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.

 Polonius wrote:
Hmm, okay, I'm gonna stick with my interpretation that the a rule that allows a model to be chosen, you know, allows it to be chosen. I don't see anything that leads me to think that would override a rule of eligibility but not a rule of precedence.

Can my LD9 HQ character model be chosen as Warlord in my army?
What about when I take my LD10 HQ character? No? Why not? But he's allowed to be chosen as a Warlord!

rigeld2 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Hmm, okay, I'm gonna stick with my interpretation that the a rule that allows a model to be chosen, you know, allows it to be chosen. I don't see anything that leads me to think that would override a rule of eligibility but not a rule of precedence.

Can my LD9 HQ character model be chosen as Warlord in my army?
What about when I take my LD10 HQ character? No? Why not? But he's allowed to be chosen as a Warlord!

Except the Tank Commander does not have an explicit leadership value. Per the rule, he is only a character, has BS4, and can be chosen as the warlord. You can infer that his LD should be nine based on the rules for issuing orders to his squadron, but that is never explicitly told to us. Therefore, you are making an assumption that tank commander LD equals 9 for purposes of choosing warlord.

Without making an assumption about his leadership, all we know is that the tank commander can be chosen as the warlord. The codex therefore gives special permission to override the normal rules for choosing a warlord in the BRB.

The TC does not have a Ld so that point is moot .

Pretty sure you guys misunderstand his point.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
Pretty sure you guys misunderstand his point.

Not really. The argument rigeld is advancing is that the tank commander may be chosen as a warlord, however he must still fulfill the requirements in the BRB (i.e. character with highest leadership).

The counter argument is that the tank commander does not actually have a leadership value (you can assume it should be 9 based on the rules for issuing orders, but nowhere are you told that he actually is LD 9 for all rules purposes). Without making an assumption about what his leadership should be, the tank commander rules give you an explicit permission to override the normal rules for selecting a warlord.

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Hmm, okay, I'm gonna stick with my interpretation that the a rule that allows a model to be chosen, you know, allows it to be chosen. I don't see anything that leads me to think that would override a rule of eligibility but not a rule of precedence.

Can my LD9 HQ character model be chosen as Warlord in my army?
What about when I take my LD10 HQ character? No? Why not? But he's allowed to be chosen as a Warlord!

Except the Tank Commander does not have an explicit leadership value. Per the rule, he is only a character, has BS4, and can be chosen as the warlord. You can infer that his LD should be nine based on the rules for issuing orders to his squadron, but that is never explicitly told to us. Therefore, you are making an assumption that tank commander LD equals 9 for purposes of choosing warlord.

No, I'm not. I'm making a similar comparison in a different codex.
My point was that a LD 9 character is allowed to be chosen as warlord - the same wording as being used here. And Polonius is advocating that the wording "allowed to be chosen as Warlord" (which all HQ characters essentially have) overrides literally all other requirements.

Without making an assumption about his leadership, all we know is that the tank commander can be chosen as the warlord. The codex therefore gives special permission to override the normal rules for choosing a warlord in the BRB.

I'm making zero assumptions about his LD. I'm asserting that since he has no LD, he automatically loses any LD comparison.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Hmm, okay, I'm gonna stick with my interpretation that the a rule that allows a model to be chosen, you know, allows it to be chosen. I don't see anything that leads me to think that would override a rule of eligibility but not a rule of precedence.

Can my LD9 HQ character model be chosen as Warlord in my army?
What about when I take my LD10 HQ character? No? Why not? But he's allowed to be chosen as a Warlord!

Well, there is a normal process for choosing warlords. You take all of the HQ characters, and they are the pool of candidates. From those, you select the model with the highest LD, and if there are multiple choices, you select the one you prefer.

Most models do not have any rules relating to being chosen, they simply follow the process.

Notably, Lord Commissars need a special rule to prohibit them from being chosen. The have a rule that states a specific condition for being a warlord.

So, to use your example, the LD9 HQ could never be "chosen" to be the warlord when a LD10 model is in the army. It is eligible to be considered, but choice only occurs once you have a tie for highest LD. It's "eligible," but the LD10 model(s) are the only ones that can be "chosen."

Since choice only occurs once you have narrowed the field to the highest LD HQs, I think that a rule that specifically allows a model to be "chosen" would inset the model into that level of the process. Since you only choose at one point, that's the point that matters, and that's after determining LD values.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm making zero assumptions about his LD. I'm asserting that since he has no LD, he automatically loses any LD comparison.

Based on what rules? Please provide a citation for that assertion. Otherwise, I'll assume your just arguing RAI/HIWPI. The codex gives permission for him to be the warlord. This specific permission overrides the normal rules for selecting a warlord.

 Polonius wrote:


If I see a codex specific rule that allows a player to do something, I assume that it overrides all basic rules, not just one. YMMV.

But that is not how the rules work... ever.

To override a rule, you need *specific* permission. An assault vehicle says you can assault after you disembark, but you *still* can't come in from reserves, and disembark, and assault.

PotMS says you can shoot at another target, you *still* must have LoS and it must be in range.

Onslaught lets a unit Run and Shoot in the same phase. If cast on an immobile dread, doesn't let it Run.

Stormraven says it can carry "12 models". That does not let it ignore the Bulky/VeryBulky/etc restrictions.

etc
etc


Any given situation may have multiple conditions or restrictions. Each one needs *specific* permission to be ignored or reversed.
If they wanted to ignore all of them, that would require "may *always* be chosen as warlord".

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm making zero assumptions about his LD. I'm asserting that since he has no LD, he automatically loses any LD comparison.

Based on what rules? Please provide a citation for that assertion.

Which - that he has no LD? Read his profile. That a lack of LD means he automatically loses any comparison?
How else could it possibly work? Note that it's not even a 0 LD - it's a complete lack of the statistic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
Since choice only occurs once you have narrowed the field to the highest LD HQs, I think that a rule that specifically allows a model to be "chosen" would inset the model into that level of the process. Since you only choose at one point, that's the point that matters, and that's after determining LD values.

So what you're saying is that the rule is irrelevant?

Because the only requirement for a Warlord is to be an HQ character. So if a Tank Commander is your only HQ, the rule literally does nothing.

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm making zero assumptions about his LD. I'm asserting that since he has no LD, he automatically loses any LD comparison.

Based on what rules? Please provide a citation for that assertion.

Which - that he has no LD? Read his profile. That a lack of LD means he automatically loses any comparison?
How else could it possibly work? Note that it's not even a 0 LD - it's a complete lack of the statistic.

except, again, the comparison occurs before you choose a warlord. It's a strictly mechanical process, with choice only factoring in when there are multiple models with the same LD.

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm making zero assumptions about his LD. I'm asserting that since he has no LD, he automatically loses any LD comparison.

Based on what rules? Please provide a citation for that assertion. Otherwise, I'll assume your just arguing RAI/HIWPI. The codex gives permission for him to be the warlord. This specific permission overrides the normal rules for selecting a warlord.

There is specific permission that he can be warlord, not that he can always be warlord.

Restrictions/conditions for warlord

Be a character
Have the highest leadership

The Tank Commander rule lets you bypass the first one, but says nothing about the second one.

rigeld2 wrote:
So what you're saying is that the rule is irrelevant?

Because the only requirement for a Warlord is to be an HQ character. So if a Tank Commander is your only HQ, the rule literally does nothing.

No, I'm saying the rule does exactly what it says: allows a model to be chosen as warlord. the world choice is, to me, the key word.

 Polonius wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So what you're saying is that the rule is irrelevant?

Because the only requirement for a Warlord is to be an HQ character. So if a Tank Commander is your only HQ, the rule literally does nothing.

No, I'm saying the rule does exactly what it says: allows a model to be chosen as warlord. the world choice is, to me, the key word.

Does the rule do anything if he's your only HQ character? It's a yes or no question.

coredump wrote:

There is specific permission that he can be warlord, not that he can always be warlord.

Restrictions/conditions for warlord

Be a character
Have the highest leadership

The Tank Commander rule lets you bypass the first one, but says nothing about the second one.

Well, the part that makes him a character would bypass the first one. Specifically adding "may be chosen as a warlord" is then either extraneous, or would bypass the second one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So what you're saying is that the rule is irrelevant?

Because the only requirement for a Warlord is to be an HQ character. So if a Tank Commander is your only HQ, the rule literally does nothing.

No, I'm saying the rule does exactly what it says: allows a model to be chosen as warlord. the world choice is, to me, the key word.

Does the rule do anything if he's your only HQ character? It's a yes or no question.

Depends what you mean by "do anything?"

Yes, in that it allows you to choose him.

No, in that it would not allow you do anything you could to before.

Regarding the tank commander as warlord if you have an LD 10 HQ with him, where does it list the tank commander's leadership?

Sure, it says that his orders go off on a 9 or lower, but was he listed as having a Leadership, specifically? If not, then the LD comparison fails. He doesn't have one, right?

 Polonius wrote:
Depends what you mean by "do anything?"

Yes, in that it allows you to choose him.

No, in that it would not allow you do anything you could to before.

Please explain how a model with no leadership value (note - not 0 but a complete lack of Leadership) is eligible to be Warlord without that rule.

Here's a rule snippet I put in another thread you can add to the first post.

Since Enginseers are now independent characters, you can put them in squads(vets was my idea), hide them in chimeras and advance an armor group up. The 12" potms or whatever it is can be used out of the tank to help the LR's.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Depends what you mean by "do anything?"

Yes, in that it allows you to choose him.

No, in that it would not allow you do anything you could to before.

Please explain how a model with no leadership value (note - not 0 but a complete lack of Leadership) is eligible to be Warlord without that rule.

If the model has no LD value, how can you show which is highest ? Its not a zero value, so it does not interact in a straight forward way with the Warlord rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Depends what you mean by "do anything?"

Yes, in that it allows you to choose him.

No, in that it would not allow you do anything you could to before.

Please explain how a model with no leadership value (note - not 0 but a complete lack of Leadership) is eligible to be Warlord without that rule.

Having a leadership isn't a requisite to be a warlord, as you stated. It's part of the process for selecting a warlord, but it's not an actual requirement.

There are two concepts here. What is eligible to become a warlord, and how a warlord is chosen.

Warlords, IIRC, must be HQ choices that are characters. That's all that is required to serve as Warlord.

the Selection process then cuts directly to the highest leadership, with the player chosing among those models with the highest.

Now, if they did not have the rule that you could chose them, they would never be warlords, because they would never have the highest LD.

As a theoretical aside, I'm not sure what would happen without that rule, if you simply took two Tank Commanders. Practically speaking, two models with no LD are each the highest, but not mathematically speaking.

 Polonius wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Depends what you mean by "do anything?"

Yes, in that it allows you to choose him.

No, in that it would not allow you do anything you could to before.

Please explain how a model with no leadership value (note - not 0 but a complete lack of Leadership) is eligible to be Warlord without that rule.

Having a leadership isn't a requisite to be a warlord, as you stated. It's part of the process for selecting a warlord, but it's not an actual requirement.

There are two concepts here. What is eligible to become a warlord, and how a warlord is chosen.

Warlords, IIRC, must be HQ choices that are characters. That's all that is required to serve as Warlord.

the Selection process then cuts directly to the highest leadership, with the player chosing among those models with the highest.

Now, if they did not have the rule that you could chose them, they would never be warlords, because they would never have the highest LD.

As a theoretical aside, I'm not sure what would happen without that rule, if you simply took two Tank Commanders. Practically speaking, two models with no LD are each the highest, but not mathematically speaking.

Just as Tyranid's can have a tervigon as their only hq and it's not a character so they would have no warlord, and Iyanden can have a Wraithknight as warlord but it is not a character and since i still have to take a hq the knight would never be able to be taken as the warlord since it doesn't bypass all the restrictions any hq model would have to be the warlord.

5) note the word "successful" used there. A ten is not successful

3) as per the unit entry he has ld-, which I thought was ld0? .

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Depends what you mean by "do anything?"

Yes, in that it allows you to choose him.

No, in that it would not allow you do anything you could to before.

Please explain how a model with no leadership value (note - not 0 but a complete lack of Leadership) is eligible to be Warlord without that rule.

If the model has no LD value, how can you show which is highest ? Its not a zero value, so it does not interact in a straight forward way with the Warlord rule.

When you compare an apple to an orange in a contest of who has more apples, the orange loses every time.
When you compare a model with Leadership to a model without in a contest of the highest leadership, the model without loses every time.

Polonius wrote:Having a leadership isn't a requisite to be a warlord, as you stated. It's part of the process for selecting a warlord, but it's not an actual requirement.

Only if you assume you're allowed to skip the process. You have yet to prove it - you're simply assuming that.

Warlords, IIRC, must be HQ choices that are characters. That's all that is required to serve as Warlord.

Incorrect. It must be the HQ character with the highest Leadership.

This is always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership.

Now, if they did not have the rule that you could chose them, they would never be warlords, because they would never have the highest LD.

... Which is what I said. The rule bypasses this restriction. That's all it does. It does not bypass every restriction.

As a theoretical aside, I'm not sure what would happen without that rule, if you simply took two Tank Commanders. Practically speaking, two models with no LD are each the highest, but not mathematically speaking.

You'd compare Leadership scores. Neither is higher than the other so you can choose.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
3) as per the unit entry he has ld-, which I thought was ld0? .

The Tank Commander profile actually has a LD value?
That'd simplify things and prove my statement correct actually.

Yep, page 92. Ld- fairly certain means same as ld0

A ld0 character will always lose against a. Ld9 character. Vehicles cannot be your warlord, per FAQ, so the specific allowance to choose him as a warlord can only override that specific restriction

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, page 92. Ld- fairly certain means same as ld0

A ld0 character will always lose against a. Ld9 character. Vehicles cannot be your warlord, per FAQ, so the specific allowance to choose him as a warlord can only override that specific restriction

Yes, - is the same as 0.

Meaning that if you have literally any other HQ (other than potentially a Lord Commissar - not sure on those rules so won't speak to them) the Tank Commander cannot be Warlord.

1. Chimeras

1) No. The Chimera can fire at 2 different targets with PotMS, the embarked troops may then fire on three targets with arrays + fire points.
2) yes, while they are a special rule that uses weapons they are not "the vehicles weapons"
3) Yes and no. They do not count, but not because they are a special rule, rather because they are fired by the passengers.

2. Smoke Launchers


I agree

3. Tank Commanders as your warlord:



It is confusing, discuss it with your opponent. Your Ld-less Character Tank(Yes Rigeld vehicles can be Characters, and the Tank commander/pask is specifically character) has the ability to become warlord. If you just have a tank commander as HQ he would already be warlord being the HQ character with the highest Ld(nonexistent), So we can assume the rule means the tank can be warlord when it is not the only HQ. Bjorn the fell handed is another Vehicle character HQ that can be warlord when there are nbo other HQs, so we have precedent for this.

4. Commissar Yarrick:


1) Chain of command is presumptive that the model with the rule will not have Senior officer at the same time. It is not that much of a leap to allow the 1 model with both and a Warlord trait to be the warlord if there is no other Senior officer HQs. Yes Yarrick and a Lord commissar would default to yarrick as your warlord.
commissar would default

2) I have no idea.

5. Tactical Auto Reliquary:

the reliquary wrote:When rolling Leadership tests for orders issued by an officer with the Tactical Auto-Reliquary, any successful Leadership test that results in a double will count as Inspired Tactics.

Double 5s and Double 6s are not inspired tactics, they are not Successful Leadership tests. Same goes for double 4s on HWS

6. Take Aim! Order:



Precision Shots is both a Special rule for Characters and the effect within that Rule. This Order gives the unit the Special rule so you need to roll the 6 to hit to get the Precision Shots effect.

7. Shooting then issuing an order to shoot



Wholly agree, note though that you may(and in these cases have to) interrupt Orders with certain units Shooting. These are the Orders that require the unit to shoot.

Regarding Iron Will.

If Yarrick is killed in the bottom of the turn, and you have no other models on the board, you would lose.

If Yarrick is killed in the top of the turn, and you have no other models on the board, you have 1 chance to keep the game going.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
It is confusing, discuss it with your opponent. Your Ld-less Character Tank(Yes Rigeld vehicles can be Characters, and the Tank commander/pask is specifically character) has the ability to become warlord. If you just have a tank commander as HQ he would already be warlord being the HQ character with the highest Ld(nonexistent), So we can assume the rule means the tank can be warlord when it is not the only HQ. Bjorn the fell handed is another Vehicle character HQ that can be warlord when there are nbo other HQs, so we have precedent for this.

Note that 0 is different from nonexistent. According to nos, he is LD - which, according to the BRB (p3) is synonymous with 0.

Ok my Tank Commander question that I want to throw into this mess is:
As stated in the HQ section, A TC “must” take a LR and “must” take at least 1-2 other LR tanks. So if the TC and his 1-2 additional tanks are considered a HQ choice, does this mean that you could potentially field 15 LR battle tanks in your army? (Given you chose two TC as both of your HQ choices.)

Absolutely. Not even sure why that's a question.

9 in Heavy Support, 6 in HQ.