IG Commissar Lord as Warlord

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.

**vipoid**

Does anyone uses a Commissar Lord (not including Yarrick) as their Warlord?

If so, I'm curious to know why, and also how well you get by without Senior Orders.

**General Annoyance**

I use one quite regularly in my games. It's mainly because of his Aura of Discipline rule - Ld 10 Guardsman is brilliant in a lot of situations. Also saves me the hassle of rebuilding my Company Command squad (I'm working on it now but slow progress)

However, this was all before the new codex, and reading through it I must say the new orders look brilliant. I think the Lord Commisar still has a place as a Warlord, mainly for the rule above (plus I love challenging people with him), but I think a Command Squad with the new rules will be the more preferred choice.

Hope this helped

G.A

**Insurgency Walker**

I have been doing it in low point game, 1k or less. The last two warlords traits are bellowing command and master of command both granting the rule voice of command if the warlord doesn't already have it. I have been doing this because I used to use a Primaris psycher as my low point HQ and issue orders from the platoon HQ. I almost always run a mechanized army and the HQ cost with a chimera starts getting high. The trade made more sense when I could get an extra scoring unit out of the deal in sixth. The last 4 games I have played though, I would have been better off with a regular HQ. Still, some of the warlord traits work well on a single independent character. I have had a relentless (even with the reroll) assault command squad, my first game if I remember correctly with the 7th Ed codex.

**Happyjew**

So a couple of interesting notes.

First, Yarrick can never be your Warlord, despite having a Warlord Trait.

Why? Because he cannot be your Warlord if a model has the Senior Officer special rule. Yarrick has it.

Second, while Lord Commissars cannot be your Warlord, if a model has Senior Officer, there is nothing preventing regular Commissars from being your Warlord.

**vipoid**

Happyjew wrote:
So a couple of interesting notes.

First, Yarrick can never be your Warlord, despite having a Warlord Trait.

Why? Because he cannot be your Warlord if a model has the Senior Officer special rule. Yarrick has it.

Oh, I'm well aware of that one. Obviously he can't be your warlord because he outranks himself.

Happyjew wrote:

Second, while Lord Commissars cannot be your Warlord, if a model has Senior Officer, there is nothing preventing regular Commissars from being your Warlord.

Well... that's depressing. Funny, but still depressing.

Mainly because I'm working on a themed army, and a Lord Commissar seems like the best fit for the leader. However, I also don't really want to give up a CCS just so he can be my warlord.

Out of interest, do you think taking a CCS and still having a Lord Commissar as your warlord, would be overpowered?

If not, I might run the idea past my group and see what they say.

**TheSilo**

The chain of command special rule is neither fluffy nor essential to balance, I have no idea why they included it considering they have an entire Black Library series based on Commissar Gaunt and the Tanith. I'm biased as an IG player, but I'd say go ahead.

**Zewrath**

I don't understand why simple commissars don't have voice of command. Besides from *Blam!*-ing people, their function is to actually lead their assigned squad if no officers are present. This would also give people an actual reason to take Commissars over the Priest, because right now, I see no reason to field them.

**vipoid**

Zewrath wrote:
I don't understand why simple commissars don't have voice of command. Besides from *Blam!*-ing people, their function is to actually lead their assigned squad if no officers are present. This would also give people an actual reason to take Commissars over the Priest, because right now, I see no reason to field them.

I often wondered the same about Commissar Lords. It seems a bit odd that a platoon sergeant can issuing orders, but a Lord Commissar can't.

Also, while we're on the subject, how many Ld buffs does one man need?
- Ld10 (Fine)
- Aura of Discipline (Annoying that it can't work on Orders and such, but whatever)
- Stubborn (...ok)
- Summary Execution (

)

So, ignoring the Aura for now, he has Ld10, and he's stubborn, and on the rare occasions when his squad somehow fails a Ld test, he can just shoot someone to auto-pass it anyway.

I guess I'd just like him to do something for his squad that doesn't involve Ld - like giving them Preferred Enemy or (as suggested above) letting him issue orders.

**Furyou Miko**

Commissars are too busy being taught to be badass heroic commanders to take the time to learn tactics, I guess?

**ziggurattt**

Yarrick can't be the warlord?

That's just stupid.

I don't disagree, this is just the first time I actually noticed that.

Why does he have a warlord trait?

**Happyjew**

Because I think the idea is the chain of command is as follows:
Officers (iow anyone with Senior Officer, except Yarrick)
Commissar Yarrick
Lord Commissar

If you have a Senior Officer (not including Yarrick), they are the ones trained to command large armies, and as such, should be in control.

Yarrick, while doesn't have the same training, has led numerous battles, and outranks regular Lord Commissars. If you have no other senior officer, then Yarrick would, theoretically, take command.

If you have no Senior Officers at all, then the Lord Commissar steps up to lead the forces.

Of course this is all conjecture, and I wouldn't refuse someone who wants a Lord Commissar to be the Warlord over Creed.

**TheSilo**

Yarrick is not a Lord Commissar, ergo he can be your warlord.

**Guardsmen Bob**

Random thought, but wouldn't it be neat if when your CCS Warlord died, your Lord Commissar automatically inherits the title if he's near by? That way the enemy doesn't immediately get slay the warlord.

Hell, if there's another CCS in your force, it would be nice it that happened to them as well.

Warlord, chain of command style!

**Happyjew**

TheSilo wrote:
Yarrick is not a Lord Commissar, ergo he can be your warlord.

So then friendly units within 6" of him cannot use his Leadership for any Fear, Morale or Pinning test?

What about Summary Execution? That says Commissars. Does that mean Lord Commissars and Commissar Yarrick cannot execute someone to pass a Fear/Morale/Pinning test?

**TheSilo**

Happyjew wrote:
TheSilo wrote:
Yarrick is not a Lord Commissar, ergo he can be your warlord.

So then friendly units within 6" of him cannot use his Leadership for any Fear, Morale or Pinning test?

What about Summary Execution? That says Commissars. Does that mean Lord Commissars and Commissar Yarrick cannot execute someone to pass a Fear/Morale/Pinning test?

Summary Execution applies to Commissars, and Yarrick is clearly a Commissar. I guess he doesn't get Aura of Discipline.

**Bomb Squig**

I agree that the Chain of Command thing is annoying. If anything, they could have just given Creed a special rule so that he must be your Warlord if you take him in primary detachment.

It stays with fluff but doesn't give Yarrick conflicting feelings about outranking himself...