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.

OK, say you have 2 squads of conscripts each near a commisar and they both have to take and will fail a moral test because they both lost too many models to auto pass.

The commisar rule now says "the first time an astra militarum unit fails whilst within 6" of any friendly commisar models, one model is slain and the moral test is rerolled"

OK, the problem is the first time part of the rule. Is that

A. The first unit that fails near the commisar gets shot so the second one near it doesn't have to worry about getting shot? Since the first time this rule is used is with squad A's failed roll then squad B's roll isn't an issue since it's the 2nd time the rule is used now.

B. A squad can only ever be effected by this rule once (ie the first time it happens)? Both squads get a guy popped but will not have to worry about it anymore because any other failed moral tests they will ever take will by default not be the first one, but a subsequent fail.

C. Something else, your over thinking it.

I can see both sides of it reading the rules. I personally think it's A, but I have been wrong before.

Isn't "the first time" just there to prevent you cycling the ability and continuing to re-roll? It doesn't say "the first unit to fail".

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Isn't "the first time" just there to prevent you cycling the ability and continuing to re-roll? It doesn't say "the first unit to fail".

The re-roll cannot be cycled as no die can be re-rolled more than once.

This rule has some other point, not sure what yet. Definitely going to be watching for an answer though.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Isn't "the first time" just there to prevent you cycling the ability and continuing to re-roll? It doesn't say "the first unit to fail".

The re-roll cannot be cycled as no die can be re-rolled more than once.

This rule has some other point, not sure what yet. Definitely going to be watching for an answer though.

Good shout. Hmm, if it means Commissars can only help one unit a turn, and with a nerfed version of their ability, that's not lovely. :-( Or once per game per unit? Also not great. FAQ is gonna need an FAQ as this is very unclear.

No he's misquoted the rule

"The first time an Astra Militarum unit fails a Morale test during the Morale phase whilst it is within 6" of any friendly Commissars,"

The rule is written this way so that the commissar only kills 1 model in a unit other wise you could have a unit auto failing moral checks and the commissar would gun through 20 conscripts

That explains why I wasn't getting it, I simply read it wrong. Sorry about that.

This makes commissars pointless now? That you have to reroll the morale anyway after 1 is executed?

Nemesis234 wrote:
This makes commissars pointless now? That you have to reroll the morale anyway after 1 is executed?

Not exactly. It mitigates losses to 1+D3 max, rather than say 10 Conscripts die, the other 10 run.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Nemesis234 wrote:
This makes commissars pointless now? That you have to reroll the morale anyway after 1 is executed?

Not exactly. It mitigates losses to 1+D3 max, rather than say 10 Conscripts die, the other 10 run.

Where are you getting d3？

Commissars let you use there leadership so considering conscripts ld 4 infantry ld 7 and Commissars ld 8 lord comissars ld 9.

So first leadership rule prevents the loss of 4 conscripts or 1 infantry (5 conscripts 2 infantry if lord comissar.)

As to the reroll rule well if I fail moral on a 6 and reroll to.a pass this would mean the only loss is the dude the comissar shot saving up to 4 men at most. However the reroll could occasionally make moral worse (fail on a 2 reroll to a 6) and in an auto failing unit its an extra man dead assuming mean reroll is no change.

So net assuming an auto failing conscript blob you will average at 4 less casualties with a lord comissar or 3 less with a comissar.

Range wise worst case scenario comissar is net -2 and best +8 conscripts +1 if lord

 argonak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Nemesis234 wrote:
This makes commissars pointless now? That you have to reroll the morale anyway after 1 is executed?

Not exactly. It mitigates losses to 1+D3 max, rather than say 10 Conscripts die, the other 10 run.

Where are you getting d3？

He is referring to am Commissar Warlord. They can get a warlord trait that if a morale test is failed, and failed again after a reroll, the unit removed D3 additional models, and then the morale test is auto-passed.

For normal Commissars, as I read it, if the reroll fails, that's it and the unit loses the normal number of models from casualties (ignoring the one who got shot by the Commissar).

Point is more than that are mitigated even without the warlord trait due to the comissars other rule.

Yes but you use the rolled number to calculate casualties so a fail on a 1 could be rerolled and become a 6 and a fail on a 6 could be rerolled and become a 1. As the way the rule is worded the reroll is not optional

Malachon wrote:

 argonak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Nemesis234 wrote:
This makes commissars pointless now? That you have to reroll the morale anyway after 1 is executed?

Not exactly. It mitigates losses to 1+D3 max, rather than say 10 Conscripts die, the other 10 run.

Where are you getting d3？

He is referring to am Commissar Warlord. They can get a warlord trait that if a morale test is failed, and failed again after a reroll, the unit removed D3 additional models, and then the morale test is auto-passed.

For normal Commissars, as I read it, if the reroll fails, that's it and the unit loses the normal number of models from casualties (ignoring the one who got shot by the Commissar).

There is no such warlord trait. I have my book open right now.

IG Warlord Traits:
Grand Strategist
Old Grudges
Implacable Determination
Draconian Disciplinarian (Reroll morale, nothing about a D3)
Bellowing Voice
Master of Command
And Officio Prefectus don't get a regiment warlord trait either. And only Mordians have anything relating to Morale in their warlord trait.

edit: Perhaps someone is confused with Fight to the Death Strategem? It lets you roll a D3 instead of a D6 which is slightly better. Valhallans can get Pietrov's MK 45 which has the old commissar rule as an ability.

edit2: nevermind, I hadn't noticed they added that in the errata.

 argonak wrote:
[
There is no such warlord trait. I have my book open right now.

IG Warlord Traits:

Draconian Disciplinarian (Reroll morale, nothing about a D3)

From errata:

WARHAMMER 40,000 – CODEX: ASTRA MILITARUM Page 140 – Draconian Disciplinarian
Add the following sentence:
‘If a Commissar has this Warlord Trait, then their Summary Execution ability takes precedence, but if the re-rolled Morale test is also failed then D3 additional models are slain and the test is then considered to have passed.’

tneva82 wrote:

 argonak wrote:
[
There is no such warlord trait. I have my book open right now.

IG Warlord Traits:

Draconian Disciplinarian (Reroll morale, nothing about a D3)

From errata:

WARHAMMER 40,000 – CODEX: ASTRA MILITARUM Page 140 – Draconian Disciplinarian
Add the following sentence:
‘If a Commissar has this Warlord Trait, then their Summary Execution ability takes precedence, but if the re-rolled Morale test is also failed then D3 additional models are slain and the test is then considered to have passed.’

Oh ok. I feel silly, thank you for correcting me. I haven't had a chance to print it out.

Just do what most people are doing and ignoring GWs errata.

This new edition will require only 8 pages of rules


Go to tournament OK I need my rulebook 2 codexs an index and 40 pages of errata.

U02dah4 wrote:
This new edition will require only 8 pages of rules


Go to tournament OK I need my rulebook 2 codexs an index and 40 pages of errata.

This comment is completely off topic.

Let's post another 2 pages of comments arguing about how much someone actually has to carry to tournaments.

U02dah4 wrote:
This new edition will require only 8 pages of rules


Go to tournament OK I need my rulebook 2 codexs an index and 40 pages of errata.

The King is dead. Long live the King. 8th is largely the same as 7th. It's not like GW hired a whole new rules studio.

I read the rule meaning that any particular Astra Militarum unit only has to face Summary Execution once per battle.

 Tsol wrote:
Just do what most people are doing and ignoring GWs errata.

That is literally the opposite of what "most" people do. Most people follow the rules, as written in the rulebooks and errata.

If you ignore this, why can't you also ignore the Conscript nerf? Or claim that Conscripts have 30 wounds each?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Tsol wrote:
Just do what most people are doing and ignoring GWs errata.

That is literally the opposite of what "most" people do. Most people follow the rules, as written in the rulebooks and errata.

If you ignore this, why can't you also ignore the Conscript nerf? Or claim that Conscripts have 30 wounds each?

Sorry, allow me to expand. Not all Errata, just the Commissar one. As as for your example, yes. You can do that. Not probably likely to fly in a tournament but in any regular games, it is just fine. House rules are quite common in my gaming group. At my local GW store, our guy has told us to hold tight, as he is fairly confident this will be changed again.

 Tsol wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Tsol wrote:
Just do what most people are doing and ignoring GWs errata.

That is literally the opposite of what "most" people do. Most people follow the rules, as written in the rulebooks and errata.

If you ignore this, why can't you also ignore the Conscript nerf? Or claim that Conscripts have 30 wounds each?

Sorry, allow me to expand. Not all Errata, just the Commissar one. As as for your example, yes. You can do that. Not probably likely to fly in a tournament but in any regular games, it is just fine. House rules are quite common in my gaming group. At my local GW store, our guy has told us to hold tight, as he is fairly confident this will be changed again.

So why is it ok to ignore one and not the other? Your local GW mean literally less than nothing.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Tsol wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Tsol wrote:
Just do what most people are doing and ignoring GWs errata.

That is literally the opposite of what "most" people do. Most people follow the rules, as written in the rulebooks and errata.

If you ignore this, why can't you also ignore the Conscript nerf? Or claim that Conscripts have 30 wounds each?

Sorry, allow me to expand. Not all Errata, just the Commissar one. As as for your example, yes. You can do that. Not probably likely to fly in a tournament but in any regular games, it is just fine. House rules are quite common in my gaming group. At my local GW store, our guy has told us to hold tight, as he is fairly confident this will be changed again.

So why is it ok to ignore one and not the other? Your local GW mean literally less than nothing.

You're arguing RAW vs a HIPWI post. Again.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Tsol wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Tsol wrote:
Just do what most people are doing and ignoring GWs errata.

That is literally the opposite of what "most" people do. Most people follow the rules, as written in the rulebooks and errata.

If you ignore this, why can't you also ignore the Conscript nerf? Or claim that Conscripts have 30 wounds each?

Sorry, allow me to expand. Not all Errata, just the Commissar one. As as for your example, yes. You can do that. Not probably likely to fly in a tournament but in any regular games, it is just fine. House rules are quite common in my gaming group. At my local GW store, our guy has told us to hold tight, as he is fairly confident this will be changed again.

So why is it ok to ignore one and not the other? Your local GW mean literally less than nothing.

You're arguing RAW vs a HIPWI post. Again.

I think I struck a nerve.

 Tsol wrote:
I think I struck a nerve.

Telling people to ignore the rules in a rules forum can do that.

On topic: The errata are pretty clear on how this is supposed to work. Yes, it may well end up being detrimental, but GW and the Commissar don't care.

But why, if so many of us can do so, couldn't GW come up with something like:

Green Rookies.
Conscripts are green behind their ears and lack battlefield discipline while the men are sorted out from the boys, they follow this special rule: Conscripts cannot be affected by COMMISSAR and OFFICER models.

 Lord Xcapobl wrote:
But why, if so many of us can do so, couldn't GW come up with something like:

Green Rookies.
Conscripts are green behind their ears and lack battlefield discipline while the men are sorted out from the boys, they follow this special rule: Conscripts cannot be affected by COMMISSAR and OFFICER models.

Because they wanted commissars to still be effective when paired with conscripts. Which makes sense, because its really just the disorganized dregs that that sort of base fear tactic is likely to work on while more elite squadrons are only going to start running when they have very good reasons to do so and will not be so easily swayed from their decision.

Also because that fix makes commissary entirely redundant which gw achieved in their own way