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.

CajunMan550 wrote:Edit- I would though hold the DH/WH's Russ to the 4th ed rules as thats what it was ment for.

yeah, and my Dark Eldar and Space Wolves are Meant for 3rd ed, can I use those rules please? If anything, you should be using the 1st 3rd ed IG codex, not the "4th ed" one (which wasn't 4th ed).

The rules as they are now do not allow any sort of Leman Russ to be added to a WH/DH army. As said before, just do it the other way around!

CajunMan550 wrote: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.

I just noticed the a-hole gets changed to donkey-cave. Seriously, try quoting it and t still says the original. Hehe!

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I just noticed the a-hole gets changed to donkey-cave. Seriously, try quoting it and t still says the original. Hehe!

Yup, it's the best Wordfilter I have seen on the Series of Tubes!

@cajun: Why would you get annoyed at me? I am following the rules, you are not. If anything I should be getting mad at you!

Your just taking this idea and nerfing it, the book was ment to be able to take the Russes and Sentinals. Why not deny them Infantry too because there not the same anymore they got different kinds of commanders. And take there Storm troops away cause hellguns are gone in new books obviously there just dead now even though that codex has them. Obviously the Daemon Hunters can't order in support for Sentinals and Leman Russes because they changed there name that must be an awkward phone call, " By the Ordo Malius I am Requisitioning your Leman Russ Battle Tank and Sentinal...." "oooo Sorry chief we got Leman Russ Squadrens and Sentinal Squadrens now new name but so ya its totally dif. soo uhh go F urself" *Click*

I think I'd be calling Adeptus Customaservice after that transmission.

CajunMan550 wrote:Your just taking this idea and nerfing it, the book was ment to be able to take the Russes and Sentinals. Why not deny them Infantry too because there not the same anymore they got different kinds of commanders. And take there Storm troops away cause hellguns are gone in new books obviously there just dead now even though that codex has them. Obviously the Daemon Hunters can't order in support for Sentinals and Leman Russes because they changed there name that must be an awkward phone call, " By the Ordo Malius I am Requisitioning your Leman Russ Battle Tank and Sentinal...." "oooo Sorry chief we got Leman Russ Squadrens and Sentinal Squadrens now new name but so ya its totally dif. soo uhh go F urself" *Click*

No offence, but thems the rules. Don't like it? Take a IG Army with DH/WH allies. That way you get 9 Russes, all the variants, without cheating!

Ah so now its cheating.....no response to page 48? A clearly defined codex entry for a lone LRBT?

You can take a Leman Russ ........ using the "Name Game" like some extreme RAW guys like to do, you could refuse to let them use Commander Pask as his abilities only apply to "Leman Russes" It doesnt say which one, so we must assume it means none of them..............

There is even a stat-line for the tank by name in the back......

People who hold the BS "Name Game" rule are childish as far as I can see.......its like telling someone that you refuse to play in a 40k Tournament because you dont play 40k.... you play Warhammer 40,000.

0-1 Leman Russ battle tank, for the points quoted in the new codex, with the upgrades as listed for the appropriate points and subject to Lumbering Behemoth. The Squadron rules affect those models within only insofar as forcing matched movement, target allocation, damage allocation etc and are all rendered moot by the original WH/DH limitation of 0-1.

Squadrons are described in the BGB with the following introduction '...some small vehicles, like Ork Warbuggies and Eldar Vypers, operate in UNITSof more than one vehicle, known as squadrons. These follow the rules for normal units...'
This proves that the term squadron falls under the wider auspices of the term UNIT and that the unit of 0-1 Leman Russ used by WH/DH is perfectly viable. The only deviation from standard as listed in the rules would have been the theoretical use of more than one LRBT in your army, the codex states only one, thereby rendering the secondary rules for squadron null and void.

You may field a leman russ battle tank in your DH/WH army.

I'm a little biased on this, because the codex is screwed on what Daemons are too. I've spent too many hours having to defend that my Daemon Princes aren't Daemons, just my Summoned Greater Daemon. It's just outdated, and a little too specific for it's own good. Had it been worded a little more badly I could see it more. Does this restrict what kind of Russ you can take, or are all of the variants open? Who knows?

"Most vehicles fight as individual units and are represented by a single model. However, some small vehicles. . ."

That first sentence helps a lot too. The second one I find funny because now LRBT are small vehicles.

Most vehicles are units. Some are squadrons.

See the disconnect when you start at the beginning?

R3con wrote:Ah so now its cheating.....no response to page 48? A clearly defined codex entry for a lone LRBT?

And the points are? Oh look, the Unit of LRBT doesn't exist! Show me in the Army list a Unit called LRBT and it's points. I see a LRS, but not a LRBT.

Codex WH, which I am looking at right now says 0-1 Leman Russ battle tank, that means the vanilla type, not a variant, since back in the day we had demolishers and there was no allowance then. This represents a tank requisitioned by an inquisitor, it would only be viable to take the battle tank, which is the vanilla one, normal upgrades apply as does the new lumbering behemoth rule. Enjoy!

MeanGreenStompa wrote:You may field a leman russ battle tank in your DH/WH army.

Repeating it doesn't make you right. Actually proving it does, as I have done multiple times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Codex WH, which I am looking at right now says 0-1 Leman Russ battle tank

Ok, One last time:
NO IT DOES NOT
It says you may Take "These Units", of which one Unit is LRBT. There is NO UNIT Called LRBT in the IG Codex. There is a Leman Russ Squadron, but no option to field a Unit called Leman Russ Battle Tank

kirsanth wrote:"Most vehicles fight as individual units and are represented by a single model. However, some small vehicles. . ."

That first sentence helps a lot too. The second one I find funny because now LRBT are small vehicles.

Most vehicles are units. Some are squadrons.

See the disconnect when you start at the beginning?

Now who's interpreting the rules to suit? If it's covered by the squadron rules, it is still viable to be covered by the rules for UNITS where not superseded by the squadron rules. The rules are clear on this.

It says look in the IG Codex; does it say which version?

Seriously - does it say "Look in the newest version" or "Look in the version published in year X"? Or does it just say "Look in the IG Codex"?

Can anyone find RAW which state that the current version of Codexes MUST always be used? Or is that just assumed as RAI? If not, then RAW - in fact - allows for use of any old Codex we like . . .

Which would cause all sorts of RAW headaches, right?

See, don't think for any instant I am arguing that we SHOULD allow use of Rogue Trader army lists in current 40K, but simply that I can't remember finding a single RAW which SPECIFICALLY says we have to use the current codex. Specifically, the WH 'dex does NOT say "use the latest IG Codex, which may have been printed long after this one and may not work with these rules if you are being anal about it".

There is really no such thing as RAW - there is "RAW with the minimum amount of RAI assumptions of things that should be obvious" (such as using a current 'dex).

I think it is obvious a WH player is supposed to be able to take a single LRBT. If someone got all "RAW! RAW! RAW says no!" I would just pull out last edition of the IG Codex and say "Got the rules right here .... let's see RAW which says I have to use the current 'dex please?"

Hey Gwar your wrong get over it.

When I look at Army Builder or my Codex and it says in big letters Leman Russ Battle Tank I can tell your wrong right there.

Gwar! wrote:
Ok, One last time:
NO IT DOES NOT
It says you may Take "These Units", of which one Unit is LRBT. There is NO UNIT Called LRBT in the IG Codex. There is a Leman Russ Squadron, but no option to field a Unit called Leman Russ Battle Tank

Squadron, which is a type of Unit, so the Leman Russ Unit is not the same as the Leman Russ Battle Tank Unit? That's your whole argument? The Leman Russ isn't the Leman Russ Battle Tank? What is it then? A toaster? The new Imperial Guard Codex does indeed describe the Leman Russ as 'Leman Russ Battle Tanks' on page 48 of the new codex.

You are quite wrong Gwar, now please stop with the caps and 'you're wrong, you're wrong'. I have categorically proven my point via both codices and the rulebook. I am sorry that seems to anger you so.

Ah mgs. I feel like you sir are just not grasping what he is trying to say.

I feel that gwar is right on this one. He is also right that if they did not mean to screw over the dh they would post an faq about it to clear up this problem.

Also darkknight that's a terribly idiotic thing to say. Shame on you for opening your mouth.

Also i do not give you permision to put the I think gwar is right part in your sig gwar. Ive hated that ever since ive seen it as I do feel that one part about you is arrogant.

Army Builder isn't exactly official. I brought up earlier that a guy I know was using it and it didn't add the cost for any of his vehicles past the first in a squadron. I was then brought up that it was an error with the data file, meaning anyone could add anything to Army Builder at will.

IG Codex pg. 89

Army List Entries
Each entry in the army list represents a different UNIT.

Seems quite clear to me.

You are told which specific unit to look up.

Looking up a different name is the start of the problem, even if the name is close.

But you didn't say I couldn't put it there

Golga wrote:Also darkknight that's a terribly idiotic thing to say. Shame on you for opening your mouth.

Please do a couple of things for me; learn to spell my username correctly (is it so hard to copy?) and show me where I am wrong in what I say. I would like someone to provide RAW which say "you have to use the current version of the Codex" or similar. I don't think you will find it.

Of course, it is reasonably assumed RAI - but that is not the same as RAW. And that is what this is about.

Also, for the record - I agree with the chap with the Brian Blessed avatar; you may take 0-1 Leman Russ (Unit - and we know it is a unit because the 'dex says "The following units . . .") and there is a Leman Russ Squadron entry. And rulebook states that squadrons are a type of unit ("units called squadrons"). I find this argument compelling, and consider there is a case that RAW allows for the use of not just 0-1 Russ, but in fact 0-1 Russ squadron with all the bells and whistles.

Darknight wrote:

Golga wrote:Also darkknight that's a terribly idiotic thing to say. Shame on you for opening your mouth.

Please do a couple of things for me; learn to spell my username correctly (is it so hard to copy?) and show me where I am wrong in what I say. I would like someone to provide RAW which say "you have to use the current version of the Codex" or similar. I don't think you will find it.

Of course, it is reasonably assumed RAI - but that is not the same as RAW. And that is what this is about.

Also, for the record - I agree with the chap with the Brian Blessed avatar; you may take 0-1 Leman Russ (Unit - and we know it is a unit because the 'dex says "The following units . . .") and there is a Leman Russ Squadron entry. And rulebook states that squadrons are a type of unit ("units called squadrons"). I find this argument compelling, and consider there is a case that RAW allows for the use of not just 0-1 Russ, but in fact 0-1 Russ squadron with all the bells and whistles.

Ok....

The mind boggles.

This time I am pretty sure it is not just mine, either.

Since I'm a nice guy, and realize that this is a game, I would have no problem letting you field your single LRBT, put all the upgades you want (except Pask, just a little too much) and field it. Thats just me.

Though RAW seems kinda shady, common sense would have to tell you that Inquisitorial forces can still use the LRBT, its the first one on the "Leman Russ squadron" list.

What could you not follow?

You are permitted to take a Leman Russ unit - because it says "The following units . . . . 0-1 Leman Russ" in the WH Codex.

Squadrons are a type of unit. Therefore, all squadrons are units, but not all units are squadrons.

Therefore, a Leman Russ Squadron is a Leman Russ Unit.

Therefore, there is a RAW case that a Leman Russ squadron can be taken.

Is that RAI? No - RAI is clearly a single Leman Russ (normal variant) but if we want to make RAW comments here, there is a RAW case for the whole damned squadron.

Darknight wrote:What could you not follow?

You are permitted to take a Leman Russ unit - because it says "The following units . . . . 0-1 Leman Russ" in the WH Codex.

Squadrons are a type of unit. Therefore, all squadrons are units, but not all units are squadrons.

Therefore, a Leman Russ Squadron is a Leman Russ Unit.

Therefore, there is a RAW case that a Leman Russ squadron can be taken.

Is that RAI? No - RAI is clearly a single Leman Russ (normal variant) but if we want to make RAW comments here, there is a RAW case for the whole damned squadron.

No.

No there is not.

kirsanth wrote:You are told which specific unit to look up.

Looking up a different name is the start of the problem, even if the name is close.

It says 0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank in the WH codex. So I would read that as just ONE Leman Russ Battle Tank.

Army Builder makes mistakes all the time. That is no valuable proof.

I agree with Gwar! that by strict RAW it is no longer allowed. However, I'd always speak with my opponent about stuff like this before and he'd probably agree.

Heck, I guess almost everyone would agree on it, but, as stated before, that is not exactly the topic here. I dare to guess even Gwar!, if asked nicely, would allow his opponent to take one LRBT in his WH/DH army for a game. It's just that the rules no longer really 100% allow it.