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.

lumbering bohemoth works differently - i states you can fire the turret weapon in addition to any weapons it may normally be able to fire when moving at Combat speed

so at combat speed you pick one weapon and the turret to shoot at one target

then you can pick another weapon to fire at a different target or the same target if LOS is not an issue


Automatically Appended Next Post:
basically you pick one sponson - use spearhead rule to shoot the other

and then lumbering bohemoth allows you to fire the turret

I'd say LR can make 2 shots. Spearhead rules IIRC do not overlap the POTMS rule..now how this works is the timing..if we are playing spearhead..then the LR gets the bonus shot when cruising via the spearhead rule, (in this instance that extra shot was granted by the spearhead rule) then we switch to the POTMS rule which allows the LR to shoot another weapon at another target than you would normally be able to. In this case the timing of the rules play a part, the spearhead rule grants a free shot...then the POTMS grants another free shot...both rules can stack because they come from 2 different sources and neither of these sources overrule each other...spearhead nor POTMS have no entries in them that say they can't work together and nowhere in the rulebook is stated that abilities do not stack, usually these restrictions are written in the additional rules of each unit or scenario in this case spearhead and POTMS and non of which says no you cannot shoot 2 weapons. Arguing about what is normal is actually a flawed argument, just follow the special rules as they are written. To further make it more legal and RAW look at it this way...

1.move at cruising speed
2. check for spearhead rule *ok check*
3. shoot with 1 weapon
4. check for POTMS rule *ok check*
------ok now people will argue about the normal weapon thing here..but look at it this way..spearhead grants units a free shot while cruising this is to be considered as normal for the spearhead units since the spearhead rule is albeit a universal one that applies to all, hence we can consider it as normal.
5. shoot another weapon

there I think this is a better argument


edit: lumbering behemoth cannot use the spearhead rule while moving at combat speed, you need to move at cruising speed

No matter anyones argument. I'm playing it can fire two more than normal and both can be fired at different targets, as well as different target from any other firing.

In my eyes it would be wrong for the Land Raider to not benefit where other vehicles do.

Saying it doesn't stack is wrong as games workshop in the past has had to say when things do and don't stack. E.g. re-rolls don't (find the rule that says they don't) and vehicle damage chart modifiers do (find the rule telling you they do stack).

For me that leaves it open, and you have my reasons to argue for it stacking.

Would anyone seriously play this as only getting one shot?

Well, I think the Leman Russ example has merit. Consider a Leman Russ in a Spearhead, within 4" of another spearhead tank, moving at combat speed.
It fires one sponson weapon, allowed by BRB rules.
Now, if it fires its main gun using the Lumbering Behemoth rule. It just fired one more weapon than normal. Raw kicks in, no more shots.
However, if it had fired another turret weapon first, it would have still gotten to fire its main gun.

This, to me, is the conclusion logically suggested by the 1 shot group. If you take normally to mean 1 shot standard, then the Spearhead Rule would prevent you firing an extra sponson weapon if you fired your main gun first. Sounds pretty nonsensical to me.
I think it makes much more sense to apply normally to the tank firing. A landraider moving 6 inches can normally fire 1 weapon plus 1 other. A Leman Russ can normally fire 1 weapon plus its turret. Spearhead allows you to fire one more weapon than normal. This way, there's no internal logical contradictions like "Why does it matter when I fire my main gun, especially considering that all tank shooting is supposed to happen simultaneously?"

I agree and since we are making up rules I like to play my Rhino's with 2 structure points each!

While it requires some insight, the rules are pretty clear IMO. Nos made an excellent point, normal is according to the chart in the back of the book. The fact a LR can fire one more than Normal through PotMS indicates what normal is!

General_Chaos wrote:lol I wonder if some of you people actually have any fun playing this game at all.

Yeah ask that question in YMDC. I'd like to see the responces. lol

Special examples normally being allowed to do something special does not alter what normal actually is.

ceorron wrote:No matter anyones argument. I'm playing it can fire two more than normal

Does anyone else see the irony in this statement?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

ceorron wrote:No matter anyones argument. I'm playing it can fire two more than normal

Does anyone else see the irony in this statement?

Yup, especially since no rule allows it to fore TWO more than normal!

Methinks some one is unhappy that their Space Marines can't get an unfair advantage out of spearhead.

thebetter1 wrote:

Catachan_Devil wrote:PotMS is a special rule/ability - hardly normal

It's normal if you are a Land Raider. We are discussing only Land Raiders, therefore, for the purposes of this discussion, PotMS is normal.

Not normal at all. Chaos Land Raiders don't get the rule, ergo not all Land Raiders get the rule. Not 'Normal' by any means. Alternatively, you've just let me stack officers of the fleet, astropaths, and everything else that doesn't explicitly say that it doesn't stack.

Your pick.

daedalus wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

Catachan_Devil wrote:PotMS is a special rule/ability - hardly normal

It's normal if you are a Land Raider. We are discussing only Land Raiders, therefore, for the purposes of this discussion, PotMS is normal.

Not normal at all. Chaos Land Raiders don't get the rule, ergo not all Land Raiders get the rule. Not 'Normal' by any means. Alternatively, you've just let me stack officers of the fleet, astropaths, and everything else that doesn't explicitly say that it doesn't stack.

Your pick.

First, I already made it clear that we are only discussing Land Raiders with PotMS. Unless you can say with a straight face that it is unusual for a Land Raider with PotMS to fire more weapons than other vehicles, it is normal.

Second, the things you listed do say they don't stack, if you play using the GW FAQs. If you don't use them, I wouldn't be playing against you in the first place. Now, for consistency's sake, would you also say that vehicle damage modifiers do not stack?

Gwar! wrote:Yup, especially since no rule allows it to fore TWO more than normal!

But two separate rules allow it to fire one more. Any normal person would probably say that this amounts to two.

Lord Harrab wrote:Methinks some one is unhappy that their Space Marines can't get an unfair advantage out of spearhead.

You obviously know nothing about game balance if you feel this way. Funnily enough you have not said this about Leman Russes.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

ceorron wrote:No matter anyones argument. I'm playing it can fire two more than normal

Does anyone else see the irony in this statement?

There's nothing ironic about it. Harassing people for the way they want to play the game is extremely wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:thebetter1 - i refer you back to the sort-of proof that if "normal" is not the same word in both cases (referring to the BRB rules for vehicles and moving) you end up being able to infinitiely add weapons;. Which is absurd.

This "proof" does not exist, as I defeated it in one of my first posts in the thread, actually before it was first brought up.

Gwar! wrote:
Shaken Vehicle: They normally can fire, but a special rule says they cannot.

So first you say that the rules are worded the same way but then you argue that they work differently?

Gwar! wrote:
Special cannot be Normal. It's like speeding slowly, or Microsoft Works.

It can be in the right context. People in a mental institution might seem special from the outside world, but if you go inside and ask one patient about another, there is a good chance you will hear that he/she is normal.

thebetter1 -of course you defeated it. we all believe you.

Now please show how "normal" is different in each case, and how this does nto lead to a loop. Your go.

thebetter1 wrote:

daedalus wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

Catachan_Devil wrote:PotMS is a special rule/ability - hardly normal

It's normal if you are a Land Raider. We are discussing only Land Raiders, therefore, for the purposes of this discussion, PotMS is normal.

Not normal at all. Chaos Land Raiders don't get the rule, ergo not all Land Raiders get the rule. Not 'Normal' by any means. Alternatively, you've just let me stack officers of the fleet, astropaths, and everything else that doesn't explicitly say that it doesn't stack.

Your pick.

First, I already made it clear that we are only discussing Land Raiders with PotMS. Unless you can say with a straight face that it is unusual for a Land Raider with PotMS to fire more weapons than other vehicles, it is normal.

Second, the things you listed do say they don't stack, if you play using the GW FAQs. If you don't use them, I wouldn't be playing against you in the first place. Now, for consistency's sake, would you also say that vehicle damage modifiers do not stack?

Gwar! wrote:Yup, especially since no rule allows it to fore TWO more than normal!

But two separate rules allow it to fire one more. Any normal person would probably say that this amounts to two.

Lord Harrab wrote:Methinks some one is unhappy that their Space Marines can't get an unfair advantage out of spearhead.

You obviously know nothing about game balance if you feel this way. Funnily enough you have not said this about Leman Russes.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

ceorron wrote:No matter anyones argument. I'm playing it can fire two more than normal

Does anyone else see the irony in this statement?

There's nothing ironic about it. Harassing people for the way they want to play the game is extremely wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:thebetter1 - i refer you back to the sort-of proof that if "normal" is not the same word in both cases (referring to the BRB rules for vehicles and moving) you end up being able to infinitiely add weapons;. Which is absurd.

This "proof" does not exist, as I defeated it in one of my first posts in the thread, actually before it was first brought up.

Gwar! wrote:
Shaken Vehicle: They normally can fire, but a special rule says they cannot.

So first you say that the rules are worded the same way but then you argue that they work differently?

Gwar! wrote:
Special cannot be Normal. It's like speeding slowly, or Microsoft Works.

It can be in the right context. People in a mental institution might seem special from the outside world, but if you go inside and ask one patient about another, there is a good chance you will hear that he/she is normal.

Okay firstly you are defining a Land Raider with Potms to be the normal state for vehicle having moved over 6".

You go on to say that 'Any normal person' would conclude that two separate allowances giving a player permissions to fire one additional weapon to the normal quota, would result in two additional weapons being fired with respect to the normal quota.

You follow this up with disparaging remarks about individuals abilitys.

You make a broad reaching value statement while engaging in the activity you've branded extremely wrong.

Yes and within the context of the word is being used it retains it's meaning.

As for your lovely example of the use of the word 'special' other than gross problems involving the structure of you sentence, glaring prejudice on your part and a miss-understanding of the use of the word normal to describe a default state in game play.

It still proves our point.

If one makes a generalisation that one person with mental difficulties would regard a different person with a different set of mental processing problem (here’s where it starts to break down you see, as there is a wide variety of altered mental states from a variety of sources effecting a variety of different people with a varity of different brain chemistry…) as ‘normal’.
I’m sorry what does this have to do with your argument?

Neither rule asks for one to apply perspective or differing viewpoints to the issue either.

Rule A) Says in addition to normal Rule B) Says in addition to normal.

Neither rule says stop look at the other and decide that this effect is ‘normal’. So obviously I’ll apply it’s effects without first checking it they have been met (by firing one additional weapon)



That post is a dogs breakfast, but had to rush

thebetter1 wrote:- Snip-

My point was that you were coming across as a whiny kid, a fact that other posters have pointed out.

Oh, you want me to comment on the Russ, fine I'm game.

The Russ is roughly the same points cost as the Land Raider, (I Think, i don't own the space marine codex so i can't check.) while having worse armor and no transport capability, admittedly with more guns.

Also, it's "Lumbering behemoth" rule comes with draw backs, the Leman russ has a random speed and its extra weapon cannot engage a separate target. thats a balancing factor yes?

EDIT: fixed my spelling.

thebetter1 wrote:

daedalus wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

Catachan_Devil wrote:PotMS is a special rule/ability - hardly normal

It's normal if you are a Land Raider. We are discussing only Land Raiders, therefore, for the purposes of this discussion, PotMS is normal.

Not normal at all. Chaos Land Raiders don't get the rule, ergo not all Land Raiders get the rule. Not 'Normal' by any means. Alternatively, you've just let me stack officers of the fleet, astropaths, and everything else that doesn't explicitly say that it doesn't stack.

Your pick.

First, I already made it clear that we are only discussing Land Raiders with PotMS. Unless you can say with a straight face that it is unusual for a Land Raider with PotMS to fire more weapons than other vehicles, it is normal.

Second, the things you listed do say they don't stack, if you play using the GW FAQs. If you don't use them, I wouldn't be playing against you in the first place. Now, for consistency's sake, would you also say that vehicle damage modifiers do not stack?

I invoke the Gwar! Defense: GW says that FAQ is house rules. Beyond errata, they have as much legitimacy as me claiming you only get one more shot than regular vehicles, or you saying that they get two more, or me being absurd and saying that each rule gains "moron recursion" off of the other and as a result you can fire every weapon no matter how far you move. Do I play that astropath's stack? No. Generally I play by the FAQ, however, I check with the other player to make sure we're playing the same game. This issue is just going to have to go on the long list of things that need to be discussed prior to game, as if there weren't enough already.

The way I see it happening:

Normal == Vehicle Rules in The Rules.
PotMS is not normal. Sorry, it's really not. "I always get this ability.", does not make it normal. I've always been colorblind. That doesn't make it normal, and that's why people would look at me funny when I wear brown pants and bright pink shirts, assuming I did so. If it was 'normal', then there wouldn't be rules defining it as a special case, because it would be normal. There's really no plainer way to put it.

Spearhead == one more attack than normal.
PotMS == one more attack than normal.

SM Land Raider gets one more attack than normal, and it gets one more attack than normal. Let us look at it programmaticly, because we have a set of (what should be) well defined rules, so it should be able to be modeled that way:

// You get one shot at crusing speed
CrusingSpeedGuns = 1;
// You get one more shot than normal with PotMS
PotMS = CrusingSpeedGuns + 1;
// You get one more shot than normal with Spearhead
Spearhead = CrusingSpeedGuns +1;
// Land Raiders have PotMS
LandRaiderAtCrusingSpeed = PoTMS;
// Land Raiders with Spearhead
LandRaiderAtCrusingSpeed = Spearhead;

At this point, the land raider shots still equal 2.

It can be in the right context. People in a mental institution might seem special from the outside world, but if you go inside and ask one patient about another, there is a good chance you will hear that he/she is normal.

This comment alone fills me with such horror and revulsion that I'm not altogether positive how to respond to it.

Have any of you actually considered that your arguments would cause vehicle damage modifiers to not stack?

nosferatu1001 wrote:thebetter1 -of course you defeated it. we all believe you.

Now please show how "normal" is different in each case, and how this does nto lead to a loop. Your go.

I covered this in my third post in the thread, and I told you to look there the first time. "Normal" means different things in different contexts.

ChrisCP wrote:
Okay firstly you are defining a Land Raider with Potms to be the normal state for vehicle having moved over 6".

No, I'm not. I am defining one weapon for cruising speed, etc. to be the normal state for a Land Raider with PotMS.

ChrisCP wrote:
You go on to say that 'Any normal person' would conclude that two separate allowances giving a player permissions to fire one additional weapon to the normal quota, would result in two additional weapons being fired with respect to the normal quota.

Yes, I would bet my money on that.

ChrisCP wrote:
You make a broad reaching value statement while engaging in the activity you've branded extremely wrong.

No, you have no idea what you are talking about. I do not care at all if you and Gwar! play together and agree that the two rules don't stack. If you find it offensive that other people would play the other way, you shouldn't be on the internet.

ChrisCP wrote:
As for your lovely example of the use of the word 'special' other than gross problems involving the structure of you sentence, glaring prejudice on your part and a miss-understanding of the use of the word normal to describe a default state in game play.

It still proves our point.

This is not exactly a rules argument. I hope you realize that posts on internet forums tend to be informal.

ChrisCP wrote:
If one makes a generalisation that one person with mental difficulties would regard a different person with a different set of mental processing problem (here’s where it starts to break down you see, as there is a wide variety of altered mental states from a variety of sources effecting a variety of different people with a varity of different brain chemistry…) as ‘normal’.
I’m sorry what does this have to do with your argument?

Mental difficulties really had nothing to do with it. For another example, consider extremely tall people. Their heights would generally not be considered normal. Now put them all on a basketball team and suddenly most of them seem normal in that context.

Lord Harrab wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:- Snip-

My point was that you were coming across as a whiny kid, a fact that other posters have pointed out.

Oh, you want me to comment on the Russ, fine I'm game.

The Russ is roughly the same points cost as the Land Raider, (I Think, i don't own the space marine codex so i can't check.) while having worse armor and no transport capability, admittedly with more guns.

Also, it's "Lumbering behemoth" rule comes with draw backs, the Leman russ has a random speed and its extra weapon cannot engage a separate target. thats a balancing factor yes?

EDIT: fixed my spelling.

Now, if the Leman Russ were vastly underpowered compared to the Land Raider in normal games, you might have a point.

daedalus wrote:
I invoke the Gwar! Defense: GW says that FAQ is house rules. Beyond errata, they have as much legitimacy as me claiming you only get one more shot than regular vehicles, or you saying that they get two more, or me being absurd and saying that each rule gains "moron recursion" off of the other and as a result you can fire every weapon no matter how far you move. Do I play that astropath's stack? No. Generally I play by the FAQ, however, I check with the other player to make sure we're playing the same game. This issue is just going to have to go on the long list of things that need to be discussed prior to game, as if there weren't enough already.

I see no point arguing with you if you want to ignore official rule sources.

thebetter1 wrote:Have any of you actually considered that your arguments would cause vehicle damage modifiers to not stack?.

No, not really, because our arguments don't cause this at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thebetter1 wrote:I see no point arguing with you if you want to ignore official rule sources.

They are not official. GW say as much.

Furthermore, they are known to -cough- borrow from other sources, making them not RaI (as the author didn't bother to write them).

Gwar! wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:Have any of you actually considered that your arguments would cause vehicle damage modifiers to not stack?.

No, not really, because our arguments don't cause this at all.

Yes they do. If these two rules do not stack because they both tell you to add 1 and just adding 1 satisfies them both, then how would you play an open-topped vehicle hit by a meltagun? You have two places telling you to add 1 and just adding 1 satisfies them both.

thebetter1 wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:You go on to say that 'Any normal person' would conclude that two separate allowances giving a player permissions to fire one additional weapon to the normal quota, would result in two additional weapons being fired with respect to the normal quota.

Yes, I would bet my money on that.

I am a normal person. I do not conclude that two separate allowances giving a player permissions to fire one additional weapon to the normal quota, would result in two additional weapons being fired with respect to the normal quota.

Where is my money? Or are you insinuating that I am not normal (which could be construed as an attack of my personage as it were)?

thebetter1 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:Have any of you actually considered that your arguments would cause vehicle damage modifiers to not stack?.

No, not really, because our arguments don't cause this at all.

Yes they do. If these two rules do not stack because they both tell you to add 1 and just adding 1 satisfies them both, then how would you play an open-topped vehicle hit by a meltagun? You have two places telling you to add 1 and just adding 1 satisfies them both.

Neither rule says +1 from normal.

It just says +1, it's from two different sources so they stack fine, for the same reason that Pheromone Trail and Alien Cunning stack. Neither mention "than normal".

What you seem to keep ignoring is both rules allow you to fire one more weapon THAN NORMAL.
Neither rule allows you to fire two more weapons than normal, so you cannot.

Gwar! wrote:Furthermore, they are known to -cough- borrow from other sources, making them not RaI (as the author didn't bother to write them).

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

Alternatively, if the original author intends 'x' rule to work a given way, and I write an FAQ explaining how that rule works and manage to explain it in a way that corresponds with that original intention, and he then 'borrows' that FAQ for his own... his FAQ is very much RAI.

Gwar! wrote:What you seem to keep ignoring is both rules allow you to fire one more weapon THAN NORMAL.

He's not ignoring that.

The issue here is simply that there are two differing opinions on what exactly constitutes 'normal'...

Gwar! wrote:Or are you insinuating that I am not normal (which could be construed as an attack of my personage as it were)?

I would argue that hardly anyone on this forum represents a typical person, considering how many people have never even heard of wargaming.

Gwar! wrote:It just says +1, it's from two different sources so they stack fine, for the same reason that Pheromone Trail and Alien Cunning stack. Neither mention "than normal".

What you seem to keep ignoring is both rules allow you to fire one more weapon THAN NORMAL.
Neither rule allows you to fire two more weapons than normal, so you cannot.

Well, now we're back to square 1 and our disagreements on whether it is normal for a Land Raider to fire more weapons than other vehicles.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Furthermore, they are known to -cough- borrow from other sources, making them not RaI (as the author didn't bother to write them).

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

Alternatively, if the original author intends 'x' rule to work a given way, and I write an FAQ explaining how that rule works and manage to explain it in a way that corresponds with that original intention, and he then 'borrows' that FAQ for his own... his FAQ is very much RAI.

I would normally agree, however there is a difference between Borrowing and Copypasting. Not to mention that I think it was Allesio who was writing the FAQ? I remember something in White Dwarf about him not resting till there was an FAQ out or something.

But I digress.

Normal for a land raider is the same as any other tank. PotMS is a SPECIAL rule. You cannot have a SPECIAL rule and claim it to be normal.

thebetter1 wrote: "Normal" means different things in different contexts.

The context is (vehicles in) 40k. The special -- or non-normal -- rules are covered by special rules. Note that PotMS falls under the heading "Special Rules".

This is starting to read like the FnP vs AP3 threads.

thebetter1 wrote:

Falconlance wrote:
They are worded exactly the same though, I don't see where youre getting that the spearhead rule tells you to take into account any other rules that modify what you can "normally fire."

The Spearhead rule builds on the standard 40k rules. The standard 40k rules have Land Raiders normally shooting an additional weapon. When you build on this, that extra weapon is normal.

Did you see a flaw in my logic about normal abilities or are you just ignoring it?

If it was normal then you wouldn't need a special rule to define it as a differing aspect.

If it was normal, then the land raiders rules would state "land raiders can fire one weapon when moving at cruising speed". That would make it normal. As it stands, PotMS is an additive for the land raider, because at its base the LR can not fire any weapon at cruising speed (or however many it is, I don't use them so I don't know off hand). But PotMS allows it to do so. This isn't specific to the land raider, it is specific to PotMS.

PotMS does not redefine what is normal for the LR, it modifies the normal.

My guess is that the spearhead rule was designed to give other races the ability to have something similar to PotMS (such as necron monoliths getting to fire the whip AND gauss flux arcs at the same time).

If Spearhead said you can fire 1 weapon when moving fast, I could see you firing twice. 1 time for Spearhead and one more time for PoTMS.

With both rules doing the same thing I myself can not justify shooting more than 1 weapon.

PoTMS/Spearhead does not allow you to fire 1 time. It allows you to fire 1 more time than normal.

So both rules are fullfilled when you fire 1 time.

thebetter1 wrote:

Now, if the Leman Russ were vastly underpowered compared to the Land Raider in normal games, you might have a point.

This is my favorite argument so far. I feel my LR should be more powerful than his LR, they both have the same acronym but I wish I had a Battle Cannon or was a lumbering behemoth. BTW, what is a normal game? If you are playing Apoc it is normal to Apoc but playing standard 40k it is normal to that, I cannot understand the context of normal so I have no idea what you are referencing...

thebetter1 wrote:
~A wonderful deconstruction of a couple of posts.

So really, the issue is you consider a LR with Potms to be a 'Normal' vehicle. Fair enough.
Might I point out again thou that your bastketballer example is still incorrect. 'suddenly most of them seem normal in that context.' A wonderful statement illustrating that indeed among land raiders there are 'unusual' cases. Also you know as well as anyone 'extremely tall people' is a fairly board category.



Hehe little man.

I'm a Limey and even I know Point Guards are of shorter stature than most basketball players.

Some don't even get to 6 foot!

It's nice to see how no-one has taken me up on my argument why treating the Spearhead rules as 1 extra only makes no sense if looking at the leman russ, but I guess that just means the argument is right.

How many guns does a Landraider normally fire when moving 6 inches? 2
There you go, plug that into the spearhead "formula" if you want to go that route.