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.

A local player pointed out that the new book lists the Tervigon as MC only. So does the main books classification of Mc(ch) no longer apply?

new book trumps old books/refrences

What's more interesting is what happens to the warlord in an all tervigon Hq list

It's an illegal list.

Nvr mind, the line is must, I thought it said may.

Warlords can be vehicles. It does state that you must nominate the character with the highest leadership to be your warlord. Are there possibly any non-HQs characters in the new book? Those could still be your warlord, if they exist.

There is only 1(iirc) vehicle capable of being warlord in any of the codices. Bjorn.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Warlords can be vehicles.

Nope. Vehicles cannot be characters and Warlords must be. Bjorn is the single exception to this rule (outside FW).

It does state that you must nominate the character with the highest leadership to be your warlord. Are there possibly any non-HQs characters in the new book? Those could still be your warlord, if they exist.

It states that you must nominate the HQ character with the highest leadership. Non HQ characters can never be a warlord.

When choosing your army, you must nominate one model to be your Warlord.

It actually doesn't tell us what to do if we don't have a Character as an HQ choice.

Not sure why anyone would run the garbage that is now Tervigon as an HQ regardless.

Stormbreed wrote:
When choosing your army, you must nominate one model to be your Warlord.

It actually doesn't tell us what to do if we don't have a Character as an HQ choice.

Not sure why anyone would run the garbage that is now Tervigon as an HQ regardless.

It also doesn't tell you what to do if you only have a single Troop choice. Or if you have 9 Heavy Support choices.
Or if you make a 2000 point list for a 1500 point game.

They're all illegal lists.

It says when choosing your army, ie: when writing your list. Not at the end of the process or when starting to play the game. If you don't have a model that can be nominated a warlord you should just re-balance your list with one that can be. It's rarely all that hard.

That being said, you could agree to play in a friendly game with no warlords at all or a no troops all HS list or whatever.

I'd have no problem letting someone use a Tervigon as their HQ if they so choose. Even though it is Illegal,

Stormbreed wrote:
We know we MUST have a warlord.

It then gives us guide lines for choosing the Warlord. If we don't have a character in our group of HQ's I don't see a restriction on the model being my Warlord.

If it doesn't meet the guidelines it isn't allowed be the warlord, that is the restriction.

Well from the fluff point of view, I think it fits fine. We've got legends about specific lions (ghost and the darkness film and what it was based on) irl, so why wouldn't the IG or the ultramarines who've fought them the most and still lived to see another day have legends about certain monsters? And synapse creatures fit the bill for characters.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
We know we MUST have a warlord.

It then gives us guide lines for choosing the Warlord. If we don't have a character in our group of HQ's I don't see a restriction on the model being my Warlord.

If it doesn't meet the guidelines it isn't allowed be the warlord, that is the restriction.

Ahhh yes, makes sense. Sorry Tyranids! How are people handling the BRB FAQ?


I still get a kick out of the BRB FAQ making Trygon Primes Characters and changing their stat lines. Come on GW don't just wait till 7th, give us some FAQs!

Well the brb faq doesn't matter anymore since they have a new codex and that was in relation to their 5th ed codex.

I am betting this is yet another victim of the Copy/Paste codex and it will be FAQ'd that the Tervigon is a Character.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Well the brb faq doesn't matter anymore since they have a new codex and that was in relation to their 5th ed codex.

If they removed the Nids Codex FAQ now, and then updated the BRB FAQ with something that didn't have anything to do with Nids but didn't remove the part about the Trygon Prime being a character with a changed stat line, then what would happen? It would say BRB FAQ Updated Jan 14/14, and suddenly the Trygon Prime would become changed?

rigeld2 wrote:

It states that you must nominate the HQ character with the highest leadership. Non HQ characters can never be a warlord.

Never? The Eldar Iyanden Wraithknight is.

Point six, of the personal Warlord traits says your warlord is scoring even if he is a vehicle. Does Sammel taking a speeder lose its character status? Because if it doesn't, then even without a leadership value, if he is your only HQs then he is still your warlord.

 NecronLord3 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

It states that you must nominate the HQ character with the highest leadership. Non HQ characters can never be a warlord.

Never? The Eldar Iyanden Wraithknight is.

Specific exceptions override general rules...

Point six, of the personal Warlord traits says your warlord is scoring even if he is a vehicle. Does Sammel taking a speeder lose its character status? Because if it doesn't, then even without a leadership value, if he is your only HQs then he is still your warlord.

Correct - a list with Sammael in his speeder as your only HQ is illegal as he cannot be a warlord.

The only non-character units I'm aware of having an exception are the Iyanden Wraithknight and Bjorn.

Also the Ashmantle for salamanders, from the badab war characters update, is a HQ vehicle character.

There are a fair number of FW Dreadnought HQs that can be Warlords. Also, while I don't have the list in front of me, I'm assuming that an Armoured Battle Group works out the Warlord issue somehow.

I wouldn't have any problem with someone taking a list and having Sammael in Land Speeder as the Warlord. doesn't he have a fixed Warlord trait? I would say that's pretty darned compelling evidence that he can, in fact, be a Warlord regardless of wargear.

 Kriswall wrote:
There are a fair number of FW Dreadnought HQs that can be Warlords. Also, while I don't have the list in front of me, I'm assuming that an Armoured Battle Group works out the Warlord issue somehow.

Sure - but I'm not familiar with the FW stuff so didn't want to speak to it/assume.

I wouldn't have any problem with someone taking a list and having Sammael in Land Speeder as the Warlord. doesn't he have a fixed Warlord trait? I would say that's pretty darned compelling evidence that he can, in fact, be a Warlord regardless of wargear.

He can be a warlord on his bike. He just can't on his speeder.

Of course he can be warlord on his speeder, this must be blind raw talking as I cannot conceive of a issue ever coming up in a real game


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Before I forget his WARLORD trait even mentions his land speeder

Formosa, I agree he should be able to be the warlord, however, the rules do not allow it. On his speeder, he is no longer a character, and this ineligible to be the warlord.

He is a special character and that's covered too, like nephiston being a character but not an ic, I will of course check my rb but I'm sure all special characters are... Characters.

If you were correct Formosa, then there would have been no need for an FAQ for Bjorn.

Well this seems like more raw nonsense, Sammy has a warlord trait thst still works if he is on his speeder, not allowed to be warlord means no warlord trait and the mention of his speeder would be moot.

While I understand this may be raw it is yet another reason why pure raw is idiotic as rai is very clear here, Sammy on speeder can be warlord any other conclusion feels like rule manipulations to gain advantage.
As always you guys do as you please

Formosa, the standard on this forum is RAW. If you don't like it then stop engaging.

I know the standard but others read it and they are not just raw people like myself, so while you may find it kinda pointless thst I post rai as well as raw others may find a differing opinion usefull, and a forums whole point to see differing opinions.

By the way I'm not arguing the raw of it, you have all explained it quite well and I understand, don't have to agree with the pure raw though

Pure raw is silly as is attempting pure rai, middle ground works well and THAT is why I post here to offer up differing ideas even if I actually agree with what is being said.

Of course it is silly, but it is still the Rules, Sammeal can not legally be a character. House rule it for sure, it clear he is meant to be allowed, but knowing why the House Rule is in place is just as important as stating that you prefer the House Rule. The only way we can convince our opponents that our House Rule is better then the Rule as Written is if we know why the Rule as Written doesn't work. This case it is pretty obvious, pointing to the Speeder exception in the Warlord Trait shows intent, but in a lot of them it really comes down to arguing over a handful of words in a sentence....