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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, not even close. I assume you remove artillery immediately then?

And space marines cant fire because they have no "eyes".....

No, Artillery has its own set of rules which simply enough clarify how it interacts with everything else. Much like the tank commander having a stat line that pretty much just raises the BS to 4 and lets it be a warlord. You cannot mesh a infantry model profile (commander) with a tank (vehicle) so you have to accept that certain things work. Otherwise you have extremes in RAW like Kel was trying to demonstrate.

 adhuin wrote:

 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.

There's one more requirement for a HQ, that has been ignored: If Tank Commander can be your Warlord, does that include scenarios, when he isn't part of your Primary Detachment? My Chaos Space Marines could use a tougher, Leman Russ riding Leader.
The Question isn't serious, but implications of ignoring all other restrictions of being Warlord is.

Your warlord is always from your primary detachment, so no.

Fragile wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, not even close. I assume you remove artillery immediately then?

And space marines cant fire because they have no "eyes".....

No, Artillery has its own set of rules which simply enough clarify how it interacts with everything else. Much like the tank commander having a stat line that pretty much just raises the BS to 4 and lets it be a warlord. You cannot mesh a infantry model profile (commander) with a tank (vehicle) so you have to accept that certain things work. Otherwise you have extremes in RAW like Kel was trying to demonstrate.

Again, you cut out the part of the quote proving your argument wrong.

Don't quote out of context, it's rude and a poor way to argue.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
...and there is an FAQ stating vehicles can't be the warlord. Is long strike an HQ character? Does he have specific allowance to be the warlord?

No. But Pask is specifically intended to be a warlord, given that he has a Warlord trait.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
...and there is an FAQ stating vehicles can't be the warlord. Is long strike an HQ character? Does he have specific allowance to be the warlord?

No. But Pask is specifically intended to be a warlord, given that he has a Warlord trait.

And indeed, has a specific allowance to BE a warlord, as he is a tank commander.

He does not, however, have any allowance to ignore the requirement that the warlord has the highest leadership of any eligible hq character, so cannot be a warlord if a ccs, lord commisar etc are present.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Your trying to make a difference where there really is none.

What happens if you enfeeble a Artillery piece then, does it got to -1

So being reduced to, and being already at, are equivalent statements?

No, not even close. I assume you remove artillery immediately then?

I bolded the section you felt was worth removing from the quote that refutes, handily, your comparison to strict raw

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
...and there is an FAQ stating vehicles can't be the warlord. Is long strike an HQ character? Does he have specific allowance to be the warlord?

No. But Pask is specifically intended to be a warlord, given that he has a Warlord trait.

And indeed, has a specific allowance to BE a warlord, as he is a tank commander.

He does not, however, have any allowance to ignore the requirement that the warlord has the highest leadership of any eligible hq character, so cannot be a warlord if a ccs, lord commisar etc are present.

I obviously can't dispute this as written rules, but I believe it's not the intention, so HIWPI, (note, HIWPI, if there's no FAQ) a Tank Commander is the equivalent of a company commander in Leadership, so he can be warlord if the other HQ choice is LD9, but not 10.

I don't think it's at all the intention : the message of sixth is that vehicles are inferior to non:- vehicles. Consistently. Why is this different?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
...and there is an FAQ stating vehicles can't be the warlord. Is long strike an HQ character? Does he have specific allowance to be the warlord?

This is the second time you have said this.
Which FAQ, it is in neither the BRB nor the SW.

Longstrike is a heavy Support SC so could not be a warlord anyways.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I don't think it's at all the intention : the message of sixth is that vehicles are inferior to non:- vehicles. Consistently. Why is this different?

I'm using the deduction that the Tank Commander has LD9.

We'll see when the FA- nevermind.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I don't think it's at all the intention : the message of sixth is that vehicles are inferior to non:- vehicles. Consistently. Why is this different?

I'm using the deduction that the Tank Commander has LD9.

We'll see when the FA- nevermind.

It has no LD value.

Just like the GK's vehicles don't have a LD value... except only when they make that test to ignore stuns.

The question is: Does the Codex override that BRB's requirement that the warlord must be the one with the highest leadership...

Isn't this a case where the codex trumps the BRB simply because it's so specific?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, not even close. I assume you remove artillery immediately then?

And space marines cant fire because they have no "eyes".....

No, Artillery has its own set of rules which simply enough clarify how it interacts with everything else. Much like the tank commander having a stat line that pretty much just raises the BS to 4 and lets it be a warlord. You cannot mesh a infantry model profile (commander) with a tank (vehicle) so you have to accept that certain things work. Otherwise you have extremes in RAW like Kel was trying to demonstrate.

Again, you cut out the part of the quote proving your argument wrong.

Don't quote out of context, it's rude and a poor way to argue.

Well since you felt like quoting me twice on this. Being reduced to or at zero does not matter. Once you are at 0, you are done. So yes, pure RAW, artillery pieces are removed from play immediately. And since you felt like bringing that up, I quoted it as a comparison to pure RAW stupidity of the "eyes" argument. It is clearly unintended and Artillery has their own specific set of rule that clearly does not need a S characteristic. Just like Vehicles use a completely different set of Characteristics and LD is not one of them. Therefore you are trying to compare a Vehicle with permission to be warlord to a HQ character, when as Rigeld says, you have apples to oranges. So therefore the simple basic rule does not apply and you have to take the codex rule into consideration. Permission to be the warlord is granted through codex rule.

 whembly wrote:


The question is: Does the Codex override that BRB's requirement that the warlord must be the one with the highest leadership...

Isn't this a case where the codex trumps the BRB simply because it's so specific?

That's my take. The plain reading seems to indicate that a player can simply chose it as a warlord.

That assumes that GW meant for tank warlords, even in armies with a CCS.

Assuming you can't assumes that GW remembered the rules for choosing warlords, remembered that vehicles don't have LD, and used that backdoor rule to not allow tank Warlords when there is any other HQ in the army.

Fragile wrote:
Permission to be the warlord is granted through codex rule.

Quote one person in this thread that has said otherwise. Just one will suffice.

A commissar's execution rule says when a test is failed, he shoots someone and it's treated as having been passed.


So say you cause a squad to fall back, say from a close combat or shooting or the like.

If you were to shoot them again in the following turn while they're still falling back, you force another morale check which the BRB says they auto-fail (a unit falling back forced to make a check auto-fails).

With a commissar in the unit, the unit fails its morale test - but then he shoots someone and they count as having passed? It's not a reroll or something that would be trumped, it seems, by an auto-fail as it's an ability that takes place BECAUSE you have, after any rerolls and such, finally come to a result of "failure".

So shooting or charging a squad of guard that are falling back with a commissar = you make them rally?

 Spellbound wrote:
A commissar's execution rule says when a test is failed, he shoots someone and it's treated as having been passed.


So say you cause a squad to fall back, say from a close combat or shooting or the like.

If you were to shoot them again in the following turn while they're still falling back, you force another morale check which the BRB says they auto-fail (a unit falling back forced to make a check auto-fails).

With a commissar in the unit, the unit fails its morale test - but then he shoots someone and they count as having passed? It's not a reroll or something that would be trumped, it seems, by an auto-fail as it's an ability that takes place BECAUSE you have, after any rerolls and such, finally come to a result of "failure".

So shooting or charging a squad of guard that are falling back with a commissar = you make them rally?

They lose a man, then pass the test. Summary execution comes into effect when a morale check is failed. So, they fail the morale check, then it is passed because of the SE special rule.

To answer your question, Yes. They just lose a bloke. It doesn't matter - if they DIDN'T regroup when they failed that morale check, they'd just lose a dude next turn to do so anyway.

Here's a better one. Commissar's with 3 dudes. He Summarily executes a bloke for a pinning check, brining his squad below 25% of turn starting size. Do they take a casualties morale check?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's another one.

If a Priest fails his war hymn leadership check, can you execute a dude to automatically pass that leadership check?

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Here's another one.

If a Priest fails his war hymn leadership check, can you execute a dude to automatically pass that leadership check?

Summary Execution is very specific on what needs to be failed.

Codex takes precedence since it is more specific in this instance.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Here's a better one. Commissar's with 3 dudes. He Summarily executes a bloke for a pinning check, brining his squad below 25% of turn starting size. Do they take a casualties morale check?

Yup, if a unit loses 25% or more in a single move or shoot phase, then they make a morale check at the end of that phase. Taking a gamble there.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The exact wording on the Tank Commander is this:

Leman Russ Commander: A Tank Commander starts the game in a Leman Russ tank (pg 46), leading a Leman Russ Squadron. Note that any type of Leman Russ can be taken as the Tank Commander's vehicle, and that it can have any upgrades usually available to that type of tank. The Tank Commander's tank is a character, has Ballistic Skill 4 and can be chosen as your army's Warlord. If his tank is Wrecked or suffers an Explodes! result, the Tank Commander is killed.

A Tank Commander and his Leman Russ Squadron count as an HQ choice for the entire(I assume this is meant to be "entirety") of the battle. The Tank Commander's Leman Russ cannot leave the unit or join another unit, even if the rest of his squadron are destroyed.

The Lord Commissar rule is:

Chain of Command (Lord Commissar only): A Lord Commissar may only be your Warlord if you have no models with the Senior Officer special rule in your primary detachment.

so if the tank commander can't leave the unit, does that mean if you immobilize one of the other russ's that the tank commander is stuck with it?

is he just a character or a IC? as only IC can join and leave units, it seems an odd thing to mention for a character.

sirlynchmob wrote:
so if the tank commander can't leave the unit, does that mean if you immobilize one of the other russ's that the tank commander is stuck with it?

'Abandoning Squadron-mates', page 77 of the BRB.

 Ghaz wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
so if the tank commander can't leave the unit, does that mean if you immobilize one of the other russ's that the tank commander is stuck with it?

'Abandoning Squadron-mates', page 77 of the BRB.

The Tank Commander's Leman Russ cannot leave the unit or join another unit, even if the rest of his squadron are destroyed.

or are you saying, Judge I didn't leave my wife, I abandoned her?

Try reading the rule please. The squadron is leaving the immobilized tank behind. The Tank Commander is still in the unit.

 Ghaz wrote:
Try reading the rule please. The squadron is leaving the immobilized tank behind. The Tank Commander is still in the unit.

What if the Tank Commander is the one who is immobilized?

Zimko wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Try reading the rule please. The squadron is leaving the immobilized tank behind. The Tank Commander is still in the unit.

What if the Tank Commander is the one who is immobilized?

That would be debatable because it would be the unit leaving the Tank Commander, not the Tank Commander leaving the unit. Plus, fluff-wise a bodyguard shouldn't leave their charge just because he's immobilized.

 Ghaz wrote:
Try reading the rule please. The squadron is leaving the immobilized tank behind. The Tank Commander is still in the unit.

A Tank Commander and his Leman Russ Squadron count as an HQ choice

So if the tank commander is your warlord with 2 russ's, then the TC and a russ leave another russ.

Then is your HQ choice now just the TC and the 1 russ or do you still need to destroy the one that gets abandoned for slay the warlord? As the TC & 1 russ would be the current TC and his leman russ squadron.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Try reading the rule please. The squadron is leaving the immobilized tank behind. The Tank Commander is still in the unit.

A Tank Commander and his Leman Russ Squadron count as an HQ choice

So if the tank commander is your warlord with 2 russ's, then the TC and a russ leave another russ.

Then is your HQ choice now just the TC and the 1 russ or do you still need to destroy the one that gets abandoned for slay the warlord? As the TC & 1 russ would be the current TC and his leman russ squadron.

Why would you? Do you need to kill every Veteran (and Officers) in a CCS to get it? Also, once you abandon a squad mate they are different units.

BRB. pg 111 When choosing your army, you must nominate one model to be your Warlord. This is always the HQ choice character with the highest leadership.

Leman Russ Commander: A Tank Commander starts the game in a Leman Russ tank (pg 46), leading a Leman Russ Squadron. Note that any type of Leman Russ can be taken as the Tank Commander's vehicle, and that it can have any upgrades usually available to that type of tank. The Tank Commander's tank is a character, has Ballistic Skill 4 and can be chosen as your army's Warlord. If his tank is Wrecked or suffers an Explodes! result, the Tank Commander is killed.



The base rule for warlord offers no choice... it just determines the model that is the warlord (it only offers a choice in the second sentence IF there is a tie). The tank commander rules gives you the choice of making it commander. Period end of story. That seems like a pretty cut and dry case of Codex specifically conflicting with and thus taking precedence over the core rulebook.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Try reading the rule please. The squadron is leaving the immobilized tank behind. The Tank Commander is still in the unit.

A Tank Commander and his Leman Russ Squadron count as an HQ choice

So if the tank commander is your warlord with 2 russ's, then the TC and a russ leave another russ.

Then is your HQ choice now just the TC and the 1 russ or do you still need to destroy the one that gets abandoned for slay the warlord? As the TC & 1 russ would be the current TC and his leman russ squadron.

Why would you? Do you need to kill every Veteran (and Officers) in a CCS to get it? Also, once you abandon a squad mate they are different units.

I'm just thinking out loud so far.

I find it odd they specify he can't leave his unit if he's not a IC.

but surely if it's the TC and one other russ, and the other russ gets immobilized the TC is stuck with the other russ.

The base rule for warlord offers no choice... it just determines the model that is the warlord (it only offers a choice in the second sentence IF there is a tie).

How can a model with no LD value be the HQ character with the highest Leadership?

Your interpretation leaves the rule useless if he's your only HQ.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I'm just thinking out loud so far.

I find it odd they specify he can't leave his unit if he's not a IC.

but surely if it's the TC and one other russ, and the other russ gets immobilized the TC is stuck with the other russ.

Except as already mentioned, the Tank Commander did not leave the unit. The unit left behind the immobilized Leman Russ.