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.

I saw Ailaros post something patently wrong in [ur=this treadl]http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/589287.page[/url] on page 5 and I felt it needed to be brought up here to explain why it is wrong. Specifically it is this quote:

 Ailaros wrote:
The one really important thing to note about summary execution is that they lifted the prohibition against one commissar shooting another. Now that there's a chance that your opponent can pick a model to get the bolt to the brain, this is important if you have two commissars in the same squad.

Now he had this in the Lord Commissar entry; what is wrong about it is that a Lord Commissar in the same squad as a regular commissar(or 2 Lord Commissars joined to the same squad) are both going to have the Summary Execution rule which states that "– note that neither player can ever choose to execute the Commissar himself." Now since the use of Summary execution is not based on the individual model(your commissar/Lord Commissar does not invoke their specific rule) but is instead simply a rule invoked, you cannot ever execute any Commissars since both have the rule, and it is the rule, not the rule bearer that is invoked.

In short; because we simply roll for morale(and reroll if possible) and fail it is the rule that gets invoked and not the bearer of the rule who claims it therefore a unit with more than 1 commissar cannot execute any other commissars since there is no distinction as to which commissar is the commissar using the rule.

I really really really really want to play Codex : Space Army.

It was just released this weekend. It goes well with my Iron Hands and Their Primarch Iron Hands.

Good catch Kel.

This sounds like it could use a FAQ. It doesn't say anywhere that the commissar can't "shoot" another commissar, only not himself. Really, it sounds like RAW is they shoot each other as both rules would be invoked at the same time and resolved simultaneously. I don't have the rules in my possession yet, so maybe it does cover this somewhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be clear, I'd be perfectly happy to play it the way you describe, it just sounds like fishy logic.

With Priests being 25 points and granting Fearless and Hatred I can't see this being much of an issue in actual games though.

 Leonus wrote:
This sounds like it could use a FAQ. It doesn't say anywhere that the commissar can't "shoot" another commissar, only not himself. Really, it sounds like RAW is they shoot each other as both rules would be invoked at the same time and resolved simultaneously. I don't have the rules in my possession yet, so maybe it does cover this somewhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be clear, I'd be perfectly happy to play it the way you describe, it just sounds like fishy logic.

RAW we have no way of knowing which commissar is activating his Summary Execution; You simply use the rule to pass the failed test and kill a model that cannot be "the Commissar".

Honestly I do not see it coming up very often because who would join a Lord Commissar to a unit that already has a commissar, you gain exactly 0 benefit(Aura of discipline does not need the LC in the unit and Stubborn Ld 9 doesn't really need the extra point of Ld in other situations).

"the Commissar" is not "a Commissar". The use of "the" refers to a definite article, in this case the commissar with the rule. This means the commissar with the summery execution rule cannot execute himself, but he is no way barred from executing a different commissar, whether they have this rule or not. The big clue was the "himself" in the note. So based on whats in this thread, Ailaros was correct when he said "...they lifted the prohibition against one commissar shooting another".

Totally agree, there is nothing stopping one commisar shooting another, its really black and white.

 DJGietzen wrote:
"the Commissar" is not "a Commissar". The use of "the" refers to a definite article, in this case the commissar with the rule. This means the commissar with the summery execution rule cannot execute himself, but he is no way barred from executing a different commissar, whether they have this rule or not. The big clue was the "himself" in the note. So based on whats in this thread, Ailaros was correct when he said "...they lifted the prohibition against one commissar shooting another".

But how do you determine which commissar is invoking the rule?

I guess you could argue that they all happen at the same time, so the player whose turn it is chooses which one happens (first)?

 Cheexsta wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
"the Commissar" is not "a Commissar". The use of "the" refers to a definite article, in this case the commissar with the rule. This means the commissar with the summery execution rule cannot execute himself, but he is no way barred from executing a different commissar, whether they have this rule or not. The big clue was the "himself" in the note. So based on whats in this thread, Ailaros was correct when he said "...they lifted the prohibition against one commissar shooting another".

But how do you determine which commissar is invoking the rule?

I guess you could argue that they all happen at the same time, so the player whose turn it is chooses which one happens (first)?

The commissar has a rule that triggered. If the owning player invokes that rule then which commissar is "the" commissar is identified by the player when he chooses to invoke the rule or not.

The part that amuses me about Summary Execution is it only prohibits saves, not Feel No Pain (CCS can get that), nor do I see anything that prohibits LOS (as that's not a save, it's something done to reallocate the wound to a different model).

LoSing summary executions is a crime in the Imperium and any perpetrators will be shot.

ClockworkZion,
Thank you for a chuckle with the images it brings.

"That commissioner shot you in the head!"
"It is just a flesh wound...."

and

"For Treason I sentence you to death...."
"I'll save you siiiirr...." Leaps in-front of the shot
"well, seem I only brought one round today, so your free to go."

Ashiraya wrote:LoSing summary executions is a crime in the Imperium and any perpetrators will be shot.

So a double blamming then?

JinxDragon wrote:ClockworkZion,
Thank you for a chuckle with the images it brings.

"That commissioner shot you in the head!"
"It is just a flesh wound...."

and

"For Treason I sentence you to death...."
"I'll save you siiiirr...." Leaps in-front of the shot
"well, seem I only brought one round today, so your free to go."

Yeah, I chuckled too. I expect a FAQ about it eventually.

Remember LoS and FnP can only be taken against wounds. Does summary execution cause wounds?

I modeled my Lord Commissar as a female.

Does that mean she can execute herself?

;_;

 FlingitNow wrote:
Remember LoS and FnP can only be taken against wounds. Does summary execution cause wounds?

I'd have to look again, but seeing as they specify saves, probably. Anyone with the codex on hand can correct me on this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Laboeuf wrote:
I modeled my Lord Commissar as a female.

Does that mean she can execute herself?

;_;

No, pronouns are interchangeable in this case. It's like using "man" to describe humanity as a whole.

It doesn't just removes from play. No wound allocation to trigger LoS and you'd literally have no way of determining how many FnP rolls to make other than 0 as zero wounds are caused.

 FlingitNow wrote:
It doesn't just removes from play. No wound allocation to trigger LoS and you'd literally have no way of determining how many FnP rolls to make other than 0 as zero wounds are caused.

Then why specify the bit about saves? That's just silly.

Because: GW Rules

They presumably thought that they were making it clearer not everyone appreciates you only get armour/invun saves against wounds.

 FlingitNow wrote:
They presumably thought that they were making it clearer not everyone appreciates you only get armour/invun saves against wounds.

Fair enough. I still find it silly though.