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.

Does lumbering behemoth apply to the pintlemounted stubber upgrade on a leman russ? My opponents argued it was - the destroyer turret gun (the 20 shot turret) was out of rage but the stubber was in range. The argument was that it was on the turret so it counted. In the end for a quiet life I relented but said it needed to be checked up. So I'm asking - does lumbering behemoth only apply to the specific turret weapon ie the main gun?

A pintle mounted weapon is a pintle mounted weapon. Just because it is on the turret, does not make it a turret weapon. That being said, if he moved at combat speed, he can fire one weapon. Lumbering behemoth would allow him to fire his turret weapon plus one other weapon at combat speed. The turret weapon is the weapon that is part of the turret, i.e. battle cannon, executioner plasma cannon, punisher cannon, etc. A stubber is an upgrade weapon, and is not standard to the tank. So, if your opponent only fired one weapon, he was okay. However, if he fired his hull or sponson mounted weapons plus the stubber, he was wrong.

I believe he fired the sponsons at bs1, the hull at bs 4 (pask) and then tried to 'lumbering behemoth' the pintle

No, that is clearly twisting the rules. The "Lumbering Behemoth" rule states you may fire your TURRET weapon, not a PINTLE weapon. Clearly defined in the BRB and not the same.

Thanks. Dudes were saying they are not defined in the BRB... even more irritating. Still I bet them 12-3

Phototoxin wrote:Dudes were saying they are not defined in the BRB... even more irritating.

If that's their argument, and they were right (and thank goodness they're not) they wouldn't be able to use a sizeable chunk of the units and weapons in any given Codex. Turns out, they're not defined in the BRB!