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:

Polonius wrote:The problem you run into is that there are seldom only one way to parse a sentence or read a word, and even RAW can have multiple possibilities.

This problem is not as widespread as you make it out to be. Yes there are some issues, but by and large there are not that many "game breakers" as it were.

Hardly anything in YMDC is a game breaker.

It's often pretty clear what the author intended, and when there are two RAW interpretations, one of which meshes with the RAI, I tend to give it the most weight.

This is where you and I differ in opinion. It is "pretty clear" to people whenever they want to gain an advantage and "muddy" when they wish to negate a downside. In my view, what the Writers actually write (Plus any subsequent Erratas) are exactly what the authors intended to do. If it was not, they would have issued an errata to fix it.

RAI is like common sense.
It's only sensed by people with something in common.

Assuming that no one would question your assertion that something is "close enough" sets you up to be TFG.
Leaping giving a 12" charge is a better assertion of RAI being used, than the Terminator issue. Most people call me TFG for hamstringing my OWN army with the RAW of that one (thanks Gwar! ), as I would not really call my opponent on it, but am unwilling to build my own army around assuming my opponent will not read details and think them to be important.

Polonius wrote:In this issue, are you arguing that the authors intent in 2003 was anything other than "Witchhunters can take a single LRBT"?

No, that was their intent. However, it was also their intent for Space Wolves to be able to Disembark from 12" moving Rhinos, Shoot one squad and assault the other. Rules change and things get invalidated. Yes this is because GW write slower than a 4 year old, but that is not my concern. My concern is that when playing the game you do not abuse RaI or TMIR. I don't know about you, but when was the last time you had someone using them to try and disadvantage themselves because it was in the "Spirit of the Game" or RaI?

If you want a LRBT, I will Demand to play my Space Wolves as RaI or is my RaI less worthy of use?

kirsanth wrote:Most people call me TFG for hamstringing my OWN army with the RAW of that one (thanks Gwar! )

Yeah, well like I said, people do not use RaI to hamstring their armies, only to boost them.

Polonius wrote:And yes, an LRBT can be bought, as part of a Leman Russ squadron.

(Emphasis mine)I am glad you agree. Now point out the option for a "Leman Russ Squadron" in the DH/WH codex please.

Boy this is getting heated.

Real quick question: If you only have 1 LRBT from a squadron.... is it still a squadron or is it a unit?

I only ask this because it seems THAT is where the confusion lye (lie? lay?). I don't care any which way on it, as (which i stated before) I already know how my LGS plays it.

Gwar! wrote:

Polonius wrote:In this issue, are you arguing that the authors intent in 2003 was anything other than "Witchhunters can take a single LRBT"?

No, that was their intent. However, it was also their intent for Space Wolves to be able to Disembark from 12" moving Rhinos, Shoot one squad and assault the other. Rules change and things get invalidated. Yes this is because GW write slower than a 4 year old, but that is not my concern. My concern is that when playing the game you do not abuse RaI or TMIR. I don't know about you, but when was the last time you had someone using them to try and disadvantage themselves because it was in the "Spirit of the Game"?

If you want a LRBT, I will Demand to play my Space Wolves as RaI or is my RaI less worthy of use?

Your RAI is outdated, mine isn't. This little line of argument is weak, and you know it. What you describe isn't invalidation, it's a change of how things operate. There also isn't any sort of RAW or RAI dispute as to what your wolves can do. The rules are clear, and while the wolf codex was written with that idea in mind, the 4th edition rules almost certainly had SW rhino rush in mind when they neutered transports.

The same can't be said about the other thing. There is no evidence that the intent towards WH's and LRBTs has changed.

People do things all the time. In 3rd I also took my get's hot tests even when plasma was out of range.

You seem to operate from this perspective that all attempts to modify the RAW are for some sort of gain by the posters. Why would a sisters player even take a russ? The Exorcists is way better.

Harkainos wrote:Boy this is getting heated.

Real quick question: If you only have 1 LRBT from a squadron.... is it still a squadron or is it a unit?

Actually, I remember having a Debate about this a while back. Turns out it remains a Squadron untill it is first shot at by the Enemy. Therefore, if you Immobilise it before it has been shot at (via Terrain) RaW it is Assploded!

Of course 99.999% of players don't even realise this, and even I am not THAT much of an ass to call on it (unless the guy was a total dick or a Scientologist, but that's just me)

Gwar! wrote:

Polonius wrote:And yes, an LRBT can be bought, as part of a Leman Russ squadron.

(Emphasis mine)I am glad you agree. Now point out the option for a "Leman Russ Squadron" in the DH/WH codex please.

Oh come off it. You know my point. Of course it's not there. You were arguing that it somehow doesn't exist in any form. It does.

kirsanth wrote:It is funny when people think that nit-picking is worse than making things up.

Or maybe that is just me.

It's not that I think nit-picking is bad... it's nit-picking over a game of toy soldiers.

I reserve serious thought for serious matters. This ain't one of 'em.

Gwar! wrote:

Polonius wrote:And yes, an LRBT can be bought, as part of a Leman Russ squadron.

(Emphasis mine)I am glad you agree. Now point out the option for a "Leman Russ Squadron" in the DH/WH codex please.

Does it actually state in the DH/WH that you actually need to buy the unit LRBT? I thought it just said you can buy a LRBT. Since there is a model called that (as part of a Squad) and it has a points value, why can't I just buy said model and not an actual unit?

Yes, I know that the rules don't work like that, I can't purchase a model out of a unit for the models cost, however it could be determined that the DH/WH entry is actually a allowed break in that rule. In which case, you are allowed to buy a model out of a squadron/unit.

(sorry if this argument is kinda fuzzy/unclear)

Basically, the model exists and even though I am not usually allowed to buy just one model out of a unit, I can in this case because the DH/WH makes the exception.

Polonius wrote:Your RAI is outdated, mine isn't. This little line of argument is weak, and you know it. What you describe isn't invalidation, it's a change of how things operate. There also isn't any sort of RAW or RAI dispute as to what your wolves can do. The rules are clear, and while the wolf codex was written with that idea in mind, the 4th edition rules almost certainly had SW rhino rush in mind when they neutered transports.

You claim "the 4th edition rules almost certainly had SW rhino rush in mind", but unless you actually wrote it, I doubt you know the Intentions for sure. All I know is the Rules changed, and it stopped that tactic working.

Polonius wrote:The same can't be said about the other thing. There is no evidence that the intent towards WH's and LRBTs has changed.

Yes, there is. The renaming of the Leman Russ Battle Tank into the Leman Russ Squadron without an accompanying errata.

Polonius wrote:People do things all the time. In 3rd I also took my get's hot tests even when plasma was out of range.

Your Rules mistakes are relevant because.... (in 20 words or less).

Polonius wrote:You seem to operate from this perspective that all attempts to modify the RAW are for some sort of gain by the posters. Why would a sisters player even take a russ? The Exorcists is way better.

Irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Sisters/Grey Knights players are attempting to take a unit that is not permitted by the rules of the game, citing how it "used to work". This is no more valid than my Space Wolf Example. Neither way can be used, because neither way follows the rules. Access to an otherwise unavailable unit sounds like a Boost rather than a hamstringing in my book.

Polonius wrote:Oh come off it. You know my point. Of course it's not there. You were arguing that it somehow doesn't exist in any form. It does.

The unit "Leman Russ battle Tank" no longer does exist. A Model within the Leman Russ Squadron is Called a Leman Russ battle Tank, but the Unit is Still called Leman Russ Squadron, and thus not a legal choice for a DH/WH army.

Timmah wrote:Does it actually state in the DH/WH that you actually need to buy the unit LRBT? I thought it just said you can buy a LRBT. Since there is a model called that (as part of a Squad) and it has a points value, why can't I just buy said model and not an actual unit?

it says you must buy a Leman Russ Battle Tank unit. As there are no Rules for buying this unit in the IG codex (there are rules for buying the model as part of a Unit with a different name) they cannot take it.

Timmah wrote:Yes, I know that the rules don't work like that, I can't purchase a model out of a unit for the models cost, however it could be determined that the DH/WH entry is actually a allowed break in that rule. In which case, you are allowed to buy a model out of a squadron/unit.

No, nothing in the WH/DH rules says "Ignore the name of the unit and do whatever you want".

The Green Git wrote:

kirsanth wrote:It is funny when people think that nit-picking is worse than making things up.

Or maybe that is just me.

It's not that I think nit-picking is bad... it's nit-picking over a game of toy soldiers.

I reserve serious thought for serious matters. This ain't one of 'em.

And that was a serious thought?


Anyhow. . .
Leaping gives Fast Charge 12.
RAI that means you can assault 12".
RAW that means nothing.

Everyone I have ever met uses Leaping as it used to work.
To jack a related quote from a different thread. . .

willydstyle wrote: However, I don't think it's what the rules say. If my opponent wanted to play strictly by the rules it would be bad sportsmanship to play otherwise.

I think this is probably more clear than what I wrote, and also a good quote.


Thanks for the quote willystyle!

Really? You're honestly claiming that there is no way I can be sure GW knew it was nerfing Space Wolf Rhino Rushes in 4th. The world you live in must be pretty strange, particularly when you can divine intent from a lack of errata. You used to be better than this.

Polonius wrote:Really? You're honestly claiming that there is no way I can be sure GW knew it was nerfing Space Wolf Rhino Rushes in 4th. The world you live in must be pretty strange, particularly when you can divine intent from a lack of errata. You used to be better than this.

No, there is no way to be sure without a specific note in the rulebook saying "We did this to Nerf Space Wolves Rhino Rush hahahahahahaha suck it, love Jervis". And how does one NOT divine intent from a lack of errata. All the Errata and FaQ are easily updated, all they have to do is change one line, but they did not, thus showing their intention that the RaW should be used as is.

And yes, I used to be better. Sadly being gone for 4 weeks doing sweet bugger all tends to dull the mind somewhat.
I am also incredibly drunk, having purchased a Bottle of Fine Dry London Gin and being Unemployed as I am.

Gwar! wrote:

Harkainos wrote:Boy this is getting heated.

Real quick question: If you only have 1 LRBT from a squadron.... is it still a squadron or is it a unit?

Actually, I remember having a Debate about this a while back. Turns out it remains a Squadron untill it is first shot at by the Enemy. Therefore, if you Immobilise it before it has been shot at (via Terrain) RaW it is Assploded!

Of course 99.999% of players don't even realise this, and even I am not THAT much of an ass to call on it (unless the guy was a total dick or a Scientologist, but that's just me)

Entirely wrong. Read the first paragraph under UNITS OF VEHICLES - SQUADRONS. Squadron rules only apply to units of vehicles with more than one vehicle model. If there was only one vehicle in the squadron to begin with, none of the squadron rules are ever applied.

Thank god only .001% of players have that rule wrong.

Gwar! wrote:

Timmah wrote:Does it actually state in the DH/WH that you actually need to buy the unit LRBT? I thought it just said you can buy a LRBT. Since there is a model called that (as part of a Squad) and it has a points value, why can't I just buy said model and not an actual unit?

it says you must buy a Leman Russ Battle Tank unit. As there are no Rules for buying this unit in the IG codex (there are rules for buying the model as part of a Unit with a different name) they cannot take it.

Timmah wrote:Yes, I know that the rules don't work like that, I can't purchase a model out of a unit for the models cost, however it could be determined that the DH/WH entry is actually a allowed break in that rule. In which case, you are allowed to buy a model out of a squadron/unit.

No, nothing in the WH/DH rules says "Ignore the name of the unit and do whatever you want".

Does it actually say LRBT unit? I was under the impression it just said LRBT. In which case, the DH/WH is actually creating the unit.

Maybe I am wrong, but I don't believe it actually says that the LRBT you are purchasing is the unit LRBT. It could just be a LRBT in general.

I am not ignoring the name of the unit. A DH/WH can purchase 0-1 LRBT. Is there a model called a LRBT? Yes. Does it have a points value? Yes. So I purchase it for that points value. It doesn't say take the unit called LRBT.

The DH/WH is creating a new unit out of a LRBT. Its not breaking any rules since it is not taking a LR Squadron.

I can think of plenty of other things that break core rules but their entry doesn't have to say "Ignore the name of the unit and do whatever you want".

jwolf wrote:Entirely wrong. Read the first paragraph under UNITS OF VEHICLES - SQUADRONS. Squadron rules only apply to units of vehicles with more than one vehicle model. If there was only one vehicle in the squadron to begin with, none of the squadron rules are ever applied.

Thank god only .001% of players have that rule wrong.

I'm sorry you mean this paragraph:

Most vehicles fight as individual units and are represented by a single model. 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:

Note how it says NOTHING about Squadrons of 1 Model not using them.

Furthermore:

To represent this, treat all immobilised results as destroyed (wrecked) and all stunned results as shaken. If a squadron consists of a single vehicle when an enemy unit fires at it, it reverts to the normal rules for vehicle damage results.

As you can see, it only reverts to the normal rules if the enemy fires at a lone model in a Squadron. As Leman Russ can no longer be bought as single tanks (Such as the Chimera) but are instead bought in Squadrons of 1-3, the squadron rules apply to them until it is fired upon.

Gwar! wrote:Furthermore, your blatant personal attack (Calling me Arrogant) is unwarranted and not permitted. I am not arrogant. Arrogance implies I am wrong a lot but think I am right, whereas I am actually right pretty much 100% of the time, because I rigidly stick to rules that can be cited and backed up, rather than making up rules to play along with RaI.

Reference: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrogant

* Main Entry: ar·ro·gant
* Pronunciation: \-gənt\
* Function: adjective
* Etymology: Middle English, from Latin arrogant-, arrogans, present participle of arrogare
* Date: 14th century

1 : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner <an arrogant official>

I see nothing in the definition about being correct. Arrogance denotes pride and exaggeration of self worth. I thing stating that you are not arrogant because you are always right... well let the reader decide.

Timmah wrote:Does it actually say LRBT unit?

Yes, it says "The following UNITS may be taken from Codex:..." The LRBT is no longer a unit in the Imperial Guard Codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Green Git wrote:I see nothing in the definition about being correct. Arrogance denotes pride and exaggeration of self worth. I thing stating that you are not arrogant because you are always right... well let the reader decide.

Arrogance implies unworthy Pride or excessive pride. I feel that I have the right to be proud of my debating skills and my track record here on Dakka, or do you think I am wrong in feeling this way? I certainly do not feel my pride is "excessive".

Furthermore good sir, I would appreciate if you linked to a Proper English Dictionary when citing definitions. That is all.

To the OP, yes, you may take a Leman Russ with your WH or DH army, your codex clearly states that, refer to the Imperial Guard codex for the appropriate points cost of one Leman Russ.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:To the OP, yes, you may take a Leman Russ with your WH or DH army, your codex clearly states that, refer to the Imperial Guard codex for the appropriate points cost of one Leman Russ.

No, the WH/DH codex says you may look to the Imperial Guard codex for the Unit called "Leman Russ Battle Tank", not what you are stating. As the LRBT is no longer a unit, you may not take one.

Best Thread EVAR!1!!!!!11!!!!!

Oh, and to the OP: You can if you and your opponent decide you can. End of story.

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:To the OP, yes, you may take a Leman Russ with your WH or DH army, your codex clearly states that, refer to the Imperial Guard codex for the appropriate points cost of one Leman Russ.

No, the WH/DH codex says you may look to the Imperial Guard codex for the Unit called "Leman Russ Battle Tank", not what you are stating. As the LRBT is no longer a unit, you may not take one.

The codex states your army may include a Leman Russ, therefore you can obtain the relevant points cost and stat line for the Leman Russ in the Imperial Guard codex.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:To the OP, yes, you may take a Leman Russ with your WH or DH army, your codex clearly states that, refer to the Imperial Guard codex for the appropriate points cost of one Leman Russ.

No, the WH/DH codex says you may look to the Imperial Guard codex for the Unit called "Leman Russ Battle Tank", not what you are stating. As the LRBT is no longer a unit, you may not take one.

The codex states your army may include a Leman Russ, therefore you can obtain the relevant points cost and stat line for the Leman Russ in the Imperial Guard codex.

No, it does not. The exact wording is "The following units may be used in a Daemonhunters Army..."

It does not say "You may take a Leman Russ Model", it says you may take the unit called "Leman Russ Battle Tank". There is no such unit with that name in the current IG Codex. If you could find one, I would be much obliged, as All I can find is the Leman Russ Squadron, which is similar, but not what is named in the DH/WH codexes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Green Git wrote:Oh, and to the OP: You can if you and your opponent decide you can. End of story.

He and his opponent can also decide to make Marines S10. Doesn't mean it's the Rules as Written (bar the Abuse of TMIR).

"The following units. . ." I think is the related text in the DH.

LRBT is no longer a unit in the IG codex, but it is the unit refered to in the DH.

As for WH. . . Do they even have the LRBT option? I am actually missing it.

In any case, why not have the DH join a guard army, if you really want the tanks?

Or just assume that your opponent either cannot read, or thinks details are not important, as many are telling you to.
I generally think that is a bad idea though.

WH have the rules on Page 26, by their HQ's, in a totaly different place to the DH codex, which are by their Troops/FA. The wording is Totally Identical however. (Swapping SoB, Grey Knights etc)

Oddly, I read the part on pg25, and TOTALLY missed the sidebar on the next page.

^^

Apparently details are important.

Can you take one, just one Leman Russ as a squadron? If so, understand how many points that single Leman Russ will cost and pay those points for the Leman Russ battle tank in your WH/DH army.


Your differentiating between the use of the word unit and squadron is irrelevant when discussing 1 tank. 1 tank is a unit of 1, or a squadron of 1, it's still 1 battle tank and you may field it with the WH/DH armies.

OP, you may field your tank, your Codex allows you to field your one Leman Russ. It's postion on the pages of the newer codex for the impG has changed, you just use the stats and pay the points cost for it.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Can you take one, just one Leman Russ as a squadron?

Not according to the WH/DH. . . You need a unit.

shrug

Gwar! wrote:

Harkainos wrote:Boy this is getting heated.

Real quick question: If you only have 1 LRBT from a squadron.... is it still a squadron or is it a unit?

Actually, I remember having a Debate about this a while back. Turns out it remains a Squadron untill it is first shot at by the Enemy. Therefore, if you Immobilise it before it has been shot at (via Terrain) RaW it is Assploded!

Of course 99.999% of players don't even realise this, and even I am not THAT much of an ass to call on it (unless the guy was a total dick or a Scientologist, but that's just me)

HA... Scientologists!


/on track

So... I cannot take a single LRBT because it is a squadron at the time of purchase... but if the enemy shot at it is a unit and therefore purchasable.

Sounds playable.

I suppose I should model the bullet holes in the LRBT to explain that it was in fact shot it prior to purchase. Like a used/preowned LRBT.

I'm just being facetious.

/game on

kirsanth wrote:"The following units. . ." I think is the related text in the DH.

Yea, I don't have the DH/WH codex handy atm, but if this is indeed the exact wording, than Kirsanth is right, and you cannot take a LRBT.