Lumbering Behemoth vs. Shaken [New Info]

[Paul]

Hello everyone!

I've been thinking about the Lumbering Behemoth vs Shaken debate all day, and I realized something very important:

GK Land Raiders no longer have the "Therefore..." statement.

This is huge - the traditional counter argument to the LRBT may fire while shaken was that "Well, PotMS says the same thing, but the THEREFORE statement was the REAL permission."

Now, GK Land Raiders have no Therefore statement. The permission to fire "one more weapon than normally permitted" is all that is required to fire when one is shaken and stunned.

In English, that statement is functionally equivalent to "the turret weapon in addition to any other weapons that would normally be allowed to fire."

YAY for LRBTs.

[DarkLink]

Nope, still doesn't work.

POTMS lets you fire after being shaken because you may 'fire one more weapon than normally allowed'. If you're normally allowed no shots (shaken), you can still take one. 0+1=1. Simple. The "therefore" statement was never necessary, it was just clarification.

Lumbering Behemoth does not state this. It simply says that you can fire your ordinance in addition to your other weapons, if you can fire your other weapons. All that does is let you shoot both the heavy bolter or whatever and your battle cannon. It doesn't grant the ability to shoot when you normally couldn't. Normally you can fire one, or the other, and this rule simply lets you do both. Nothing more. 1+1=2, but 0*(1+1)=0.

Don't mistake the two rules because they're kinda similar. Neither have anything to do with the other.

[Paul]

Nope, still doesn't work.

POTMS lets you fire after being shaken because you may 'fire one more weapon than normally allowed'. If you're normally allowed no shots (shaken), you can still take one. 0+1=1. Simple. The "therefore" statement was never necessary, it was just clarification.

Lumbering Behemoth does not state this. It simply says that you can fire your ordinance in addition to your other weapons, if you can fire your other weapons. All that does is let you shoot both the heavy bolter or whatever and your battle cannon. It doesn't grant the ability to shoot when you normally couldn't. Normally you can fire one, or the other, and this rule simply lets you do both. Nothing more. 1+1=2, but 0*(1+1)=0.

Don't mistake the two rules because they're kinda similar. Neither have anything to do with the other.

The part in bold seems unsupported by the rules, hence my confusion.

The word "any" in "any other weapons" in the Lumbering Behemoth rule can, and often does, include zero.

Otherwise, the way you argue it, a LRBT with it's other guns out of LOS or destroyed cannot fire its turret.

[inquisitorsog]

Nope, still doesn't work.

POTMS lets you fire after being shaken because you may 'fire one more weapon than normally allowed'. If you're normally allowed no shots (shaken), you can still take one. 0+1=1. Simple. The "therefore" statement was never necessary, it was just clarification.

Lumbering Behemoth does not state this. It simply says that you can fire your ordinance in addition to your other weapons, if you can fire your other weapons. All that does is let you shoot both the heavy bolter or whatever and your battle cannon. It doesn't grant the ability to shoot when you normally couldn't. Normally you can fire one, or the other, and this rule simply lets you do both. Nothing more. 1+1=2, but 0*(1+1)=0.

Don't mistake the two rules because they're kinda similar. Neither have anything to do with the other.

Sorry, but to clarify: the Lumbering Behemoth does not say "if you can fire your other weapons". If it did, there would be no debate.

The rule is clear as mud. How this hasn't been FAQ'ed is beyond me. I write software for a living and parsing this kind of garbage is way too common for me. If I were to hand that rule to a developer to implement, I can assure you that most of the time it would be implemented similar to POTMS, but it's sufficiently vague that I couldn't be sure what the developer would implement. The "it is usually" adds no clarification at all. If I've got a damage result that "usually" prevents me from firing any weapons, then I've got a situation that becomes "I can fire my turret weapon in addition to the zero weapons I can normally fire".

The fluff states it is an "indefatigable onslaught of firepower". "A Leman Russ is proof against all but the most destructive of enemy attacks". It's "heedless of incoming shells and blasts".

Fluff is not rules. But, sometimes it's useful for gleaning some clue about the intention. Did the designer intend this to merely be an override of the number of weapons you can fire based on movement, or did they intend this to override anything else?

Given the game's history, I lean towards the former interpretation as the old gripe was that the Russ ended up being self propelled artillery and not a tank. With that understanding, the fluff is just fluff. However, carrying that understanding into the RAW is just as likely to be wrong as trying to use a special rule from another dex to create a ruling on this one. That historical info is also useless to a newcomer.

So, I ask this: was this question ever put to GW? Given they clarified Bastonne's officer status in the FAQ (and that rule _was_ clear, just easily overlooked), I find it hard to believe that a normal and reasonable game company would leave a clarification like this out. Anyone arguing it is clear is not being open minded about how it can be confusing.

Then again, this is GW with the "once a year FAQ" mindset. I guess "reasonable and normal" don't apply.

[DarkLink]

"the turret weapon in addition to any other weapons that would normally be allowed to fire."

You're right that it's a somewhat ambiguous statement, but remember we're starting from the default of 'you can't shoot while shaken'. Unless the Lubering Behemoth rule contradicts that, you can't fire while shaken even if you can fire ordinance and normal weapons at the same time.


The word "any" in "any other weapons" in the Lumbering Behemoth rule can, and often does, include zero.

So? Just because you may or may not fire your heavy bolters along with your battle cannon doesn't mean that you can fire your battle cannon when you normally can't. All this part does is explain that if you can fire another weapon (heavy bolters), you may do so when you use the battle cannon. It doesn't include anything that would override an inability to fire the weapon at all. Otherwise, by your logic, Leman Russes could ignore moving restrictions on shooting as well.




Because this is an ambiguous rule where explicit contradiction is required, you can't justify Lumbering Behemoth overriding the general rules for vehicle damage.

[Foreigner]

The part in bold seems unsupported by the rules, hence my confusion.

The word "any" in "any other weapons" in the Lumbering Behemoth rule can, and often does, include zero.

Otherwise, the way you argue it, a LRBT with it's other guns out of LOS or destroyed cannot fire its turret.

The word "any" means 1 or more.

If you have 0 things, you don't have any.

Potential colloquial meanings you may attach to the word are not its actual meaning, nor are they correct.


an·y
   [en-ee] Show IPA
adjective
1.
one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification

Dictionary.com entry (for added emphasis)

[Turner]

I'm not, what, /sigh why is this coming up again?


http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=19786




"A Leman Russ that moved at combat speed or remained stationary can fire its turret weapon in addition to any other weapons it is usually allowed to fire (even if the turret weapon is ordnance!)."

That's a direct, straight outta da book word for word sillyness. All this rule is trying to say is "you can fire the turret weapon"



It's just whatever you can normally fire PLUS the turret weapon. If you're stunned, or shaken then normally you can't fire anything, and still can't fire anything. If you popped smoke because you're worried that your AV14/13/WhyAreTheyGettingRearArmourOnYou? won't protect you then you can't fire anything and still can't fire anything. If you suffered a weapon destroyed result and your savvy opponent chooses the turret weapon then the Lumbering Behemoth rule is pretty much useless because you can't fire the turret weapon, if you don't have a turret weapon... (However the Lumbering Behemoth rules can still make you go slow! Just because you don't have a turret doesn't mean you don't have to roll D6 + 6" to travel at cruising speed!)

[Wolfshade]

^^ exactly, the rule is there to allow you to move and fire the turret otherwise a number of teh LRs would be the equivalent of static guns, which IG already have in the Bassalisk/Manticore/other option

[DarkLink]

The confusion comes from the apparently similarity to PotMS. People think they're basically the same rule, when really they're very different.

[Kawauso]

Honestly I hope they just replace Lumbering Behemoth with the 'Heavy' rule the Necron Monolith has.

Would fit the Leman Russ just fine, make it a bit better without being overpowered, and people seem to understand it easily enough.

[Vaktathi]

Personally, as an IG player with nearly double digits of Leman Russ tanks, I've always played it as though it basically made the Turret weapon a defensive weapon at all times, never that it could fire after popping smoke or while stunned or whatnot. However, I can see the RAW argument going either way, having to nitpick over individual meanings of words is usually the sign of a badly written rule.

That said, I think the Rule as Intended is fairly clear, which is basically to make the Leman Russ tank's array of weapons actually useful instead of mutually exclusive, but not allow it to still fire while stunned.

[Turner]

The confusion comes from the apparently similarity to PotMS. People think they're basically the same rule, when really they're very different.



But that's just it, that right there... From what I've read and all the stupid FAQ'ing they do the Lumbering Behemoth rule was very well thought out, in my person opinion. (Space Marines: So if my Space Marine Tech Priest has X and Y does he get an extra attack in close combat? GW: Yes. Black Templars: So if my Space Marine Tech Priest has X and Y does he get an extra attack in close combat? GW: No.)

Firing an ordnance weapon? Well you can't because in the main rule book it states that if you want to fire an ordnance weapon then all those other weapons you have you can't fire. Ahhhhhhhh but this special rule states I can fire all of my other weapons that I'm normally allowed to fire....


So where is the confusion? I'm normally allowed to fire everything, EVERYTHING if I don't move. I'm normally allowed to fire ONE weapon if I move at combat speed... I'm normally allowed to fire nothing if I move at cruising speed (unless I'm a fast yeah yeah we get it.) I'm normally allowed to fire nothing if I'm shaken, if I'm stunned, if I pop smoke, if my weapon is destroyed.... Where is all this confusion coming from? I've personally never read the PotMS rule in the space marine book or grey knight book I've always just taken my opponent at there word (ok I've read it in the space marine book like once or twice but I don't know I vaguely know it's awesome and whatever) but is the wording of Lumbering Behemoth and PotMS that similar that it arises such confusion?

[DarkLink]

So where is the confusion?

Literally right in front of you.

And, no, it was not a particularly well thought out rule. What a rule is supposed to do is not the measure of quality we're concerned with, but rather the clarity with which the rule communicates its purpose. Seeing as there is confusion over the rule, confusion that is not particularly easily dismissed, the rule should have been written better.

Lumbering Behemoth should say "Leman Russes ignore the restriction on firing its other weapons along with its ordinance".

[Turner]

Lumbering Behemoth should say "Leman Russes ignore the restriction on firing its other weapons along with its ordinance".

That actually lessens the rule... What about the Leman Russ Autocannonier? Or the Plasman cannon one? The Leman Russ Autocannonier (currently) can still move at combat speed and fire, how many weapons? Well normally one if you move a combat speed, however according to Lumbering Behemoth you can fire the turret weapon and an additional weapons you are normally allowed to fire...

[DarkLink]

Then replace ordinance with turret. Not the important part of my point.

[Turner]

Then replace ordinance with turret. Not the important part of my point.


So something like.... "Leman Russes ignore the restriction on firing its other weapons along with its turret"


No but seriously I get what you are saying, however simply stating that it ignores the restriction on firing it's other weapons, everyone would immediately skew that to include popping smoke, stunned/shaken, cruising speed.

[Kawauso]

"Provided the Leman Russ is able to fire, it may always fire its turret weapon in addition to any other weapons that it is allowed to fire, even if that weapon is ordnance."

But personally I'd still rather just see the Leman Russ variants get the Necron Monolith's 'Heavy' rule/type.