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.

Harkainos wrote:I'm just being facetious.

I am glad you are.

@MeanGreenStompa: Please, PLEASE read what kirsanth and I have written. It explains it in detail. Multiple times. Repeatedly.

Timmah wrote: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.

I have both to hand, and it is indeed the exact wording. I can even scan them in, crop the relevant bits and show them to you if you really want (it costs extra though, 10 dorrah )

Simple answer: Discuss it with your opponent.

Odds are, they would assume it is the same thing.

The thing is, it is entirely possible that the think they are NOT the same thing, as the actual text is quite specific (and not identical).

No matter which way it goes, assuming is what will cause problems. This is why I do not put Leaping into lists I intend to play against random/new people. I will use it in friendly/campaign games, as the discussions have been gone through and we can build lists after the discourse. Building a list knowing that the rules actually say something else is . . . shady - at best.

Luckily the IG player in our campaign does not have a Valkyrie. . . yet.

@Timmah: That is the exact quote in both books. It refers to "the unit" multiple times and goes on to say it has to be the exact and basic version, not any variants.

The WH and DH codices allow you to incorporate 1 Leman Russ into your army. The rules and stats and points cost for it are in the Imperial Guard codex.

The word juggling is not relevant. The Codex allows for the incoporation of a Leman Russ, with the stats and points etc from the Guard Codex, into your army. Changing the name from unit to squadron (unit of 1, squadron of 1 who gives a crap) is without merit in the case of an individual tank being used in another army list and is using the finite lettering of the game (slanted at a particular angle) to attempt to kill the spirit of the game.

OP, you may take 1 Leman Russ Battle Tank. For the cost appropriate in, and using the stats provided in, the Imperial Guard Codex. The new Imperial Guard codex was not written with the intention of denying those two old codices any of their options.

This discussion makes me want to necro my Terminator armor discussion.

Must resist...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The WH and DH codices allow you to incorporate 1 Leman Russ into your army. The rules and stats and points cost for it are in the Imperial Guard codex.

The word juggling is not relevant. The Codex allows for the incoporation of a Leman Russ, with the stats and points etc from the Guard Codex, into your army. Changing the name from unit to squadron (unit of 1, squadron of 1 who gives a crap) is without merit in the case of an individual tank being used in another army list and is using the finite lettering of the game (slanted at a particular angle) to attempt to kill the spirit of the game.

OP, you may take 1 Leman Russ Battle Tank. For the cost appropriate in, and using the stats provided in, the Imperial Guard Codex. The new Imperial Guard codex was not written with the intention of denying those two old codices any of their options.

Agreed....

A Squadron is made up of Tanks, I fail to see where the issue is?

Does anyone on the forums remember Rule Number One? Should be easy its the same in both Fantasy and 40k.

What part of "These Units" do you not understand? You cannot Incorporate a LRBT, you must Incorporate a LRBT Unit, which is not in the IG Codex.

MGS, stop ignoring the part of the rule you don't like.

R3con wrote:Does anyone on the forums remember Rule Number One? Should be easy its the same in both Fantasy and 40k.

Yes, I read that about the same time I read the part about having an intelligent rules debate.

kirsanth wrote:

R3con wrote:Does anyone on the forums remember Rule Number One? Should be easy its the same in both Fantasy and 40k.

Yes, I read that about the same time I read the part about having an intelligent rules debate.

The one where it says to back up your views with facts and logic rather than skipping parts of the rule to make it work your way?

Yes.

Despite the irony, let me repost how it starts:
"In any intelligent rules debate, the goal is to determine what the rules actually say. A rules debate should not help you win more games or find exploitable rules. It should allow you to feel confident that you are not breaking any rules, and thus (unintentionally) cheating your opponent."

Is there a LRBT Unit in the previous IG codex? It seems to me that unit and squadron are thrown around in the DH/WH codices interchangeably.

I mean... it says Unit in the first paragraph, but when you look at the actual list it says Squadron for the Sentinals? So (if they existed) I would only be able to take Armoured Sentinal Squadron Units? That makes no sense.

IF we are going to claim we need to use the entire reading and treat it as scripture, then we must take everything into context (that includes subtext).

I know subtext is rough in RaW but the above example is more than adequate proof that to demand the word Unit in order to use it doesn't work.

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.

It is warranted, it is permitted, it's not a personal attack, and you are arrogant. Anything else?

Gwar! wrote:

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.

So, you can divine my intent calling you arrogant was a personal attack, you can divine the intent to not issue errata as being pleased with RAW and not laziness, but assuming that they intended to nerf the Space Wolf Rhino Rush is totally impossible? Judging intent is something we all do every day. The fact that you do it, and then claim we can't, it's simply ridiculous.

Finally, if you think I'm personally attacking you, report me to a mod. I think history has shown that you have, at best, an overly sensitive and alarmist view of posts directed at you, while consistently ignoring the impact your posts have on others. I think they'll back me up on this one.

WH codex says I can take 1 LR the guard codex has stats for the LR

The fact that the guard now takes them in squadrons doesn't change the fact that the WH codex says I may take one.

If your playing a WH army your codex trumps all else correct?

"All units are taken exactly as they appear in Codex"

There is a statline for LRBT correct? It appears in the codex.....as a possible member of the squad..It does not state where it has to be found only that it has to be taken exactly as they appear.

To me that means if I can find a statline for the LRBT I can take it as it APPEARS in the codex.

No where does the WH rules state that it has to have a sepearate codex entry....so the squadren/unit argument is moot. If you can find a statline for a LRBT your golden.

R3con wrote:No where does the WH rules state that it has to have a sepearate codex entry....so the squadren/unit argument is moot. If you can find a statline for a LRBT your golden.

Please note the bit on Page 26 where it says "These UNITS..." Therefore, the Inducted UNITS must be UNITS in Codex: Imperial Guard. If they are Not UNITS anymore (like say, Armoured Fist or the LRBT), then you cannot take them. There is no entry for a UNIT with the name "Leman Russ Battle Tank" in the Imperial Guard Codex.

Also, it refers to Sentinels as squadrons, possibly because they were squadrons in the old codex as well. Not that it matters, you can't take them either.

I called Gwar! an Inquisitor first...

He's most likely correct btw. And by most likely I mean that he is.

Specific trumps General.
Not Codex trumps everything. Not even close.

Specifically, the unit "leman russ battle tank" is mentioned.

Generally, the leman russ is a squadron now.

Specifically the rules do not allow you to take a squadron in a WH or DH army.

Just bring the WH or DH as allies.
Alternatively, realize you are not following RAW and move on.

kirsanth wrote:Just bring the WH or DH as allies.

QFT. So much rage from the RaI camp over something so easy to work around and not cheat while doing it.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I called Gwar! an Inquisitor first...

He's most likely correct btw. And by most likely I mean that he is.

Like I've been saying, he's correct if you assume that the words used are more important than the meaning of the words. I disagree with that assumption. The end result is the same, there's just a slightly different name for the choice.

Honestly if you are going to say that its ok to take the LRBT because it's "close enough" then why stop with just one?

The IG codex says 1-3 is 1 LRBT squadron.

Bring them all!

The mind boggles.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I called Gwar! an Inquisitor first...

He's most likely correct btw. And by most likely I mean that he is.

Glad to hear it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:Honestly if you are going to say that its ok to take the LRBT because it's "close enough" then why stop with just one?

The IG codex says 1-3 is 1 LRBT squadron.

Bring them all!

The mind boggles.

Hell, why not go further and say Leman Russ is close enough to baneblade, lets take 7. or Tactical Marine is close enough to Grey Hunters!

kirsanth wrote:Honestly if you are going to say that its ok to take the LRBT because it's "close enough" then why stop with just one?

The IG codex says 1-3 is 1 LRBT squadron.

Bring them all!

The mind boggles.

Really? The mind boggles? If I take 3 lrbts, then I haven't taken 0-1 LRBT. If I take one, than I have. This isn't a slippery slope argument.

Either way you are not taking the unit called LRBT as the book says.

REPOST:

Is there a LRBT Unit in the previous IG codex? It seems to me that unit and squadron are thrown around in the DH/WH codices interchangeably.

I mean... it says Unit in the first paragraph, but when you look at the actual list it says Squadron for the Sentinals? So (if they existed) I would only be able to take Armoured Sentinal Squadron Units? That makes no sense.

IF we are going to claim we need to use the entire reading and treat it as scripture, then we must take everything into context (that includes subtext).

I know subtext is rough in RaW but the above example is more than adequate proof that to demand the word Unit in order to use it doesn't work.

If you take 1 squadron as 1 unit, why is it different?

Polonius wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Honestly if you are going to say that its ok to take the LRBT because it's "close enough" then why stop with just one?

The IG codex says 1-3 is 1 LRBT squadron.

Bring them all!

The mind boggles.

Really? The mind boggles? If I take 3 lrbts, then I haven't taken 0-1 LRBT. If I take one, than I have. This isn't a slippery slope argument.

No, if you take 1, you have taken a Leman Russ Squadron, which is not a valid choice.

Harkainos wrote:REPOST:
Is there a LRBT Unit in the previous IG codex?

Yes.

Harkainos wrote:REPOST:

Is there a LRBT Unit in the previous IG codex? It seems to me that unit and squadron are thrown around in the DH/WH codices interchangeably.

I mean... it says Unit in the first paragraph, but when you look at the actual list it says Squadron for the Sentinals? So (if they existed) I would only be able to take Armoured Sentinal Squadron Units? That makes no sense.

IF we are going to claim we need to use the entire reading and treat it as scripture, then we must take everything into context (that includes subtext).

I know subtext is rough in RaW but the above example is more than adequate proof that to demand the word Unit in order to use it doesn't work.

I already adressed this. it does not use the terms interchangeably, the only mention of Squadrons are for Sentinels, which you cannot take either because there are no units called "Sentinels" in the IG codex anymore

kirsanth wrote:Honestly if you are going to say that its ok to take the LRBT because it's "close enough" then why stop with just one?

The IG codex says 1-3 is 1 LRBT squadron.

In 2 out of the 3 listings for a LRBT in the codex there is no mention of squad.

Specifically page 48

and

The summary.

Really....? A Leman Russ Battle tank is still something you can take. I would just say you can only take one. You know because squadrens weren't ment for that codex? It is still an option and should be taken only the biggest donkey-cave would tell you you can't. At that point I'd pick up my little men and go home or play someone else I got better crap to do than waste my time like that.

Edit- I would though hold the DH/WH's Russ to the 4th ed rules as thats what it was ment for.

Gwar! wrote: So much rage from the RaI camp over something so easy to work around and not cheat while doing it.

Using words like "Cheat" to describe someone that does not take the literal interpretation stance is pretty much donning the rage cap yourself.



Speaking for myself I think the whole argument is highly amusing. I could care less about what's "Right" or "RAW" and more worried about what's fun for me and my opponent. I'd gladly let a DH opponent take a LRMBT. They're rear armor 10 and my Power Klaws can take them out that much easier.