Lumbering Behemoth, Shaken or Not?

[Paul]

Alright, folks, here's a dilemma:

I run Imperial Armored Battlegroup from IA 1 (available from Forge World's Website).

I normally play lumbering behemoth as:

1) Stationary: Fires all weapons
2) Combat Speed: Turret weapon, main weapon, defensive weapons.
3) Cruising speed: None

I was told (to my delight) that the wording of Lumbering Behemoth is such that I may choose to fire the turret-mounted weapon regardless of the "Shaken" result on the damage table!

Needless to say, I didn't argue; we played his way. But I would like to confirm or deny this before actually playing another game.

The Rule:

A Leman Russ that moved at combat speed or remained stationary can fire its turret weapon in addition to any other weapons it would normally be allowed to fire (even if the turret weapon is ordnance!). However, a Leman Russ moving at Cruising Speed may only move 6" + d6. Roll everytime the vehicle moves.
The Reasoning:
1) The Leman Russ moved at combat speed or remained stationary.
2) The Leman Russ is shaken.
3) The Leman Russ may fire its turret weapon in addition to any other weapons it would normally be allowed to fire.
4) It is normally allowed to fire no weapons, because it is shaken.
Conclusion: It may fire its turret weapon and no other weapons.

EDIT: Curiously, I was playing another IG player with a ton of Vanquishers in his codex army - like 4. List tailoring much?

[Nabterayl]

I would concur. Same reason you can use Power of the Machine Spirit to fire a weapon even if Shaken.

[Lerra]

That seems like a logical conclusion, but you may want to talk it over with your opponent before the game starts to avoid any mid-game conflicts. It's best not to spring things like that on people.

[Lord Azaghul]

Gotta say I've been running IG a long time and I've never thought it was legal to play it that way.

The key wording to me seems to be: 'in addition to any other weapons it would normally be allowed to fire'

Shaken means your not allowed to fire. I don't see it as 0+1. I view it as null or no equation. If you're normally allowed to fire: yes. If you're not, then no.

Belong 'allowed to fire no weapons' is not the same as being 'allowed to fire weapons'

I think its very close to the PotMS wording but not quite. (not to mention the FAQ did clear it up, or was it the forgeworld one...)

Not to mention I did ask about this is my local club a long time ago and was shouted down...and honestly, IG really don't need that bonus :P

If this one is legit...awesome, and I'm going to start arguing again that I can deploy a whole platoon in DoW! LOL

[Nabterayl]

Shaken means your not allowed to fire. I don't see it as 0+1. I view it as null or no equation. If you're normally allowed to fire: yes. If you're not, then no.

Belong 'allowed to fire no weapons' is not the same as being 'allowed to fire weapons'

I think its very close to the PotMS wording but not quite. (not to mention the FAQ did clear it up, or was it the forgeworld one...)
Is there a FAQ I missed? I'd certainly be interested in that.

Otherwise, what is the difference in meaning you see between "in addition to any other weapons it is usually allowed to fire" (LB) and "one more weapon than would normally be permitted" (PotMS)? I don't see a meaningful difference between "usually allowed" and "normally be permitted." Do you?


Not to mention I did ask about this is my local club a long time ago and was shouted down...and honestly, IG really don't need that bonus :P
Sure, but the question isn't what is a good idea, or how the game should be played. The question is what the rules say. Playing 40K correctly and playing 40K according to what the rules say are not the same thing. This is a forum to ask about the latter, not the former.

[slxiii]

I would say no. POTMS specifically says you may shoot when otherwise disallowed, this does not. You are inferring meaning from it where there is none. By the same logic, ravagers can always fire because their rule states they can fire all weapons if they move at cruising speed.

[Nabterayl]

I would say no. POTMS specifically says you may shoot when otherwise disallowed, this does not.
No, it doesn't. There's a world of difference between "A Land Raider that has ... suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or 'Crew Shaken' result can fire a single weapon" (which would mean what you say) and "Therefore, a Land Raider that has ... suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or 'Crew Shaken' result can fire a single weapon" (which is what the codex says).


You are inferring meaning from it where there is none. By the same logic, ravagers can always fire because their rule states they can fire all weapons if they move at cruising speed.
I disagree. The space marine codex specifically says that one of the consequences of being able to "fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted" is being able to fire a single weapon even if Stunned or Shaken. It follows that every other time the 40K rules state that a vehicle may fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted, a vehicle may fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted even if Stunned or Shaken, whether or not the third paragraph of PotMS appears.

The question is, is there a difference between stating, "one more weapon than would normally be permitted" and "in addition to any other weapons it is usually allowed to fire?" Do those two statements, on their own, encompass and exclude the same sets of circumstances? Or is there one circumstance that the bare language of one encompasses or excludes that the other does not?

If they encompass and exclude the exact same sets of circumstances, it follows that being able to fire one weapon even when Stunned or Shaken is a consequence of being allowed to fire one more weapon than usually allowed, just as it is a consequence of being allowed to fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted.

[Nungunz]

I was told (to my delight) that the wording of Lumbering Behemoth is such that I may choose to fire the turret-mounted weapon regardless of the "Shaken" result on the damage table!

Needless to say, I didn't argue; we played his way. But I would like to confirm or deny this before actually playing another game.

No. The only rule that Lumbering Behemoth overrides is the moving and shooting part. Nowhere does it mention shaken/stunned so you have to default to the BRB in this case.

[GrenAcid]

No. The only rule that Lumbering Behemoth overrides is the moving and shooting part. Nowhere does it mention shaken/stunned so you have to default to the BRB in this case.

+1

[Nabterayl]

No. The only rule that Lumbering Behemoth overrides is the moving and shooting part. Nowhere does it mention shaken/stunned so you have to default to the BRB in this case.
Can you clarify your thought process for me here? The space marine codex doesn't say:

"A Land Raider that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons, and a Land Raider that has either moved at cruising speed, or has suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or 'Crew Shaken' result can fire a single weapon."

It says:

"Therefore, a Land Raider that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons, and a Land Raider that has either moved at cruising speed, or has suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or 'Crew Shaken' result can fire a single weapon."

The "therefore" makes it clear that the statement that follows is a consequence of another statement. In this case, that statement is:

"A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted."

That is the rule. The bit about shooting even when Stunned or Shaken is merely an example of one of the consequences of the rule.

So, for example, if the Land Raider Crusader entry simply said "A Land Raider Crusader can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted," and that was it, it would still be permitted to fire one weapon when Stunned or Shaken, even though the unit entry didn't specifically say so.

That's why the question is whether the LB and PotMS statements are equivalent. Specifically mentioning Stunned and Shaken in PotMS is not what lets Land Raiders shoot while Stunned or Shaken. It's essentially like a FAQ clarification that is built into the codex.

[thecactusman17]

I say no, because if the wording "in addition to any other weapons it would normally be allowed to fire." This indicates that first, you must be permitted to fire other weapons. A shaken or stunned vehicle may fire no weapons at all according to the rulebook. If your tank is not allowed to fire weapons at all, then it logically stands that you could not fire any other weapons in addition to them.

[Tynskel]

yeah, you have to be able to normally fire a weapon. The Power of the Machine Spirit makes a specific exception for when firing is disallowed.

[thecactusman17]

For reference, power of the machine spirit expressly states the words "than would normally be permitted," a phrase that indicates that it happens if something would prevent you from taking actions. Such as being shaken, where you are not permitted to fire weapons.

[Nabterayl]

yeah, you have to be able to normally fire a weapon. The Power of the Machine Spirit makes a specific exception for when firing is disallowed.


I say no, because if the wording "in addition to any other weapons it would normally be allowed to fire." This indicates that first, you must be permitted to fire other weapons. A shaken or stunned vehicle may fire no weapons at all according to the rulebook. If your tank is not allowed to fire weapons at all, then it logically stands that you could not fire any other weapons in addition to them.


For reference, power of the machine spirit expressly states the words "than would normally be permitted," a phrase that indicates that it happens if something would prevent you from taking actions. Such as being shaken, where you are not permitted to fire weapons.
"Normally permitted" and "usually allowed" mean the same things to me. Both indicate an exception to a rule - or, as thecactusman puts it, both "indicate that it happens if something would prevent you from taking actions."

Could somebody explain to me in what way "normally permitted" and "usually allowed" are different?

If Power of the Machine Spirit said, "A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would usually be allowed," would people be arguing that PotMS didn't apply to Shaken and Stunned?

[Tynskel]

the issue at hand here is that the space marine codex has mentioned stunned and shaken.
also, normally allowed, versus permitted...

hmmm....

Upon further looking: The definition of allowed inherently has permitted...
Also, the Grey Knights codex no longer mentions the 'shaken and stunned' wording...

This is starting to put me on the fence.

[Nabterayl]

Also, the Grey Knights codex no longer mentions the 'shaken and stunned' wording...
Why should it? According to the space marine codex, "A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted" means, inherently, that it can fire even if Stunned or Shaken. That's the work the "therefore" is doing in the third paragraph. A statement preceded by "therefore" must, by definition, be a mere clarification of - not an expansion of or an addition to - a statement that came before.

[blackarmchair]

Look, we all know what the RAI here is. The rule is obviously intended to remove the restriction on firing the main weapon after moving at combat speed. Clearly it is not meant to disallow any penalties from unrelated game rules. The special rule never even mentions vehicle damage results.

For those of you who are comparing this rule to PotMS I advise you to look to the C:SM codex FAQ regarding using PotMS after popping smokes. The BRB says that you can fire "no weapons" after popping smokes and for a long time people tried the same shenanigans (implying that no weapons = 0 weapons so 0+1 = 1) and it was FAQ'd that no weapons means no weapons no matter how clever your logic.

If common sense was insufficient, by precedent here we have an example. "Crew Shaken" says that you may fire no weapons (not 0 weapons, no weapons) and even though the firing restriction from moving was removed through the lumbering behemoth rule it does not allow the Russ to ignore the "Crew Shaken" result.

[Tynskel]

Why should it? According to the space marine codex, "A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted" means, inherently, that it can fire even if Stunned or Shaken. That's the work the "therefore" is doing in the third paragraph. A statement preceded by "therefore" must, by definition, be a mere clarification of - not an expansion of or an addition to - a statement that came before.

well, before hand the space marine codex explicitly mentions shaken, stunned, and cruising speed.

The point I am driving at is that the Grey Knight codex left out that segment, and by no means, will anyone say the land raider cannot fire.

However, there is a flaw in this argument. I do not understand why, at this point, the leman russ cannot fire while moving at cruising speed. There is nothing in the lumbering behemoth rules that says otherwise, just as the Power of the Machine Spirit doesn't prevent firing at Cruising Speed.

[Nabterayl]

well, before hand the space marine codex explicitly mentions shaken and stunned.
Do you see the difference between

"Therefore, a Land Raider that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons, and a Land Raider that has either moved at cruising speed, or has suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or 'Crew Shaken' result can fire a single weapon"
and

"A Land Raider that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons, and a Land Raider that has either moved at cruising speed, or has suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or 'Crew Shaken' result can fire a single weapon?"


However, there is a flaw in this argument. I do not understand why, at this point, the leman russ cannot fire while moving at cruising speed.
Who says it can't?

[Tynskel]

Do you see the difference between

"Therefore, a Land Raider that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons, and a Land Raider that has either moved at cruising speed, or has suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or 'Crew Shaken' result can fire a single weapon"
and

"A Land Raider that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons, and a Land Raider that has either moved at cruising speed, or has suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or 'Crew Shaken' result can fire a single weapon?"


Who says it can't?

But you previously agreed with the interpretation that you cannot fire at cruising speed.

[Nabterayl]

But you previously agreed with the interpretation that you cannot fire at cruising speed.
I did? I apologize, then; I don't see how that follows from the wording of Lumbering Behemoth.

[Paul]

However, there is a flaw in this argument. I do not understand why, at this point, the leman russ cannot fire while moving at cruising speed. There is nothing in the lumbering behemoth rules that says otherwise, just as the Power of the Machine Spirit doesn't prevent firing at Cruising Speed.

The very first sentence (which dictates the requirements for Lumbering Behemoth to take effect) addresses this:

"As long as the Leman Russ remains stationary or moves at combat speed..."

[Tynskel]

Well, it makes sense to me.

Bang Bang!

Actually, looking back on it, this interpretation makes the tank cost effective.

[Nabterayl]

The very first sentence (which dictates the requirements for Lumbering Behemoth to take effect) addresses this:

"As long as the Leman Russ remains stationary or moves at combat speed..."
Hahahahaha ... that's what I get for not referring back to my codex when I post. Yes, you're quite right, apparently I do believe that a Leman Russ that moves at cruising speed cannot fire any weapons. Thanks for the reminder!

[Demonus]

does lumbering bohemoth say you can fire a weapon / turret if you are shaken? no? then you cannot.

[Nabterayl]

Can Grey Knight Land Raiders fire when stunned or shaken, then, Demonus?

[Demonus]

does their codex say they can? if not, then no, they cannot.

if something may fire when it is stunned shaken, it must specifically say so (POTMS in Space Wolves book says so, Power matrix on a Monolith says so)

Dont have GK codex here so cant look sorry.

[Kawauso]

Yes, because it can always fire one more weapon than allowed.

The Russ can only fire its turret 'in addition' to any other weapons it is 'usually allowed to fire'.

If it's shaken/stunned, it can't fire.
There are no weapons it's allowed to fire, therefore, nothing the cannon can be fired 'in addition' to.

[Foreigner]

The (incorrect) interpretation of the Lumbering Behemoth rule that results in conclusion of being able to fire the main turret while shaken is brought about by a breakdown in the understanding of the English language, caused by ever having been taught math in your life ever.

The word add (or in this case addition) has multiple meanings that are context sensitive.

To add 2 and 2 produces 4 in the mathematical context. To add 0 and 1 produces 1. This is because in the mathematical context to add is to combine two number values into a single value.

However, to add 2 eggs to a bowl of flour (while making a cake) is to place 2 eggs into an already existing flour.

Without the flour one cannot add the 2 eggs. They can simply have 2 eggs, or place 2 eggs.

This is the meaning of the word in the Lumbering Behemoth rule.

Furthermore, the use of phrase "in addition to" in the English language carries an IDENTICAL meaning to the phrase "as well as".

In each case, (using add outside of a mathematical context, and the phrase "as well as") results in first requiring something to be added to.

In order to fire the turret weapon under the Lumbering Behemoth rule, the tank must first be allowed to fire any of its other weapons.

[Nabterayl]

does their codex say they can? if not, then no, they cannot.

if something may fire when it is stunned shaken, it must specifically say so (POTMS in Space Wolves book says so, Power matrix on a Monolith says so)

Dont have GK codex here so cant look sorry.
It does not say anything about Stunned or Shaken, no. It doesn't say anything about combat speed or cruising speed, either. All it says is

"The vehicle can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted. In addition, this weapon can be fired at a different target unit to any other weapons, subject to the normal rules for shooting."
That is the entire Grey Knights version of PotMS.

Out of curiosity, since GKPotMS does not specifically override "may not shoot" (Stunned/Shaken), would you say that it also does not allow a GK Land Raider to fire one weapon after moving at cruising speed? GKPotMS doesn't specifically say you can, and vehicles that moved at cruising speed "may not fire."

I'm not sure how to argue that a rule overrides "may not fire" but doesn't overrule "may not shoot."


Yes, because it can always fire one more weapon than allowed.

The Russ can only fire its turret 'in addition' to any other weapons it is 'usually allowed to fire'.

If it's shaken/stunned, it can't fire.
There are no weapons it's allowed to fire, therefore, nothing the cannon can be fired 'in addition' to.
So you think "normally allowed" and "usually permitted" mean two different things. Can you explain to me the difference?

[wkz]

Basically, we have 2 camps I guess:
(of course, for both, add "as long as the speed requirement is met")



The 'in addition' camp: If a vehicle is in a condition where no weapons is allowed to fire (such as Stunned), the Lumbering Behemoth rule switches off.

Reasoning: 'usually allowed to fire' is a condition: if the condition is not met, the result as said by the Lumbering Behemoth rule (main cannon switch on) does not occur.



The 'allowed to fire' camp: the Lumbering Behemoth ignores the vehicle's weapon's condition. It still can fire its turret weapon on top of weapons that are allowed/disallowed to fire.

Reasoning: whether or not the other weapons are 'allowed to fire', the Lumbering Behemoth rule allows one more weapon "in addition" on top of that.



Edit:

...
However, to add 2 eggs to a bowl of flour (while making a cake) is to place 2 eggs into an already existing flour.

Without the flour one cannot add the 2 eggs. They can simply have 2 eggs, or place 2 eggs.
....This is very interesting, because rules usually are not supposed to be context sensitive. Plus, you got the context slightly wrong: The objective is not to make a cake. The objective is to dump as much stuff into the bowl as possible.

True, you cannot add flour because some idiot had snatched the bag of flour from your hands (Shaken). BUT you can still add the egg (Turret weapon) into the bowl (shooting) in addition to whether or not you had flour, correct?

[Nabterayl]

The (incorrect) interpretation of the Lumbering Behemoth rule that results in conclusion of being able to fire the main turret while shaken is brought about by a breakdown in the understanding of the English language, caused by ever having been taught math in your life ever.

The word add (or in this case addition) has multiple meanings that are context sensitive.

To add 2 and 2 produces 4 in the mathematical context. To add 0 and 1 produces 1. This is because in the mathematical context to add is to combine two number values into a single value.

However, to add 2 eggs to a bowl of flour (while making a cake) is to place 2 eggs into an already existing flour.

Without the flour one cannot add the 2 eggs. They can simply have 2 eggs, or place 2 eggs.

This is the meaning of the word in the Lumbering Behemoth rule.

Furthermore, the use of phrase "in addition to" in the English language carries an IDENTICAL meaning to the phrase "as well as".

In each case, (using add outside of a mathematical context, and the phrase "as well as") results in first requiring something to be added to.

In order to fire the turret weapon under the Lumbering Behemoth rule, the tank must first be allowed to fire any of its other weapons.
Just to be sure I understand you, since math is definitely not my strong suit, you are arguing that you cannot fire a turret weapon "in addition" to zero permissible weapons (LB), but you may have "one more" weapon than zero permissible weapons (PotMS)?

[Foreigner]

PotMS states that a vehicle may fire 1 more weapon than normally allowed. Then the sentence ends.

Lumbering Behemoth states that the tank may fire its turret weapon as well as any other weapons it is normally allowed.

[wkz]

PotMS states that a vehicle may fire 1 more weapon than normally allowed. Then the sentence ends.

Lumbering Behemoth states that the tank may fire its turret weapon as well as any other weapons it is normally allowed.

If Lumbering Behemoth stated similarly to PotMS, it would allow the side or hull weapons to get the shot instead of the Turret weapon. Thus the wording.

The interesting thing is does the Turret weapon gain something similar to PotMS in the fact it can fire that 1 more specific weapon than normally allowed?

[Foreigner]

If Lumbering Behemoth stated similarly to PotMS, it would allow the side or hull weapons to get the shot instead of the Turret weapon. Thus the wording.

The interesting thing is does the Turret weapon gain something similar to PotMS in the fact it can fire that 1 more specific weapon than normally allowed?

I only sort of understand what you just said, but if I have it right......

No. Lumbering Behemoth is not saying that the tank can fire 1 more weapon that normally allowed.

It is saying that the tank may also fire its turret weapon when firing any other weapons. (most typically overriding the ordinance weapons are the only weapons rule)

[Nabterayl]

PotMS states that a vehicle may fire 1 more weapon than normally allowed. Then the sentence ends.

Lumbering Behemoth states that the tank may fire its turret weapon as well as any other weapons it is normally allowed.
I get that. But you're arguing that if I put you in Fort Knox and told you you could place one gold bar in your backpack as well as any bars of unobtainium you found, or in addition to any bars of unobtainium you found, my instructions would not permit you to place one gold bar in your backpack. That does not seem like the correct parsing of that sentence to me.

[Foreigner]

I get that. But you're arguing that if I put you in Fort Knox and told you you could place one gold bar in your backpack as well as any bars of unobtainium you found, or in addition to any bars of unobtainium you found, my instructions would not permit you to place one gold bar in your backpack. That does not seem like the correct parsing of that sentence to me.

Colloquialized English would have me walk out with 1 gold bar and a theoretical 0 unobtanium bars.

Correct English would leave me sadface with no gold were there to be no unobtanium.


EDIT: And the correct fictional example would be to say that I must leave Fort Knox with no more than 1 gold bar as well as ALL the unobtanium bars.

Double Edit: The previous edit implies there must be unobtanium for me to take.

[Nabterayl]

Fair enough. Can you explain on what basis you view LB as not describing a mathematical operation?

[Foreigner]

Fair enough. Can you explain on what basis you view LB as not describing a mathematical operation?

The assumption that it is describing a mathematical operation stems from the similarities of the words "in addition to" and the mathematical process of adding.

Adding, in math, is the combining of two given values into a single final value.

Adding, outside math, is the combining of two tangible real things into something. Outside of math the concept of nothing cannot exist. 0 is representative of the concept of nothing within mathematics. Outside math, 0 is a number, just like all other numbers, which are things(ideas). It is impossible to combine something with nothing outside of math.

The LB rule is not some tricky word problem wherein the tank can't shoot if you get a B- on your next test.

Instead the rule describes the process by which the tank shoots multiple weapons.

If a person chooses to fire only the turret weapon on the tank, there is no potential conflict with other weapons and they are free to do so under the normal rules for shooting. (TRUE for all vehicles).

Under the LB rule, the tank may instead choose to fire any of its normal(non-turret) weapons, then, in addition, fire the turret (which is typically ordnance). (FALSE for other vehicles).


edit: spelling, also going to sleep. will continue tomorrow if needed.

[wkz]

Colloquialized English would have me walk out with 1 gold bar and a theoretical 0 unobtanium bars.

Correct English would leave me sadface with no gold were there to be no unobtanium.


EDIT: And the correct fictional example would be to say that I must leave Fort Knox with no more than 1 gold bar as well as ALL the unobtanium bars.

Double Edit: The previous edit implies there must be unobtanium for me to take.

Lets put it this way:

If the Russ moved, it is NORMALLY allowed to fire ONE weapon. But you "can fire its turret weapon in addition" to that one weapon. Correct so far?

If the Russ is stationary, it is NORMALLY allowed to fire all its weapons. But you "can fire its turret weapon in addition" to all those weapons (overriding the turret weapon's Ordnance rule). Correct so far?

If the Russ is stunned, it is NORMALLY not allowed to fire... ... But you "can fire its turret weapon in addition" to all those weapons (overriding the vehicle's stunned status)


This is why Nabterayl came up with the Fort Knox example: If you are allowed a Gold Bar, over and beyond other <Mineral> bars you can take out of Fort Knox... just because you have an empty cart you cannot take said bar?


Also, another interesting interpretation: Now, you're saying you cannot fire "normal" weapons = you cannot fire the turret weapons, correct?

Well, if all your Hull/side weapons are "Weapon Destroyed"... you cannot fire "normal" weapons now, can you?
The original rule states "... can fire its turret weapon in addition to any other weapons it would normally be allowed to fire (even if the turret weapon is ordnance!)...". Well, you can't fire any other weapons! Will the turret weapon shut down in this case?

(Granted, you can just take the Turret weapon and fire it normally... or can you? Will the Lumbering Behemoth rule tangle up the tank at this stage?)

@Foreigner: I think my main beef is with your argument, rather than your stance. Curious, no?

[Nabterayl]

Hmm ... can you back up your assertion that one cannot grammatically take one of something in addition to zero of something else? I confess I have never heard that rule before.

[Nabterayl]

Okay, I have been speaking with another friend about this, and I am ready to throw my vote in with the doesn't-override-shaken-or-stunned camp. Here is my reasoning:

The crux of the pro-argument (or at least my pro-argument) was this: that "can fire its turret weapon in addition to any other weapons it is usually allowed to fire" means the same thing as "can fire its turret weapon in addition to however many weapons it is usually allowed to fire." I think that second sentence, by itself, plainly overrides the vehicle damage table.

However, my friend has pointed out that Lumbering Behemoth has a very similar construction to the Defensive Weapons rule, which plainly does not override the vehicle damage table, and therefore might be referencing the same concept. In other words, Lumbering Behemoth could be rephrased in one of two ways:

Option 1 (does override the VDT)
... can fire its turret weapon in addition to however many weapons it is usually allowed to fire.

Option 2 (does not override the VDT)
... can fire its turret weapon in addition to the single weapon it is usually allowed to fire, if it moved at combat speed, or in addition to all of its weapons, if it remained stationary.
The question now becomes, which of these is most likely closest to the meaning of the actual rule, and how do we tell?

In favor of option 1 is the fact that (unless you agree with foreigner, I'm not sure I do), "in addition to however many weapons it is usually allowed to fire" means the same thing as "one more weapon than would normally be permitted," and we know the latter phrasing overrides the VDT (which we really would be able to figure out whether the space marine codex had made it explicit or not). If A overrides the VDT, and B means the same thing as A, then obviously B also overrides the VDT.

But in favor of option 2 are two facts. One, the IG codex did not echo the PotMS wording, even though it plainly could have. And two, it did echo the Defensive Weapons wording, which does not override the VDT.

We have two potential meanings, both of which I think fit the actual text. But my friend suggests, and I agree, that the similarity of LB to DW, and the dissimilarity of LB to PotMS, make it most likely that Option 2 is the closest to the meaning of the actual rule, and thus Lumbering Behemoth does not override the VDT.

[Arien]

I don't have a lot of time to post this and my home computer is dead so this is from work with no books to hand, but based purely on what I've read in the current five pages, here are my conclusions.

PotMS still overrides shaken/stunned in the GK codex for the simple reason that it replaces what can normally be fired with one more than would normally be fired (the "than" in the sentence means it replaces rather than adds)

LB will not override shaken/stunned results as it allows the firing of the turret weapon "In addition to" weapons that would normally be allowed to fire. Since there is no "than" in the sentence, the rule doesn't replace the nil to one, it attempts to add the turret to everything else that would normally be allowed to fire.

And re the question that if all the other weapons are destroyed what does that mean for the Turret Weapon (say it's ordnance and has moved combat speed), it means it can fire in addition to any weapons that would normally be allowed to fire, therefore if it would normally be allowed to fire a weapon, then the Turret may also fire.

I also believe this was the intent of the rule in the first place, which means that GW actually managed to write this one as intended! impressive indeed. :)

[Foreigner]

Hmm ... can you back up your assertion that one cannot grammatically take one of something in addition to zero of something else? I confess I have never heard that rule before.

I'll give explaining this a shot:

When using the phrase "in addition to" the English language asserts the existence of the second item.

If I were to say, I brought this apple in addition to some oranges to the picnic, it would mean that I brought some oranges and an apple.

If I were to say, I brought this apple in addition to no oranges to the picnic, it would mean I simply brought an apple, but I would be using the phrase/words incorrectly.

Having 1 apple in addition to no oranges does not mean I have apples and oranges. It means I have an apple.

Basically, if I want to have something in addition to another thing, I must first have that other thing.

"In addition to" reverses the word order of the sentence when determining order of events.

An apple in addition to some oranges would appear in the order of: oranges first, then add an apple.

It is impossible to add an apple to the oranges without oranges.

Its like a binary system, if oranges, then apple. Without oranges, no apple.

[Bean]

I'll give explaining this a shot:

When using the phrase "in addition to" the English language asserts the existence of the second item.

If I were to say, I brought this apple in addition to some oranges to the picnic, it would mean that I brought some oranges and an apple.

If I were to say, I brought this apple in addition to no oranges to the picnic, it would mean I simply brought an apple, but I would be using the phrase/words incorrectly.

Having 1 apple in addition to no oranges does not mean I have apples and oranges. It means I have an apple.

Basically, if I want to have something in addition to another thing, I must first have that other thing.

"In addition to" reverses the word order of the sentence when determining order of events.

An apple in addition to some oranges would appear in the order of: oranges first, then add an apple.

It is impossible to add an apple to the oranges without oranges.

Its like a binary system, if oranges, then apple. Without oranges, no apple.

This isn't a very good argument. While the language, "in addition to" does imply a second thing, that thing can be a set and that set can potentially be empty. If I point to a pile of fruit and say, "you can take an apple in addition to any oranges you find there," I have fulfilled the grammatical requirement of a second thing by offering the set of "any oranges you find in there." Of course, this set might be empty--it might be that you won't find any oranges in the fruit pile.

Grammatically, though, the possibility that the set is empty doesn't matter--it doesn't affect how the sentence should be interpreted. If I were to say this to you, I would be giving you permission to take an apple whether you find any oranges or not, and, frankly, in this apples-and-oranges case, it seems very, very unlikely that any native English speaker would conclude otherwise.

I can give you something in addition to a set which might include nothing. That is grammatically acceptable, and there I could generate a nearly infinite number of examples which would demonstrate that, though this one should be sufficient to demonstrate the point.

Nabterayal gives a much better argument against his own position than, frankly, any other argument I've seen against it. Certainly, it is better than this one.

[Iceman]

As an IG player I have always felt the rule for Lumbering Behemoth to be very clear and the POTMS rule to also be very clear and mean two different things. I really don't understand what appears to be the practice of some players by trying to parse every word to read in an advantage that really doesn't exist.

[Demonus]

In regards to GK PoTMS, i would say it can NOT be used if the vehicle is shaken/stunned as it does not say so. Other codices specifically state this, and GW obviously has the same units with different rules in their games (BA/SW Drop Pods hold 10 people, same Drop Pod for Vanilla marines holds 12.)

[Foreigner]

This isn't a very good argument. While the language, "in addition to" does imply a second thing, that thing can be a set and that set can potentially be empty. If I point to a pile of fruit and say, "you can take an apple in addition to any oranges you find there," I have fulfilled the grammatical requirement of a second thing by offering the set of "any oranges you find in there." Of course, this set might be empty--it might be that you won't find any oranges in the fruit pile.

Grammatically, though, the possibility that the set is empty doesn't matter--it doesn't affect how the sentence should be interpreted. If I were to say this to you, I would be giving you permission to take an apple whether you find any oranges or not, and, frankly, in this apples-and-oranges case, it seems very, very unlikely that any native English speaker would conclude otherwise.

I can give you something in addition to a set which might include nothing. That is grammatically acceptable, and there I could generate a nearly infinite number of examples which would demonstrate that, though this one should be sufficient to demonstrate the point.

Nabterayal gives a much better argument against his own position than, frankly, any other argument I've seen against it. Certainly, it is better than this one.


When your computer asks you to press any key, can you press no keys and have it work?

in addition to any other weapons, means there must be at least 1 other weapon.

[Bean]

When your computer asks you to press any key, can you press no keys and have it work?

in addition to any other weapons, means there must be at least 1 other weapon.

No. This is a bad analogy. The construction, "press any x" is quite different from the construction, "you may take one of x in addition to any y."

Your grasp of the language is demonstrably flawed. If this obvious non-analogy is the best argument you can produce, that flaw should be fairly obvious to anyone who's paying attention.

[Foreigner]

Definition of ANY
1
: one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind:

a : one or another taken at random <ask any man you meet>

b : every —used to indicate one selected without restriction <any child would know that>

2
: one, some, or all indiscriminately of whatever quantity:

a : one or more —used to indicate an undetermined number or amount <have you any money>

b : all —used to indicate a maximum or whole <needs any help he can get>

c : a or some without reference to quantity or extent <grateful for any favor at all>

3
a : unmeasured or unlimited in amount, number, or extent <any quantity you desire>

b : appreciably large or extended <could not endure it any length of time>


The word any means there is more than 0.

[Bean]

Definition of ANY
1
: one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind:

a : one or another taken at random <ask any man you meet>

b : every —used to indicate one selected without restriction <any child would know that>

2
: one, some, or all indiscriminately of whatever quantity:

a : one or more —used to indicate an undetermined number or amount <have you any money>

b : all —used to indicate a maximum or whole <needs any help he can get>

c : a or some without reference to quantity or extent <grateful for any favor at all>

3
a : unmeasured or unlimited in amount, number, or extent <any quantity you desire>

b : appreciably large or extended <could not endure it any length of time>


The word any means there is more than 0.

Unless you use this definition:

: one, some, or all indiscriminately of whatever quantity:


or this one:

a : unmeasured or unlimited in amount, number, or extent <any quantity you desire>


But hey--thanks for doing the legwork necessary to demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about.

[Foreigner]

You cant have 0 of something.

If you do, you don't actually have it.

I have 0 giant gold bars. I'm willing to sell them to you for $100. I'll ship any that fit in a standard uhaul box.

[Nabterayl]

That's not precisely what Bean is saying, Foreigner. "Any" encompasses any quantity whatsoever, positive, negative, or zero. You aren't adding to a specific quantity, you're adding to "any."

You can absolutely offer to sell us any giant gold bars you have for $100. If we accepted that offer, a valid, binding, and enforceable obligation would exist on our part to give you $100, and on your part to deliver however many giant gold bars you have - even if you have zero. That's a different contract than offering to sell us zero giant gold bars for $100, which would not be valid, binding, and enforceable.

[Foreigner]

That's not precisely what Bean is saying, Foreigner. "Any" encompasses any quantity whatsoever, positive, negative, or zero. You aren't adding to a specific quantity, you're adding to "any."

You can absolutely offer to sell us any giant gold bars you have for $100. If we accepted that offer, a valid, binding, and enforceable obligation would exist on our part to give you $100, and on your part to deliver however many giant gold bars you have - even if you have zero. That's a different contract than offering to sell us zero giant gold bars for $100, which would not be valid, binding, and enforceable.

I can't sell you gold bars, because I don't have any.

The word any implies a value of not 0.

[Bean]

I can't sell you gold bars, because I don't have any.

The word any implies a value of not 0.

Only in certain contexts (as demonstrated by your rendition of the dictionary) and this is not one of them (as demonstrated by my earlier example.)

You're just wrong on this one.

[Nabterayl]

I can't sell you gold bars, because I don't have any.
That's not the point. If I promise to give you $100 in return for any gold bars you have, and you happen to have zero gold bars, I still have to give you $100. By giving me zero gold bars, you will have given me any gold bars you had.

[slxiii]

when the last 3 pages of a rules argument require you to define common words, perhaps it is time to call it quits.

[Nabterayl]

I think at this point we're just contesting Foreigner's understanding of the word "any." By now, everybody in the thread agrees that Lumbering Behemoth does not override Shaken or Stunned.

[Slug]

Sorry for the wall of text I'm trying to respond to as much of this argument as possible.

Ok I've been reading this all though, as a guard player I wouldn't mind agreeing, however I don't actually think it is the spirit of the rule and so unless it became common place probably wouldn't play it such that I can ignore stunned / shaken. So purely based on the fact the rule is to do with movement, unlike PotMS which works differently (spirit wise, I do think each wording is interchangeable though). Fluff wise you could argue either interpretation of it, the for argument being it is a big hulking tank and the gunner, who is probably being yelled at, might not take much consideration of the tank being hit, or the against, it is a lumbering behemoth, the ordnance effect is not as pronounced and it moves slower allowing the turret to be fired. So purely on spirit I would say no as the rule refers to movement more than anything else, however it also overrides ordnance giving it some weight in that area.

For the grammar argument, here is an analogy. you are always (as there is nothing stating the rule turns off during stunned or shaken results.) allowed to take this one piece of chocolate (turret shot) in addition to any you can take from the packet (other shooting).

So example one: there are 2 pieces in the packet so you get 3 pieces, easy to follow.

Example two: there is no pieces in the packet, therefor any in this case is zero, hence any can be used to refer to zero , another way of putting this, you can take any oranges, there are no oranges, therefore any is zero, or there are two oranges, in this case any is two, any can represent any number.

Example three: the person giving out chocolate says your not allowed any, however you would still be allowed your one piece as they said always except when you run too fast. So therefore you get your turret shot.

So I think that based on the grammar argument it falls out in favor or the for camp, any can mean zero and in the end you can take your extra shot. However, I still think its abusing the rule a bit.

[Paul]

Well, my conclusion is that I will not play that way. It seems, largely, that a consensus is reached in the NAY camp.

Sadface, but acceptable.