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.

Not that i have ever tried or played this (really just popped into my head about 10mins ago)

LB states that a LR that remained stationary or moved at combat speed can fire its turret weapon in addition to weapons it would normally be allowed to fire..

now if a LR suffers a shaken or stunned result - doesn't move or only moves at combat speed can it use LB to fire the turret weapon in addition to the no weapons it is allowed to fire?? (0 + turret)

the power of the machine spirit allows it to fire one more weapon than normally allowed, so a shaken/stunned Land Raider may fire one weapon. it also allows the Land Raider to move when shaken or stunned.

Sorry I should have been clearer.. I was referring to the Leman Russ lumbering behemoth rule.

WE've been through this question before - worth a search.

Essentially the MS rule specifically states you can fire while shaken / stunned; LR LB does not. Due to the wording of the first sentence of the last paragraph of the Land raiders rule is it possible that when they say "1 more than normally allowed" this means "treat may not fire any" as "may fire 0" however it is not clear, and the language is prohibitive.

Linguistically permission to fire 0 weapons is different to being prohibited from firing any, and it is also different mathematically (in essence "not any" is not equal to "0")

Hence the reason why abbreviations should be *carefully* used...

nosferatu1001 wrote:WE've been through this question before - worth a search.

Essentially the MS rule specifically states you can fire while shaken / stunned; LR LB does not. Due to the wording of the first sentence of the last paragraph of the Land raiders rule is it possible that when they say "1 more than normally allowed" this means "treat may not fire any" as "may fire 0" however it is not clear, and the language is prohibitive.

Linguistically permission to fire 0 weapons is different to being prohibited from firing any, and it is also different mathematically (in essence "not any" is not equal to "0")

as I said I haven't played this way.. The only issue is with the PotMS rule is the use of the word 'therefore' at the begining of the all important 2nd paragraph - 'therefore' being the pretence of an explination on how the rule works as opposed to being part of the rule itself (sort of like a premptive FAQ and with that establishing that may not fire may very well = 0 weapons)

but two rules with the same term have 2 different standards - both state 'normally allowed'

and I understand two different codex can have different wordings for the same rule but when they use the same term to define conditions of the rule then surely you need to apply the same interpretation of conditions..

I know that is the issue, hence alluding to it.

Trouble is using one codex with explicit permission to justify another codex, which not only lacks this explicit permission but the language itself prohibits it (for reasons I posted above, linguistically and mathematically it is prohibited) DESPITE being identical, is problematic.

Safest answer is DONT try to use it, as this confers least advantage.

Yeah I am not particularly looking to use it but I think there is probably enough there to raise the question..

As I said the MS rule basically sets the meaning for 'normally allowed' and the only restriction stated in the LB rule is that the Russ remained stationary or moved at combat speed..

I do think it is not intended to work how I am suggesting, but as it is currently written (and without an adequate FAQ) there is potential for this to be used.

also for an SM player playing against an IG player least advantange is to allow the IG player to use LB to fire the turret when shaken or stunned (it's a matter of perspective)

No, least advantage is never perspective: you have paid X points for a unit which has Y definite capabilities, and Z "possible but dodgy"

Least advantage, game wise, is to assume that X includes Y but not Z. If Z turns out to not be allowed then you have given yourself no benefit but neither have you lost anything. If Z IS allowed then you have been at a disadvantage, but have not had an unfair advantage. End result is that you, at no time, give yourself an advantage you cannot justify.

You can always work out least advantage ina vacuum like this ,as you have to start off assuming that the points cost only accou nts for what you definitely CAN do!

Least advantage in this case referring to the individual fielding the unit, not to the least advantage of your opponent which would be a bit silly since the one with the LRBT is making the argument for LB being allowed when it is shaky at best.

Haha but if you as a space marine player not allowed Z even though it looks alot like your Y and it ends up being a Y then you have been playing with an advantage..

Compared to a land raider a Russ can cost 200 points (even over 250+ with Pask).. has weaker rear and side armour, no transport capacity (not to mention the LR being an assault vehicle) has worse BS (again depends on Pask).. Variable cruising speed.. Where BA land raiders also count as fast, deep striking, PotMS and can be taken as dedicated transports, all for about 250pts so I don't see where the Russ is getting the advantage when considering all that..

Its all cool though.. I am just presenting one side of the GW coin..

blood angel land raiders arent fast. They compensate for that by thunderhawk assisted deepstriking.

Sorry you are right there - not fast

It has nothing to do with whether or not it is 'fair' based on points and everything to do with the fact that even though the exact same wording may be used, the Land Raider has that additional exception that lets it fire that the LRBT does not in the codex itself.

It is the same reason I let GK use their super Force Weapons on EW models, but also make them use their crappy Storm Shields.

Yes and I understand when the same item specifically defined differently (hot shot lasguns for IG and WH are another good example - but they are clearly definded in each instance) The SM codex has the only known written definition of 'normally allowed' much like a FAQ would define a rule.

So with a why when a term is defined as being one thing should it mean something different elsewhere when there is no alternate definition provided??


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What do you suggest 'normally allowed' mean and how/why have you come to that finding


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry and I would argue that is not an exception rather an explination.

Well it is an exception as it doesnt appear anywhere else.

You do not know you can do it; reading JUST the IG codex you would not believe you could. As such it is shaky and, when you have no clear choice, you choose the least advantage to YOU, the player fielding it.

Anything else is suspect.

thats right it does not appear anywhere else but it is still a definition to what 'normally allowed' means

why ignore an established definition and try to make up another definition for the same term??

to me if a term defined one way it should means the same thing unless specified otherwise (in this case there is no clear definition so we can only use other examples of how it has been applied)

if you have another example of how 'normally allowed' has been applied (in a different way) supporting your opinion feel free to provide it as i have provided an example it use

to me it sounds like the arguement against it currently is - 'normally allowed' might mean something different for you than it means for me - which is more speculative than the current arguement for it

Because the definition appears in neither the codex nor the BRB, and is speculative at best as to what it means as it is contained in a seperate sentence at the end of the paragraph.

Hence "suspect"

It is up to you, it is not being ignored, I have given reasons why it is not to be trusted 100% and BECAUSE of that to state, 100% that you get to fire when shaken / stunned is an unsafe position.

And when you have an unsafe position perform the action whcih gives YOU least advantage.

nah that's cool

i know if i was to try to use it, it would raise more than a few eyebrows

i will leave it as is but i still think its hypercritical - thanks mate

Normally allowed does not appear in both rules.

Land Raider says "1 more weapon than would normally be permitted"

Leman Russ states: "In addition to any other weapon it is usually allowed"

ergo: Land raider can fire 1 more than permission is granted for(hence 1 while Shaken/stunned, or fast movement, or smoke popped).

And for the Leman Russ you must be allowed to fire a weapon in order to fire the turret weapon(which can be fired in addition to the other weapon regardless of weapon classification in relation to combat speed).

It is actually quite simple when you compare the phasing side by side; and not attempt to shortcut or simplify the wording.

Normally = usually

permitted = allowed

yes but the only restrictions to the Russ rule is that it is stationary or moved at combat speed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The rule basically removes the turret when counting the number of weapons fired.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It doesn't require any other weapons from being fired otherwise the rule would prevent the turret weapon from being fired on it's own - as you would not met the requirement of the rule for the tank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lol I am reading way too much into this!! And I am losing my mind

It ain't broken I will keep playing the gerenally accepted way.. I am fine with it that way, no harm in trying right?

So you are trying to take a phrase with one meaning, and apply it to another which has a simiilar meaning *in another codex* and then claim this gives you permission?

What part of "shady" are you struggling with!

Catachan_Devil wrote:Normally = usually

permitted = allowed

yes but the only restrictions to the Russ rule is that it is stationary or moved at combat speed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The rule basically removes the turret when counting the number of weapons fired.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It doesn't require any other weapons from being fired otherwise the rule would prevent the turret weapon from being fired on it's own - as you would not met the requirement of the rule for the tank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lol I am reading way too much into this!! And I am losing my mind

It ain't broken I will keep playing the gerenally accepted way.. I am fine with it that way, no harm in trying right?

The difference, as Nos said, is in the Phrasing; 1 more than normally permitted is very different to in addition to any other weapon it is usually allowed.

That difference is that if you are not capable of firing the Hull mounted weapon(via shaken, stunned, or smoke), then you are also not capable of firing the Turret weapon.

I never (and the rules never) said you *must* fire the hull(or sponson, or any pintle) weapon; simply that you must be *able* to fire said weapon to fire the turret.

This is not the generally accepted way; this is as the rules say.