. 48 of the codex. Leman Russ Battle Tank listed as a unit, in fact a primary unit, with its own heading. Please keep reading.

"Leman Russ Squadron" is an irrelevant heading as it has to do with army organization in another codex. There is no RAW that says that a Leman Russ Battle Tank is the same as a Leman Russ Squadron; IG players have access to Leman Russ Battle Tanks via Leman Russ Squadrons, and DH have access to Leman Russ Battle Tanks via the "By the Authority of the Eternal Emperor of Man..." rule found IN THEIR CODEX.
Absolutely and categorically not true. By your own statement above, the 'Units' must be taken exactly as they are listed in the codex. This clearly means you must abide by the Unit rules for Codex: IG. Which includes the requirement that any and all LRBT models must be part of a Leman Russ Squadron.

actually, the RAW states that units are taken as they APPEAR in the codex: IG. The LRBT appears as a sub-entry in the IG army list, which, mind you, is not the same as appearing in the Army section (that is, everything before the Wargear heading)

Emphasis added to highlight the crux of my argument. Go ahead and try.
The crux of the argument is unfortunately that Codex: DH uses the word 'Unit' to describe the rule "By the authority of the immortal emperor of mankind." If they had used 'model' then yes, you could take a single LRBT at the points value and stat line depicted. However, since you must take a 'Unit' of LRBT and it must be taken exactly as it appears in Codex: IG, you are unable to do so, and therefore cannot take the model as per RAW.

The word "unit," as used in the DH codex, simply refers to unit entries available from other codices. This is why Armored Fist squads can no longer be taken.

Furthermore, "Leman Russ Squadron" appears only in the army list of the book, whereas "Leman Russ Battle Tank" appears as the main heading in the earlier army rules section.
These are fluff names and do not necessarily reflect the name of the unit nor how it is deployed as part of the Force Organization Chart. Some other examples of fluff names vs actual unit names: 'Veterans' (Veteran Squad), 'Penal Legion Troopers' (Penal Legion Squad), 'Ogryns' (Ogryn Squad), 'Ratlings' (Ratling Squad), 'Rough Riders' (Rough Rider squad), 'Sentinels' (Scout Sentinel Squad/Armoured Sentinel Squad), 'Storm Troopers' (Storm Trooper Squad) etc.

The words in bold above prove the fallacy of your argument. The very unit heading in the irrelevant ARMY LIST portion of the codex is now suddenly a "fluff name" now that it doesn't support your point that LRBTs must be taken as a squadron? The rules for how to select a LRBT and include it in the ARMY LIST of your DH army come from the DH codex; they and the rules they refer to are the ONLY RELEVANT rules to this discussion.

Seeing as though the first appearance of Leman Russ anywhere in the IG codex is in the rules section as a unit where the word "squadron" doesn't even appear ON THE SAME PAGE, and the appearance of "Leman Russ Squadron" in the ARMY LIST section of the codex later ( which is IRRELEVANT to the DH codex ) renders the conclusion that I've been right all along.
Would you argue that you can take a single Storm Trooper as a unit? How about a single Sentinel (would it be Armoured or Scout?). If not, then why should a LRBT be allowed to be fielded apart from its unit just because it is described as such in the Force Details section?

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Sorry, I don't think this helps either of us.

Faking READ people.

Even furthermore, the IG codex states directly underneath the "Forces of the Imperial Guard" heading: "Each entry describes the unit and specific rules..."
and the "Wargear" section states: "this section lists the weapons and equipment used by the armies of the IMPERIAL GUARD, along with the rules for using them..."
Am I playing an Imperial Guard army? No. What am I looking for? A unit with the name "Leman Russ Battle Tank" with "specific rules."
Except that the Codex: DH specifically states that "all units must be taken exactly as they appear in Codex: IG and may only use the options and upgrades listed there." So yes, you are using an Imperial Guard Army, for the purposes of inducting any and all units you are attempting to.


Do you dispute that the unit LRBT appears in the IG codex with a specific point cost and rule set? The DH codex is the one taking precedent remember; the fact that LRBTs are only available in the "squadron" entry to IG armies is irrelevant. Please prove otherwise, because this is the point on which YOUR argument relies.

And finally, to put this to bed:

Gwar! wrote:There are no Points for a Unit Called "Leman Russ Battle Tank", only Leman Russ Squadron. Therefore, you cannot take it. Of course, you can claim the Unit Entry lets you buy it, but as there are no Points in the Unit Entry, you cannot buy the unit.


You are plainly wrong, as the DH codex states "...for the points cost listed there." Where in the codex the points are listed is irrelevant, Gwar, for all the reasons above.
The Leman Russ Battle Tank is pretty clearly listed in the IG codex with a point value that is obvious and beyond debate, yet you invoke it as proof positive of your ridiculous reading of the RAW?
I'm not here to defend Gwar! (emperor knows he can do THAT by himself!) but I think it's pretty clear I've debunked your reasoning and disproof of his statement. If you STILL disagree, well then there's nothing more to discuss except that I would be more than happy to let you take a LRBT in your DH army. Not because it's RAW, but because I'm a lovely person.

How lovely a person you are is not up to debate here, though you clearly are quite lovely. I still disagree because the DH codex at no point invokes the "Leman Russ Squadron" clause. I fail to see how it is relevant, as the LRBT appears as a unit in the codex with rules. The fact that it is part of a squadron is irrelevant because that little detail only applies in the army list, which tells you how to play IMPERIAL GUARD not DEMON HUNTERS. All the DH codex requires is a unit with the name "Leman Russ Battle Tank" to appear in the IG codex. The point cost of the unit and any upgrades are taken from the unit entry, and the RESTRICTIONS are clearly stated in the DH codex. The IG codex simply does not apply as far as army organization and force selection apply to the DH army. To simplify that, the only relevant rules for the unit as the DH codex requires come from the LRBT IG Unit Entry (before the "Wargear" heading (p.48)) and the rules listed under the "Leman Russ Battle Tank" subheading in the army list. It is fallacious to derive meaning from the "squadron" entry because it includes rules for Leman Russes that have nothing to do with the DH codex, again, *because it's specific to the IG army, not DH ally rules.* If you prove this (in bold) wrong, I will shut up.

Bingo! Goodnight.
I'm still trying to figure out whether you're intentionally being condescending in your posts. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, though, because I enjoy debating things that interest me.

I am not being condescending. Saucy, perhaps. But not particularly condescending until people start to make up their own definitions for words.

Edited for clarity.

Do you dispute that the unit LRBT appears in the IG codex with a specific point cost and rule set? The DH codex is the one taking precedent remember; the fact that LRBTs are only available in the "squadron" entry to IG armies is irrelevant. Please prove otherwise, because this is the point on which YOUR argument relies.

In short, yes.

I've been re-reading all of our posts and it seems that no matter how complicated and verbose we all get, the issue boils down to one major question: is a LRBT a unit, a model, or both?

The difference between a Model and a Unit is very clearly described on page 3 of the BRB.

A Model is "... an individual playing piece with its own capabilities."
A Unit "...will usually consist of several models that fight as a group, but it can also be a single, very large or powerful model, such as a battle tank, a monstrous alien creature or a lone hero."

A LRBT is clearly a model. I don't think anyone would or could argue otherwise. However, despite previous incarnations of the LRBT unarguably being Units in and of themselves, I do not believe it still constitutes a Unit in the newest edition of Codex: IG.

This is because you MUST take a squadron. Like it or not, that's how it's structured. You can indeed take single tanks, even a LRBT, but they are particular models that are part of a Unit referred to as a Leman Russ Squadron. This is the exact same thing as taking 9 Guardsmen and a Sergeant as what constitutes your Veteran Squad. From what I can tell, I think you at least agree with me in this regard when it comes to a pure Codex: IG player. (If not, well then my next point won't really matter.)

This becomes an issue when the Codex: DH says: "take all units exactly as they appear" and not, unfortunately for the DH player: "take all models exactly as they appear." The fact that the individual models have points, stat-lines, rules, etc really doesn't matter since you now need to take your LRBT as part of a unit known as a Leman Russ Squadron.

I'm not trying to mess with you and I'm not trying to make you look stupid or anything of the sort. I don't have any desire to deny you a Leman Russ nor do I think you should be denied one as I sure as heck wouldn't want to say 'no' to an Inquisitor. I just don't see any other way of looking at the literal meaning of the rules, faulty as a result of edition disparity, or otherwise.

If I haven't convinced you by now, I think it's fair to say I never will. And that's okay, sometimes you have to agree to disagree. Feel free to respond and clarify anything I might have made a mistake about and make any final points you'd like to. I'm not attempting to stonewall or deny you your debate but I think we've most definitely reached an impasse.

DoW

While I agree that DogOfWar is right, I'd like to remind everyone that no one would play that way. There is literally no difference between this issue and the LRBT wargear issue or the Wraithlord wraithsword issue. I see plenty of Leman Russ Battletanks with their turrets still attached, and I see plenty of wraithlords wielding wraithblades. No one is going to play it this way, but it is just not right to say that it's RAW. I do think it's quite obvious that it's RAI though. Hopefully the GW FAQ for the IG codex will give people more definitive direction here.

DogofWar wrote:A LRBT is clearly a model. I don't think anyone would or could argue otherwise. However, despite previous incarnations of the LRBT unarguably being Units in and of themselves, I do not believe it still constitutes a Unit in the newest edition of Codex: IG.

This simply isn't true, by your own definition. All units consist of models, all models are not units. Like bourbon, there is a distinction to be made between categories.

By your OWN definition, a LRBT can be and is a Unit. The number of models in the unit is irrelevant. The fact remains that the LRBT appears in the codex as a "unit." And it is clearly referenced as such by the relevant rule in the DH codex.

If you can prove that the Army List entry, which pertains to the Imperial Guard army, is somehow relevant to the DH codex, then you would be right. But you're not.

To make it clearer, you simply are not right and cannot be right because only the CODEX for DEMONHUNTERS has the relevant rules for including a LRBT in your army. The army list for IG simply does not pertain to the DH, because the "By the authority..." rule takes precedent, as per the VERY DEFINITION of RAW.

If it helps to illustrate the point, Leman Russes taken in DH armies do NOT have access to commander pask BECAUSE he appears as an upgrade to the army list entry for Leman Russ Squadron. You can see this repeated by GW staffers in the 'Ard Boyz FAQ.

phillosmaster wrote:I'm wondering if this is a comedy routine.

no one is arguing a Leman Russ Squadron is equal to a Leman Russ Battle Tank. We are arguing that a Leman Russ Battle Tank is equal to a Leman Russ Battletank. It's clearly described on page 48 of the IG codex. Leman Rus Battle Tank - 150 pts per model, Leman Russ Battle Tank BS 3 F 14 S 13 R 10 Wargear = Battle Cannon. I don't understand what the problem is here?

It's great isn't it?! Rules lawyering to the max.

I can see Gwar!'s point - you can no longer select a unit called "Leman Russ Battle Tank" from the list, so you can't take it.

And even if you could, you wouldn't get the battlecannon. RAW, a Leman Russ Battle Tank has no main weapon at all. According to the army list in the new guard codex, something called a 'Leman Russ' has a battlecannon. But there's no such unit as a 'Leman Russ'.

good thing its impossible to only play RaW....

Looks like we do NEED common sense and basic intention assumption

Can't... resist... argument... the power is too strong!

I think everyone agrees it's kinda silly to actually play that LRBT can't have Battle cannons, or even that they couldn't be taken in a DH army. I would certainly expect to have a gun on mine, and I'd be more than happy to let your DH one shoot at mine with its!

I like talking about RAW because it's very analytical and logical (well, most of the time) but it seems that at times it's tantamount to arguing about grammar and spelling. Most people (including myself) probably wont' be pleased that they've been called out when they use a word incorrectly, or spell it wrong, but they'll fix it next time. Why be wrong when you can be right? But there are a growing number of people that miss the point completely and will say "well you understood me didn't you?" and essentially tell you to frag off. Fair enough, no-one has any right to force someone to change how they speak, but actively choosing to speak or write incorrectly just seems kinda weird and I can't understand the appeal.

Anyway, I'm sorry that was a bit off topic, but I think the two situations are somewhat linked, and I have a feeling that ColonelEllios will never, ever budge, regardless of what happens. If the Emperor himself came down and in all his glory stated that DoW is absolutely correct, I'm pretty sure there would be another post tomorrow illustrating why the Emperor was mistaken.

I'm a bit tired of quoting so I'll just state a couple of points I think are still pertinent:

A LRBT could be a Unit in third edition, but it can no longer. Units can definitely consist of single models, but that is only when the rules specifically state that they are not part of a squad or squadron. A LRBT is no more a Unit than a Veteran Guardsman with a Flamer is a Unit. If you disagree with that, well then I'm sorry but you are genuinely misunderstanding the rules.

As for using the Army List, I don't see how you can take "exactly as it appears" in any other way than exactly as it appears. It's the same thing as taking a SC like Creed. You can't say something like, "Well in the picture on pg.57 it looks like might have a power fist so I'm going to add that to his wargear." Taking something '"exactly as it appears" is specifically talking about the Army List that starts on pg.89.

I can indeed prove that the IG Army List pertains to the DH codex because I can ask you how many troopers are in your Inducted Infantry Platoon? The Codex: DH doesn't tell you, nor does it have any details on pg.37, so you are forced to find the only place in Codex: IG that describes how an Infantry Platoon is structured, which is the Army List.

Everything hinges on the fact that LRBT aren't Units in the current Codex: IG. If they were, there would be no problems (well, except for the no Battle Cannon bit) and I would agree with you wholeheartedly. The language in Codex: DH is outdated and causes all sorts of annoying little quirks but I think it's entertaining to discuss them. I like to treat debates like I treat my games of 40k - I love to win, but it's more about how you play, and that you have fun, than if you beat your opponent.

Now go blow something up with your DH Russ and have done with it!

DoW

Before any game or tournament, you can ask for clarification as to whether 'Ard Boyz rules for allies can be used. They're official GW tournament rules that update the ally rules for the new SM and IG codices. It's not a solution to this overall issue of RAI vs RAW, but for the only national GW tournament circuit in 2009 to allow inclusion of certain units should hold some weight.

When only having one LRBT from the LRS make that Unit a LRBT Unit? I mean I don't call single LRBT a LRS.....

I suggest you avoild the questionable side entirely and rather than take DH with inducted guard, take IG with DH allies. I can't think of how, from a friendly game standpoint, you couldn't arrive at the same list and how from a tourney grade standpoint, you couldn't arrive at a more effctive, less questions list.

I guess there is the whole LR and Exorcist points I just thought of, but honestly, if you are looking at combining, those are really small potatoes.

That's a good question.

I'm inclined to say no, however, since killing off all but the Stormtrooper Sergeant in your Storm Troopers doesn't make him a Unit of Sergeants, he's still a Unit of Stormtroopers that consists of a single model, who happens to be a Stormtrooper Sergeant.

Also, the BRB states that squadrons of only one model revert to standard damage tables (ie. they aren't destroyed on immobilized results and no longer treat stunned as shaken).

So a Squadron can definitely be a single model, but I don't think it necessarily follows that just because a Squadron is a single model, it becomes a Unit of that model.

That's up for debate though.

DoW


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I suggest you avoild the questionable side entirely and rather than take DH with inducted guard, take IG with DH allies. I can't think of how, from a friendly game standpoint, you couldn't arrive at the same list and how from a tourney grade standpoint, you couldn't arrive at a more effctive, less questions list.

QFT

Is also what I plan to do eventually. Though I'm still pissy about expensive chimeras with only two fire points as dedicated transports...

DoW