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.

So, according to the fluff I've read from Gaunt and Cain, and Severina, there is only ever really 1 single Lord Commissar in an entire battle sector. It's not like every company has one. Hell, most regiments only have a single regular commissar.

Fluff wise: shouldn't Lord Commissars be limited to 1 per battle list? Ala Special characters?

You realise that lord commissars were only introduced in the 5th edition codex, and they've been removed from the 10th edition.

Only the most recent guard books reference "Lord Commisars" and that was due to their addition to the rules.

One per sector is still entirely reliant on The Imperium’s rather dubious logistics and book keeping.

Nothing to stop more than one being dispatched, and Orders and Orders. Who then take seniority is for the Commissars to figure out from there.

You could say the same thing about company commanders: a 'standard' guard infantry company (in so far as such athing exists) is somewhere around the 300-400 soldiers mark, so having two company commanders in a 2000 point list is kind of unlikely in the same way two warbosses or chaos lords in a single force is unusual.

Or having 3 Captains in a single Space Marine list?

And, no, I had no idea LCs were brought about in 5th, having never played then. Also, I was not aware they were removed in the current dex. Thank you for the update.

locarno24 wrote:
You could say the same thing about company commanders: a 'standard' guard infantry company (in so far as such athing exists) is somewhere around the 300-400 soldiers mark, so having two company commanders in a 2000 point list is kind of unlikely in the same way two warbosses or chaos lords in a single force is unusual.

I think this is much less egregious than many duplicate commanders in 40k.

More or less the minimum strength for an IG infantry company is a command platoon (nowadays effectively a single company command squad) plus two infantry platoons of a platoon command squad plus two infantry squads. This is heavily understrength, but anything less than this would be platoon strength. This equates to 55 troopers, and is easy to duplicate (well, was easy before platoons disappeared from the rules). More elite and/or veteran regiments would be more likely to have companies at this end of the scale.

At what is typically the upper end for a company, there is command platoon plus six infantry platoons each with a platoon command plus five infantry squads (rarely six). Going with five, this equates to 330 soldiers and can be further increased by heavy and special weapons squads in a separate platoon or attached to the command or infantry platoons. Mechanised platoons are often a bit smaller, with three infantry squads and two heavy weapons squads being a standard format. It appears that regiments at mustering generally have companies at this strength of 300-400 soldiers, but this would be quickly whittled down in combat. I get the impression that operating with three infantry platoons is common after suffering campaign attrition.

So your tabletop force could include companies anywhere between those two extremes (which conveniently match the old standard force organisation chart...), and at the lower end it is very possible to fit two companies into a 1500 or 2000 point list.

Even outside that straightforward example, there are other reasons, such as handpicked forces for a crucial mission lead by two of the best commanders in those required roles, or one I've frequently used where I have a company on the field, but also have my regimental command (using company command rules) present on this specific section of the field (personally overseeing the most crucial part of the battleline, I'm sure). This is mainly because I want to use my regimental command squad!

In comparison, something like two Chapter Masters present on the same battlefield (especially if in the same Chapter colours) is going to need a lot more work to create lore to explain IMO.

On topic, I can't actually remember a lot about Commissar ranks off the top of my head, so watching this thread for fluff snippets. I suspect Lord Commissar is an umbrella term for several higher ranks within the Commissariat.

As of 9th, there are restrictions for Marines taking certain things in a list. You can only have one Captain and two Lt's (of any combination i.e. one Primaris and one Firstborn) per detachment and for Chapter officers such as Chapter Masters or Chief Librarians, you can have one per Chapter per army.
So if you took Commander Dante you couldn't also take a generic Blood Angels Chapter Master in the same army but could take Gabriel Seth or Marneus Calgar.

So according to Gaunt's list of books, a Lord Commissar is just an extremely high echelon attachment, I.E. the warmaster's personal morale officer. Think the Command Sgt Major in a normal infantry Battalion. They are only there to report to the senior commander on the readiness of the soldiers in the unit. The Lord Commissar is only there to report on the numbers of say, summary executions, desertions, etc, in a given briefing. Other than that, Lord Commissars have the appointed duty and right to execute high level staff officers, or commanders. Something a regular commissar can do, but only under extremely specific circumstances. See: Gaunt on the Vervunhive campaign.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, according to the fluff I've read from Gaunt and Cain, and Severina, there is only ever really 1 single Lord Commissar in an entire battle sector. It's not like every company has one. Hell, most regiments only have a single regular commissar.

Fluff wise: shouldn't Lord Commissars be limited to 1 per battle list? Ala Special characters?

The one commissar per planet is only really a thing for PDF. Each ship/regiment is supposed to have at least one, more if there is available personnel. There are some with one commissar per company, though it's rare.

Dirk Reinecke wrote:
You realise that lord commissars were only introduced in the 5th edition codex, and they've been removed from the 10th edition.

Only the most recent guard books reference "Lord Commisars" and that was due to their addition to the rules.

Erm, no, this is completely backwards. Higher ranking/senior commissars (and "Lord Commissar" is just umbrella term for these, rather than actual rank, same as with "Lord Inquisitor") were a thing since Rogue Trader. 5th edition added them to the game (partially to let people build Gaunt-like armies) but in the fluff, they were always there. Hell, First and Only, a particularly famous example, released a decade before 5th edition...

 Irbis wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, according to the fluff I've read from Gaunt and Cain, and Severina, there is only ever really 1 single Lord Commissar in an entire battle sector. It's not like every company has one. Hell, most regiments only have a single regular commissar.

Fluff wise: shouldn't Lord Commissars be limited to 1 per battle list? Ala Special characters?

The one commissar per planet is only really a thing for PDF. Each ship/regiment is supposed to have at least one, more if there is available personnel. There are some with one commissar per company, though it's rare.

I think this was more indicating that highly experienced combat wombat commissars that can keep whole battlefields together are rare. There are loads of commissars, but most will be mooks.

To answer the OP, in my view a standard Guard regiment will have no "Lord Commissars". However, is that enough to prevent more than one turning up in random games? I don't think so. Restricting force organisation due to fluff is hard, just because the 40k galaxy is so hugely vast, its hard to say that anything in particular won't happen. at thta poitn its better to work out if having mutiple of one unit type is likely to lead to crazy overpowerness. however that balancing is a different discussion.

 Flinty wrote:
I think this was more indicating that highly experienced combat wombat commissars that can keep whole battlefields together are rare. There are loads of commissars, but most will be mooks.

Eh, maybe I was unclear, but I meant that in regiment with multiple commissars, inevitably one (or more) will be of higher rank. This is what tabletop termed 'lord commissar'. They have chain of command too. You could argue that in fluff, only commissar equivalent of generals (of which would be only one per battle sector, yes) would be titled 'lord', but in the game, it's everyone who can command other commissars. GW even said to do Cain using lord commissar rules, and technically Cain was not only the only commissar in his regiment, he was of regular rank too (even if his hero status did gave him some extra respect, multiple other commissars in his stories choose to be difficult and he couldn't do anything about it).

In the RT days it was Senior Commissar - and they sometimes lead Training Squads:




Didn't one of the RPGs (Only War?) have a Commissar career path?

From memory, it thought The Cain books in particular are clear that the commissariat doesn’t have a formal rank structure like the Guard, but seniority is based on time of service and personal reputation. So a Lord Commissar is not a formal designation, but a matter of respect to high performing individuals.

Cain himself spent some time and a regimental commissar, and the rest as a commissar without portfolio assigned to various levels of HQ to be sent out to undertake whatever mission you as deemed most useful at the time. None of that confers the title of lord as such, but the lord stats in game more closely reflect his combat skills which are invariably described as excellent in all ways.

Cain books < Gaunt Books when it comes to fluff lore about the commissariat. Especially considering the upfront disclaimer about most of Cain's books. "These are basically propaganda for the common trooper, not to be taken literally, or even factually."

How many times has Amberly pointed out the inconsistency of the narrator, the factual wrongness, and the over-all omission of anything that isn't directly about himself?

Cain's books are about as useful for the fluff as the Guardsman's Primer.

I guess I accept the point that the term "Lord commissar" is an amorphous term that really just means high ranking, not an actual title. Given that the books only really mention 3-6 in all. Yarrick, the Female that suspects Gaunt is a Heretic, and the Commissar that Rhaine reports to, are all "Lord Commissars". Which puts them at basically Strategic level assets. 1 per Crusade almost.

I agree that Cain himself is set out as an unreliable narrator, but the note on commissariat organisation is made by Amberly as a footnote in The Traitor’s Hand as follows. Academic in the grand scheme of things but I thought it worthy of a mention.
“ 102. Since Beije had no direct authority over Cain, or any other commissar for that matter, his accusations would have to be looked into by a tribunal of senior members of the commissariat. (Commissars not having a structure of rank in the conventional sense, seniority would be determined by length of service and number of commendations.)…”

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Cain books < Gaunt Books when it comes to fluff lore about the commissariat. Especially considering the upfront disclaimer about most of Cain's books. "These are basically propaganda for the common trooper, not to be taken literally, or even factually.

That's completely backwards - the entire framing of the Cain books is that they're edited by Vail for members of the Inquisition.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Cain books < Gaunt Books when it comes to fluff lore about the commissariat. Especially considering the upfront disclaimer about most of Cain's books. "These are basically propaganda for the common trooper, not to be taken literally, or even factually.

That's completely backwards - the entire framing of the Cain books is that they're edited by Vail for members of the Inquisition.

I'm sorry, are you arguing that Cain's accounts are verifiable as factual accounts because an inquisitor was shacking up with him, or because the Inquisition has never been known to miss-tell, obfuscate, or outright lie about a recorded event?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Cain books < Gaunt Books when it comes to fluff lore about the commissariat. Especially considering the upfront disclaimer about most of Cain's books. "These are basically propaganda for the common trooper, not to be taken literally, or even factually.

That's completely backwards - the entire framing of the Cain books is that they're edited by Vail for members of the Inquisition.

I'm sorry, are you arguing that Cain's accounts are verifiable as factual accounts because an inquisitor was shacking up with him, or because the Inquisition has never been known to miss-tell, obfuscate, or outright lie about a recorded event?

You are mistaking Cain the propaganda character, Cain the actual person who overexaggerates his flaws, and the memoirs of Cain as edited by Amberly Vail for the Inquisition specifically as easily digestible learning material. It is why the footnotes exist wherein she interjects corrections, specifies certain events (she notes often that Cain will focus on events as they pertain to him without discussing the bigger picture at times, or will elaborate on acronyms, etc), and includes other texts about planets, events, and so on. Its honestly one of the funner tidbits about the series where the author gets to write from the perspective of an editor critiquing the main story as written.

Parse her "interjections" more. She frequently calls him out for spreading lies, falsehoods, and inconsistencies. She affirms some of the more shocking details, such as his skill with swordsmanship. But she also doesn't go out of her way to "fix" his mis-truths. We know the truth as the reader, but this is a multiple layer narrative. This is a 5th(?) person narrative. Cain wrote a Memoir (1st person) which is subsequently edited and re-narrated by Amberly as an observer (3rd person) but being "Read" by aspiring inquisitorial students, or even Perfectus cadets. It's not written to US, unless US refers to Schola students, or ordo students. So it's a level about 3rd person, but I don't know how to call that.

Point being, the intended reader of this does NOT know this is a work of fiction. They think it a gospel blessed by the holy Ordo and written by Cain the Hero himself. Hell, it's like what Eisenhorn dealt with when they assigned him that sycophantic kiss ass junior inquisitor.

Cain's stories are a metaphor for how military propaganda spreads despite the relevant facts of the situation. Cain is a self indulgent coward to anyone with a clear perspective. But that's not how anyone see's him.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Parse her "interjections" more. She frequently calls him out for spreading lies, falsehoods, and inconsistencies. She affirms some of the more shocking details, such as his skill with swordsmanship. But she also doesn't go out of her way to "fix" his mis-truths. We know the truth as the reader, but this is a multiple layer narrative. This is a 5th(?) person narrative. Cain wrote a Memoir (1st person) which is subsequently edited and re-narrated by Amberly as an observer (3rd person) but being "Read" by aspiring inquisitorial students, or even Perfectus cadets. It's not written to US, unless US refers to Schola students, or ordo students. So it's a level about 3rd person, but I don't know how to call that.

Point being, the intended reader of this does NOT know this is a work of fiction. They think it a gospel blessed by the holy Ordo and written by Cain the Hero himself. Hell, it's like what Eisenhorn dealt with when they assigned him that sycophantic kiss ass junior inquisitor.

Cain's stories are a metaphor for how military propaganda spreads despite the relevant facts of the situation. Cain is a self indulgent coward to anyone with a clear perspective. But that's not how anyone see's him.

Your last two paras do not follow from the first.

Cain’s unofficial memoirs are not necessarily *accurate* (though Inquisitor Vail does repeatedly point out inaccuracies), but both Vail and Cain’s narratives stress how different they are from the official propaganda version (which does exist in universe and *is* distributed to the common man).

The books we get are not that propaganda version, they are a deliberately curated alternative to that, written purely for the eyes of the most powerful and cynical organisation within Imperium to make them think a bit more.

Still not necessarily accurate, but literally the opposite of ‘basically propaganda for the common trooper’. The common trooper would probably be shot if they were caught with a copy, being Inquisition eyes only material.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Cain books < Gaunt Books when it comes to fluff lore about the commissariat. Especially considering the upfront disclaimer about most of Cain's books. "These are basically propaganda for the common trooper, not to be taken literally, or even factually."

No. Just no. Abnett might be a good writer but he is trash when it comes to lore accuracy. He is the dude who thinks regiment consisting of a thousand ten man squads lead by sergeants (and one colonel apparently micromanaging all of that, chain of command, what's that?) is good idea. He wants his protag snowflake character to have a lightsaber? No problem, here is lightsaber. Magic language usable for everyone, blanks included, strong enough to delete chaos gods? Sure, it's there too.

How 'good' Abnett is on the subject of commissar lore is aptly demonstrated by existence of Gaunt himself - special snowflake who combines the functions of colonel and commissar, apparently as the only person in the entire Imperium, just because Abnett thought it would be cool. The fact it contradicts the purpose of both ranks (and would have not one, but two whole Imperial military departments scream 'heresy' once they see his title) is minor detail, who cares, it's not like Imperium is big on precedents, separation of powers, and conservatism, eh?

Cain's books are about as useful for the fluff as the Guardsman's Primer.

Except Mitchell, unlike Abnett, actually has a clue how modern military works and makes almost no lore errors, sooo...

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Cain is a self indulgent coward to anyone with a clear perspective

Or, you know, like Vail hints a lot of times, a genuine hero who is really that good, just suffers from imposter syndrome. A coward wouldn't be able to charge a genestealer patriarch, khornate berserker, a warboss, or a daemon prince repeatedly and win (yes, making them turn away from Jurgen and distracting them to stand still long enough to eat melta shot in the back counts as smart way to win against these). Try to read between the lines, it might be debatable but it's all there.

 Irbis wrote:
How 'good' Abnett is on the subject of commissar lore is aptly demonstrated by existence of Gaunt himself - special snowflake who combines the functions of colonel and commissar, apparently as the only person in the entire Imperium, just because Abnett thought it would be cool. The fact it contradicts the purpose of both ranks (and would have not one, but two whole Imperial military departments scream 'heresy' once they see his title) is minor detail, who cares, it's not like Imperium is big on precedents, separation of powers, and conservatism, eh?

Gaunt is constantly given grief due to his rank though. Like it is a major point in almost every single Ghosts book that Guard officers and Commissars don't like him because of his status. The Commissars don't think he's good at being a Commissar because he's too close to his troops and the Guard officers don't think he's a good officer because he wasn't trained to be one. He is also not the only Colonel-Commissar ever he just happens to be the only one at the Sabbat Crusade.
Have you actually read the Ghosts books?

Except Mitchell, unlike Abnett, actually has a clue how modern military works and makes almost no lore errors, sooo...

Having never read the Cain books I can't comment on the lack of background errors but I will say that every single BL author that has written more than a few books makes errors of this kind in one way or another. 40k is big, really big. There is a limit to how much information people can remember at all times and not everything gets caught by the editors either. Oh yeah, editors exist BTW so the blame for slip-ups with the background isn't any one person's fault (if you can even call it that).
As for the bit about "modern military", the Guard isn't similar to modern armed forces. It's closer to Napoleonic and WW1/2 armies. Yes, there is future tech but the organistion and general tactics are closer to when thousands of soldiers were deployed on battlefields rather than tens or hundreds.
For the Ghosts specifically, they aren't a normal Guard Regiment. There were to be three Tanith Regiments led by Gaunt and his subordinates but the fall of Tanith meant that Gaunt had to grab whoever he could and book it off-world. When the Regiment starts out it is larger than normal because it's the amalgamation of three formations rather than just one. Again, this is explained pretty clearly in the books.

The problem with the Gaunt's Ghosts series is that it doesn't seem to describe a formed military force, and the Cain series does. It is more of a militia than a regiment, which is understandable given their founding, but the fact that they stay a militia isn't. The other regiments seem similar.

I.e. in the Ghosts series the officers might as well all be sergeants. The don't really do the work of officers, they don't lead like officers they lead like sergeants. They lead squads, not platoons or companies, or the regiment.

What is wrong with an infantry regiment having a muster strength of around 10000? That is slightly above average (Cadian regiments are ~8000 at muster) but entirely consistent with published muster strengths.

Regiments can have a few hundred soldiers (especially armoured or artillery regiments), with 750000 being the largest single regiment I'm aware of (50th Gudrunite rifles, noted as an unusually large tithe), although Valhalla is known to raise regiments with >100000 troopers too.

Also, the Tanith 1st does have companies and platoons and officers outside of Gaunt (like Colonel Corbec or Major Rawne).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dirk Reinecke wrote:
The problem with the Gaunt's Ghosts series is that it doesn't seem to describe a formed military force, and the Cain series does. It is more of a militia than a regiment, which is understandable given their founding, but the fact that they stay a militia isn't. The other regiments seem similar.

I.e. in the Ghosts series the officers might as well all be sergeants. The don't really do the work of officers, they don't lead like officers they lead like sergeants. They lead squads, not platoons or companies, or the regiment.

This is often fair, more of an issue with writing than lore though. The Tanith 1st is supposed to be organised that way.

The series does do quite well with describing military forces, just not the Ghosts because as you've said they aren't a normal force.
The Vitrians and Volpone all have more clear-cut regimental organisation and command structures because they are well-established Guard Regiments. The Ghosts are a rag-tag group of ex-Militia who only just passed basic training with officers who aren't actually officers. By the time they take on ex-soldiers from Verghast and then amalgamate with the Belladon 81st, the regimental structure and rank system becomes more clear.
At the end of the latest book they have an established regimental organsiation, officer corps, Commissar detachment, and regimental support roles.

 Irbis wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Cain books < Gaunt Books when it comes to fluff lore about the commissariat. Especially considering the upfront disclaimer about most of Cain's books. "These are basically propaganda for the common trooper, not to be taken literally, or even factually."

No. Just no. Abnett might be a good writer but he is trash when it comes to lore accuracy. He is the dude who thinks regiment consisting of a thousand ten man squads lead by sergeants (and one colonel apparently micromanaging all of that, chain of command, what's that?) is good idea. He wants his protag snowflake character to have a lightsaber? No problem, here is lightsaber. Magic language usable for everyone, blanks included, strong enough to delete chaos gods? Sure, it's there too.

How 'good' Abnett is on the subject of commissar lore is aptly demonstrated by existence of Gaunt himself - special snowflake who combines the functions of colonel and commissar, apparently as the only person in the entire Imperium, just because Abnett thought it would be cool. The fact it contradicts the purpose of both ranks (and would have not one, but two whole Imperial military departments scream 'heresy' once they see his title) is minor detail, who cares, it's not like Imperium is big on precedents, separation of powers, and conservatism, eh?

Cain's books are about as useful for the fluff as the Guardsman's Primer.

Except Mitchell, unlike Abnett, actually has a clue how modern military works and makes almost no lore errors, sooo...

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Cain is a self indulgent coward to anyone with a clear perspective

Or, you know, like Vail hints a lot of times, a genuine hero who is really that good, just suffers from imposter syndrome. A coward wouldn't be able to charge a genestealer patriarch, khornate berserker, a warboss, or a daemon prince repeatedly and win (yes, making them turn away from Jurgen and distracting them to stand still long enough to eat melta shot in the back counts as smart way to win against these). Try to read between the lines, it might be debatable but it's all there.

No they are clearly based on the Flashman novels, based on the hyppcrisy of the jingoistic british empire and an excellent read, and wear that on their sleeve. Hes a coward.

 Gert wrote:
The series does do quite well with describing military forces, just not the Ghosts because as you've said they aren't a normal force.
The Vitrians and Volpone all have more clear-cut regimental organisation and command structures because they are well-established Guard Regiments. The Ghosts are a rag-tag group of ex-Militia who only just passed basic training with officers who aren't actually officers. By the time they take on ex-soldiers from Verghast and then amalgamate with the Belladon 81st, the regimental structure and rank system becomes more clear.
At the end of the latest book they have an established regimental organsiation, officer corps, Commissar detachment, and regimental support roles.

Thanks for the update. I will have to give some of the more recent books a try then. The majority of the Ghost stories I've read are fine as stories, but don't work great as "Military Stories" as they pull me out of the suspension of disbelief. They have the same scope as war memoirs written by enlisted soldiers. i.e. "Helmet for my pillow" and "With the old breed"

A few things:

- Each regiment is required to have at least one commissar. Not just to prevent heresy, but to ensure the commanding officer has the Imperiums interests at heart and isn’t needlessly wasting their soldiers, as well as maintaining discipline with the rank and file.

- Multiple regiments working together may have an army group/battle group lord commissar to oversee high command and other commissars.

- Undisciplined regiments may have commissars at a company level rather than regimental level. Again, likely to have a lord commissar at the regimental level to oversee the other commissars.

These are the most common commissar allocations. If the commissar is killed, then they’ll have another reassigned. Some regiments may have no commissars attached while waiting for a replacement.

There’s also commissar cadets that can join commissars for training.

Dirk Reinecke wrote:
Thanks for the update. I will have to give some of the more recent books a try then. The majority of the Ghost stories I've read are fine as stories, but don't work great as "Military Stories" as they pull me out of the suspension of disbelief. They have the same scope as war memoirs written by enlisted soldiers. i.e. "Helmet for my pillow" and "With the old breed"

The Ghosts novels are the Sharpe equivalent of 40k. It's a swashbuckling adventure where our hero tries to keep his men alive in the worst circumstances rather than hard military fiction. That being said it encapsulates the nature of the Guard really well IMO. The Ghosts are always working alongside a variety of Regiments with their own cultures and tactics, from the haughty Volpone to the down-and-dirty Roane Deepers, it shows really well the variety of the Imperium. A lot of the logistics side is explored often as well.

The number of commissars in a regiment is an interesting one.

As mentioned, there is always at least one. However, it is somewhat improbable that the one or two regimental commissars get assigned to your hundred soldiers out of ten thousand.

This is exacerbated by rules in various editions allowing for 5 or more commissars to be included in a force, and GW staffers encouraging players to take as many as possible.

The Cadian 180th at one point was described as having 18 commissars for a three-company regiment- 6 per company.

Reading between the lines, whilst regiments must have at least 1, many (most?) probably have considerably more than this.