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.

In the circles I play with, written rules are used. If it is not written, it is not used.

Whenever there are issues, because of this, we can reference text instead of opinion and bias.

When the text is actually changed, we realize the rules change with them. This has caused (and I daresay will continue to cause) some confusion and mistakes. Thankfully, since we have actual text to use to figure out what the changes do, the problems rarely go on for long.

In the (amazingly rare) cases when the text is simply vague or lacking we figure out ways to work it out amoungst ourselves and then make a note about it. In every game I play with new/random people I bring out my notes to compare, question, and talk about- before the game starts, I actually include many "obvious" issues that I notice people tending to overlook about my own army as well.

Oddly this is the same process we use when making changes to ACTUAL rules for our campaigns/fun/whimsy. Allowing DH/WH to take the unit Leman Russ Squadron is an example of this, as is allowing Tyranids with Leaping to charge 12".

As for the Monolith Deepstrike issue, that was another example of over-looked rules. Now that we have all read that a few times, it seems painfully obvious that DSing Monoliths got nerfed (Yea, the Necrons needed that), but the Necron player with us? He shrugged, said "That stinks, but thats the way the rules work now", and moved on. It is one (more) reason he is awaiting a new codex. It is not a reason (in his mind) to complain and insist we change the rules so that he can continue using outdated startegies and rules.

As for discussing rules in YMDC, I do not bring up my house rules as an example of rules I think anyone else should use. YMDC, as I have understood it, is about understanding the rules in 40k. House rules are acceptable in 40k, but they are not a rule - the game works well enough without them. Although, apparently and admittedly many disagree with that assesment, I really do not understand why.

YMMV

All this has been said before, so I don't want to rehash old points. Would I allow a DH player to take a LRBT? Probably, if it's taken in the spirit of the original (i.e. a single tank, standard fittings as per the previous edition, no new toys). Someone deliberately tweaking the system for pure advantage would be a fast way for me to find someone else to play against.

The whole necron thing cannot be placed in the same basket, because it really does work under the new edition, without breaking, or indeed bending any existing rules - it just doesnt work the same way as before, which some necron players don't like. Before I get accused of having double standards, changing the IG codex broke the LRBT for DH's, so I feel comfortable houseruling it. The new edition doesn't 'break' the monolith, makes it slightly less effective, yes, broken, no.

Also, are there really that many DH/WH players that take LRBTs? I ask seriously because I only know four players of those lists and no-one seems to even want to take one (including myself - yes I play WH and no, I'm not being partisan here because I really don't care if WH get to take LRBTs or not, I never will). Are they really that tactically advantageous?

unistoo wrote:Are they really that tactically advantageous?

IMO no, you can get more bodies and guns with their points. Having Armor 14 is very nice.

I think the 'yaysayers' feel limited without it as an option, regardless of its tactical advantages/disadvantages.

Mannahnin wrote:Gwar, whether the rules work "just fine" in this case is a subjective judgment, in which your opinion is clearly not the only one.

Implying that an attempt to apply GW's 'Ard Boyz ruling, or to craft a workable house rule to allow access to a unit previously allowed in the codex, is "abusing" the rule, is inflammatory and inappropriate.

You misunderstand. When I say "Just fine", I mean the RaW work. They Work as Written. What the problem is is that people do not like HOW it is written, so want to change it. So, apologies if saying what the rules say is "inflammatory and inappropriate." May I take this as permission to Mod Report anyone who writes what the rules say?

Harkainos wrote:

unistoo wrote:Are they really that tactically advantageous?

IMO no, you can get more bodies and guns with their points. Having Armor 14 is very nice.

I think the 'yaysayers' feel limited without it as an option, regardless of its tactical advantages/disadvantages.

QFT

But if you're 'supposed' to be allowed to take a LRBT, and the unit listing is "close enough" then what's stopping you taking an Armoured Fist Squad? We all know it's made of a squad of troopers (which has a points cost in the new codex) and a chimera (which has a points cost in the new codex) so what's stopping you from saying that that is "close enough" to let you take as well?

I know it's not the same thing, but my point stands. These kind of discussions aren't about how you should play with your friends. They're about how other people play their games which, in turn, can give you an idea about a general consensus of rulings. Even if the Emperor himself descended from his golden throne and said "Thou shalt not take a LRBT in a DH army!" it wouldn't stop you from playing howsoever you choose with your buddies and when you agree with your opponent beforehand. Are you really that concerned about what someone says on the internet that you have to re-re-hash this question again?

I guess I can sum my thoughts up thusly:

No-one (including Gwar!) is going to come to your house, see your Inquisitorial LRBT, say "WTF!?", proceed to smash it to tiny bits, and then take a dump on your floor.

Really, they won't. You can sleep soundly in this knowledge.

DoW

gwar would smash it but he'd only pee on your floor

But. . . But. . .

kirsanth wrote:But. . . But. . .

Yes, I feel like that guy sometimes.

kirsanth wrote:But. . . But. . .

[i]Link removed due to profanity in the URL. - Iorek[/url]

I am that guy...lol.

Anyway, surely the point of this forum is to debate what the Rules actually say, until that breaks down. Too often I see wrong interpretations based on previous editions, misreading, or just stupidity.

In this particular situation, I'd allow a WH/DH player to take any variant of LR that appears in that entry of the Codex, and of any squad size permitted by said entry, just like the rule intends, as, in this case, it clearly breaks down and is intended in a way that literally doesn't work otherwise.

As an aside, I do not regularly use the INAT FAQ, as it ahs a number of issues I disagree on - it's like Amnesty. I'm never going to call myself a true supporter until all of the beliefs align with my own...strangely, it'd be easier to do this with Amnesty...

But that's the thing DOW, the discussion in this area of the forum has become entirely RaW centric, the notion that you cannot take a leman russ now due to the name of the unit apparently changing is foolish to a large amount of people, the conclusion that has been reached by myself and others is that when whoever wrote the Imp Guard codex wrote it and put it together, the inquisition codices weren't even consulted, the army was indeed playtested but it would not surprise me at all to learn that no consideration was given to those ancient tomes. So, we are left with a lack of coherency which is then held up as a change to the rules where no change to the rules for the construction of the WH/DH.

So the 'you make the call' is a call to all players of the game, the name of this section of the forum is even a request to make a judgement or assess. To provide your feedback on what was intended, you can do this by cross referencing books or simply stating the logical course of action as you see it. There is no ultimate truth here, there is just consensus to move in one direction by a majority.

And if they were consulted, and found to be worth changing the unit names so that they couldn't use LRBT any more?

Why the IG codex was the place to put the change into.

That seems as logical as assuming the writers meant to write different words than they actually did.

Many codecii had things left out in the 5e change, and most folks are fine accepting it.

Edited to actually make sense.

MGS: What about the people who want to know what the rules actually say so they can make their own choice on how to deal with it? Should be just ignore them and force them to play with your house rules?

kirsanth wrote:And if they were consulted, and found to be worth changing the unit names so that they could use LRBT any more?

Why the IG codex was the place to put the change into.

No, the next WH/DH or whatever the feth they will be turned into in their next incarnation codices will be the place to list that. They would not mention how it affects an entirely different codex within the Imperial Guard codex. The changing of the Leman Russ unit to incorporate squadron rules in groups of more than one was an intentional change to the way in which imperial guard armies were meant to be played, it was not instigated to alter the composition of another codex or we would have had a footnote or a 'little grey box' of text about it, we didn't.

No, we should tell them what the rule says, and our opinion should only ever be secondary to that.

Elessar wrote:No, we should tell them what the rule says, and our opinion should only ever be secondary to that.

Elessar has discovered my Secret! Now I have to get MI5 on you!

MeanGreenStompa wrote:But that's the thing DOW, the discussion in this area of the forum has become entirely RaW centric, the notion that you cannot take a leman russ now due to the name of the unit apparently changing is foolish to a large amount of people, the conclusion that has been reached by myself and others is that when whoever wrote the Imp Guard codex wrote it and put it together, the inquisition codices weren't even consulted, the army was indeed playtested but it would not surprise me at all to learn that no consideration was given to those ancient tomes. So, we are left with a lack of coherency which is then held up as a change to the rules where no change to the rules for the construction of the WH/DH.

So the 'you make the call' is a call to all players of the game, the name of this section of the forum is even a request to make a judgement or assess. To provide your feedback on what was intended, you can do this by cross referencing books or simply stating the logical course of action as you see it. There is no ultimate truth here, there is just consensus to move in one direction by a majority.

Don't get me wrong, it's great to discuss how you interpret the rules and how you play - in fact, that's the whole reason for YMDC.

I just have a problem with people trying to convince other people that their interpretation is the right one. RAW is generally a good fall-back because it relies on pretty straightforward evidence that is right there on the page. I will grant you that there are situations that are very confusing and complicated and the RAW don't fully cover every scenario. In that situation it makes sense to make a logical interpretation and okay it with your opponent before the battle, but that doesn't mean you should just treat every rules question as a What Would Jervis Do (WWJD)?

Like it or not, the rules for the LRBT are not so inexplicable that you can't say "well this is what the rules say, so let's do that." It may have been silly on GW's part, it may be completely not what they intended, it may not make sense in the world of 40k and it may piss you off to no end, but that's what they say. If the RAW is fully functional and doesn't allow something, then you must abide by them or find someone who is willing to accept your interpretation and subsequent house rule. It's neither appropriate or warranted for someone to say "well this is how everyone should play it, and if you disagree then you're wrong" when it comes to an interpretation.

Take this with a grain of salt, of course, because I love debating as much as the next guy. I just like doing it when the rules aren't clear enough to come to a conclusion.

DoW

Gwar! wrote:MGS: What about the people who want to know what the rules actually say so they can make their own choice on how to deal with it? Should be just ignore them and force them to play with your house rules?

Your slant on what i am saying is somewhat partisan, I will reiterate for you.

There is no rule in writing that says, anywhere in the publications of GW, that the leman russ tank choice for either inquisition codex has been revoked. It says that precisely no times, anywhere, in GWs publications, as written.

You have interpreted the change of the unit's ruleset to disallow it, GW has never said that a unit's ruleset changing affects it's inclusion. You are not say 'what the rules actually say', you are instead interpreting what the lack of ruling means, others have done the same as you and come to a different opinion, including the GW sanctioned tournament organisers for 'Ard Boyz, according to their interpretation of the lack of rules, you are wrong.

Elessar wrote:No, we should tell them what the rule says, and our opinion should only ever be secondary to that.

Behold! I have taken what this man has written, and repeated it so that all may come to know its wisdom and learn from its example.

Or QFT.

This is the point of YMDC - Yes, sometimes the rules are silly, but they are the only common ground between two strangers who meet across the table. Ideally both players will be well versed in the rules so that they can have a proper discussion before and during the game,with relevant, supported knowledge. This is what I've found so useful about engaging in discussions here. That, and it's increased my knowledge of the minutiae of the rules no end

If BatReps are any indication, the Staffers don't play by RAW either. In fact, having played a playtester, they're not all that.

Frankly, I think Gwar!, myself, DeathKlokk, and a handful of others, should be the playtesters for everything, and write all the rules ourselves. Then you wouldn't have anything to complain about, except that the rules were too restrictive.

Remember how many people left at the end of 2nd - partly because it was so changed, because it was simplified, but also because the rules were more about what could be done than telling the story as was the case in 2nd. GW can't afford an exodus like that, and just because those of us who want clearer, 'proper' rules and a better FAQ system are LOUDER, doesn't mean we are the majority.

There is no rule in writing that says, anywhere in the publications of GW, that the leman russ tank choice for either inquisition codex has been revoked.

There is also no rule disalowing me to smash your miniatures with a hammer.

There is no rule saying you can't take Armoured Fist Squads either, are you saying the rules let you still take them?

In case you had not noticed, GW did revoke it, when they changed the IG Codex.

DogOfWar wrote:Don't get me wrong, it's great to discuss how you interpret the rules and how you play - in fact, that's the whole reason for YMDC.

I just have a problem with people trying to convince other people that their interpretation is the right one. RAW is generally a good fall-back because it relies on pretty straightforward evidence that is right there on the page. I will grant you that there are situations that are very confusing and complicated and the RAW don't fully cover every scenario. In that situation it makes sense to make a logical interpretation and okay it with your opponent before the battle, but that doesn't mean you should just treat every rules question as a What Would Jervis Do (WWJD)?

Like it or not, the rules for the LRBT are not so inexplicable that you can't say "well this is what the rules say, so let's do that." It may have been silly on GW's part, it may be completely not what they intended, it may not make sense in the world of 40k and it may piss you off to no end, but that's what they say. If the RAW is fully functional and doesn't allow something, then you must abide by them or find someone who is willing to accept your interpretation and subsequent house rule. It's neither appropriate or warranted for someone to say "well this is how everyone should play it, and if you disagree then you're wrong" when it comes to an interpretation.

Take this with a grain of salt, of course, because I love debating as much as the next guy. I just like doing it when the rules aren't clear enough to come to a conclusion.

DoW

See, it's fairly clear for me, the rules in the Inq codices are saying you may take 0-1 leman russ battle tank (vanilla) you pay the points for it and it has the stats as presented in the Imperial Guard book, I open the imperial guard book, there is a Leman Russ Battle Tank (the vanilla one) it has a points value, a series of stats and a ruleset, the only thing changed from the last codex to this one is that if the unit comprises of more than one tank, it will be subject to the squadron rules, fair enough say I, cos the Inq codice won't let me take more than one, those rules are spurious to my tank. The idea that the heading the tanks in the impG codex come under says the word squadron and thereby this renders the choice null and void is totally alien. The choice is still entirely valid, it hasn't ceased as an option, unlike the boys in chimeras. The Leman Russ battle tank, by name, has a points value next to it, it exists. It counts as a unit in the Inq rulebooks.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:It counts as a unit in the Inq rulebooks.

But, it doesn't exist as a Unit in the Inq books At all. It says to look for them in the IG Codex, where it no longer exists. By Extension, it no longer exists in the Inq codexes either, just like Armoured Fist Squads.

Gwar! wrote:

There is no rule in writing that says, anywhere in the publications of GW, that the leman russ tank choice for either inquisition codex has been revoked.

There is also no rule disalowing me to smash your miniatures with a hammer.

There is no rule saying you can't take Armoured Fist Squads either, are you saying the rules let you still take them?

In case you had not noticed, GW did revoke it, when they changed the IG Codex.

Subtle, I like it.
Does the armoured fist squad appear anywhere in the codex with a points value attached? no
Does the leman russ battle tank appear anywhere in the codex with a points value attached? yes
GW did not revoke, no edict or instruction or FAQ was issued, now who's speaking for the company?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:It counts as a unit in the Inq rulebooks.

But, it doesn't exist as a Unit in the Inq books At all. It says to look for them in the IG Codex, where it no longer exists. By Extension, it no longer exists in the Inq codexes either, just like Armoured Fist Squads.

Is there a Leman Russ Battle Tank named under the Heavy Support section of the imperial guard codex? YES, with a points value? YES

Are there armoured fist squads? NO

C'mon, it isn't rocket science.

In the end, it is based ENTIRELY on where you play, and what your friends agree upon.

But, I'd like to throw my $0.02 into this, because I'm eating Swedish Meatballs.

It is clear that, in 5th edition 40K, the second edition caveat of 'Codex overrules Rulebook' is firmly back in play. Even the INAT FAQ mentions this as their primary guideline, in their afterword. So, if you take that into account:

1) Monolith's Deep Striking Rule overrides the Mishap table.

2) WH/DH 0-1 Leman Russ overrides the IG Codex.

The only real discussion is 'what kind of Leman Russ'? Well, in the previous IG Codex, there were several variants, so which did your group allow a WH/DH Army to take? My group allowed any of the options, as WH/DH were played as elite armies, tapping the Authority of the Inquisition blah blah blah.

Your Mileage May Vary.

--Brian

MeanGreenStompa wrote:[
Subtle, I like it.
Does the armoured fist squad appear anywhere in the codex with a points value attached? no
Does the leman russ battle tank appear anywhere in the codex with a points value attached? yes
GW did not revoke, no edict or instruction or FAQ was issued, now who's speaking for the company?

The tank may appear, but not the unit "Leman Russ Battle Tank" Which the WH/DH codex explicitly asks for.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:It counts as a unit in the Inq rulebooks.

But, it doesn't exist as a Unit in the Inq books At all. It says to look for them in the IG Codex, where it no longer exists. By Extension, it no longer exists in the Inq codexes either, just like Armoured Fist Squads.

Is there a Leman Russ Battle Tank named under the Heavy Support section of the imperial guard codex? YES, with a points value? YES

Are there armoured fist squads? NO

C'mon, it isn't rocket science.

But there are no Leman Russ Battle Tank Units. No, it isn't rocket science, which Is why I do not understand why you cannot see that.

There Are Four Lights!!!!111!

The use of the term unit incorporates the subcategory of squadron, the leman russ battle tank unit exists in the WH/DH army, as does it's restriction to 0-1. The Battle tank type of leman russ is available, under the Heavy Support choices in the imperial guard codex. Once you have purchased the leman russ battle tank from the imperial guard codex, it is a unit of 0-1 in the WH/DH rules.

See, your version, my version and ard boyz versions, all different. Yours relies on percieved change of title, mine on what my codex is telling me and the fact I can reference rules and appropriate points cost from the new codex same as the old one and ard boyz on the choice in the codex for imp g going from 1 to 1-3. Theirs is likely to become the FAQ answer (if we ever get one).

From where I am standing your view of this is like saying 'yes, they said you can take a leman russ, but they referenced the wrong page, since there is no leman russ on that page, you cannot take one'. The tank, it's values and points all exist in the new codex, you can, as far as I can see from any angle, take the damned tank.

I agree the tank is still there. However, the DH/WH codexes do not say you can take the tank. It says you may take "These Units..." and lists the names of units you may take. Exactly the same way that there is no Armoured Fist, Sentinal Unit or Land Speeder Tornado anymore, there is no Unit Called Leman Russ Battle Tank in the Imperial Guard Army list, only Leman Russ Squadron.

The Rules (As Written, not Intended) are clear as day. You cannot take it. You may allow your opponent to take it, but that is not what the rules allow you to do.

Briancj wrote:In the end, it is based ENTIRELY on where you play, and what your friends agree upon.

But, I'd like to throw my $0.02 into this, because I'm eating Swedish Meatballs.

It is clear that, in 5th edition 40K, the second edition caveat of 'Codex overrules Rulebook' is firmly back in play. Even the INAT FAQ mentions this as their primary guideline, in their afterword. So, if you take that into account:

1) Monolith's Deep Striking Rule overrides the Mishap table.

2) WH/DH 0-1 Leman Russ overrides the IG Codex.

The only real discussion is 'what kind of Leman Russ'? Well, in the previous IG Codex, there were several variants, so which did your group allow a WH/DH Army to take? My group allowed any of the options, as WH/DH were played as elite armies, tapping the Authority of the Inquisition blah blah blah.

Your Mileage May Vary.

--Brian

Codex > Rulebook has been the case EVER SINCE 2nd. It's in the RULEBOOK, a far more important source than what is essentially a FanFic of Rules.

Monoliths cannot avoid mishaps, because that's not what the rule says.

I don't know how you arrive at Codex> more recent Codex, btw. I think this is just wish fulfilment from you, and, fyi, it doesn't matter what you and your friends play - it matters what a Tournament Organiser is MOST LIKELY to say, assuming he knows the rules. Need I remind you that the Warhammer World Rules Packs specify that Judges are always correct, even when they directly contradict the rules?

Anyway, if you DO allow it, "Leman Russ Battle Tank" is still the name of only one thing in the game, so no options...but you're already ignoring RAW, so do whatever you want.

The unit Leman Russ Squadron contains a squadron of units.
The proper name is Leman Russ Squadron.
Squadron is not appended on to the name, it is part of the name.

Still.

shrug





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Codex is not > main rules.

Specific > General.

See pg 6 of the main rules (characteristics), and page 31 of the Ork codex (Mob Rule!)