Deep strike Vs. Vehicles

[gk1989]

I wanted to get some opinions. Which would be a more effective strategy for a grey knights strike force. Deep striking, especially turn 1 with the NSF detachment, lets you put some hard hitting models (read DK's and Paladins) in your opponents back field, but leaves them open to a turn of shooting before assault. Vehicles and transports like Storm Ravens and Land raiders can get your guys there and allow them to assault, but they also take up a large chunk of points. The cheap rout with rhinos and Lasbacks for PAGK get your purifiers there, but also leave them open to a turn of shooting before assault. I know each has its uses, but for an overall list for a local tournament or campaign which do y'all thin would be more reliable and effective?

[jeffersonian000]

Deep Striking is better, unless you take Purifiers, then Rhinos are good. Flyers are great for AA. And that's about it.

 

SJ

[THE PORTCULLIS]

For me its deep strike all the way. The option of getting rhinos and razors downfield to get PAGK into assault, though fun, would be inefficient. Using a Land Raider to get terminators down the board will cost 1-2 turns of inert game play before anything gets going. A raven, at best comes in on turn 2 and won't be able to drop off its cargo until atleast turn 3. All vehicle deployment options cost turns where you will be left vulnerable. You will be able to shoot vehicle guns on the way of course, providing you only move short amounts, but this contradicts the close quarters nature of your thread.

 

Far better to attempt deep strike turn one. Go second to deny your opponent a whole turn of shooting at your prized assets. Use your brain, identify the big threats, they got an exocrine? Strike near it if you have enough psycannons or avoid it and keep out of its range. They got guardsmen heavy weapons camped up in trees? Well get them grey knights down nearby, run them and use some incinerators to punnish their arrogance. Get enough GK down turn one, get shunting units backing them up and you will soon saturate your opponents board. All your guns will be in range for full effect on selected targets. You will target the things that are designed to be most effective against you, AP2 weapons, Strong pie plate firing units etc. It is also worth noting that this full on assault will usually give you the psychological upper hand going into turn 2. As the first turn ends you want to be in the possition of having your opponent concerned about what you will fire at /assault next. From my experience the opponents mind set begins to change from "how can I attack" to "how can I turn this situation around?"

 

Of course deep striking is risk and reward... But the risks are never as great as is widely believed/your opponent will have you believe. Deep Strike 7" from your intended shooting target providing all other variables are favourable. Based on probability of scatter you will be fine nearly all the time, if not, the mishap table has improved in favour of the striking player. Play brave.

[Brom MKIV]

I feel both are viable strategies although I think its pretty obvious that NSF is the standout. The main thing to consider is not to water down one too much with the other because then both become ineffective.

 

If going with NSF use reserves manipulation and saturate an area with overwhelming force. A storm raven or even two wouldn't be out of place here but a couple razorbacks probably would be because they would detract from the pressure element and alpha strike potential a DS heavy list thrives on.

 

On the opposite end razorback and rhino spam can also be effective if you saturate with armour. For GKs though I feel this type of list wouldn't be quite as effective as its counterparts from other codices. The upside is razorbacks bring ap2 weaponry and protection from small arms fire, while rhinos allow cleansing flame and psycans from fire points. This is also one of the only ways a GK army might be able to attempt Obsec, even if it is a poor substitute comparatively. Dreadknights wouldn't necessarily be out of place since with shunting they can take the heat off those light chassis from AT fire but I feel in general that mechanized lists do better to start most of the army on the board although there are exceptions. 

 

Land raiders are obviously a rock/paper/scissors unit. They are more of a spoiler build that is easily countered if expected but can be difficult to deal with if not prepared for. If I were to go this route it would probably involve 2-3 raiders all forgeworld variants like the achilles and spartan. 

 

Thats what I got.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Meching is a terrible idea and will get you shot down Turn 1 and Turn 2 by any competent list (the genuinely OP lists like Tau, Crons and Eldar will do it Turn 1 and have spare shooting to start whittling away your infantry as well). AV11 is paper mache to S6/7 spam, due to Hull Points.

 

Turn 1 Deepstrike plus Run and Shoot is huge, and basically makes up for a lot of what is lacking in our army (namely native delivery systems that don't wait till Turn 2 at earliest to arrive). You still need Allies to make it work though, my suggestion would be Ultramarines for Tiggy (his Reserve re-rolls doesn't depend on him being on-table, so null deployment is perfectly viable). I'm trying out such a list in my next League, my old list is completely busted by the codex update :(

[Reckling]

Meching is a terrible idea and will get you shot down Turn 1 and Turn 2 by any competent list (the genuinely OP lists like Tau, Crons and Eldar will do it Turn 1 and have spare shooting to start whittling away your infantry as well). AV11 is paper mache to S6/7 spam, due to Hull Points.

Turn 1 Deepstrike plus Run and Shoot is huge, and basically makes up for a lot of what is lacking in our army (namely native delivery systems that don't wait till Turn 2 at earliest to arrive). You still need Allies to make it work though, my suggestion would be Ultramarines for Tiggy (his Reserve re-rolls doesn't depend on him being on-table, so null deployment is perfectly viable). I'm trying out such a list in my next League, my old list is completely busted by the codex update

Tiggy wont help your Rites of Teleportation.

"Gift of Prescience: If your army contains Tigarius, you can choose to re-roll any Reserve Rolls that apply to units from the same detachment - even successful ones."

keywords being 'same detachment'.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Tiggy wont help your Rites of Teleportation.

 

"Gift of Prescience: If your army contains Tigarius, you can choose to re-roll any Reserve Rolls that apply to units from the same detachment - even successful ones."

keywords being 'same detachment'.

 

Attach a GK IC to an UM unit, or vice versa. You can't spread the benefits of both detachments to solo models though (so Dreadknights should start on table, which is a good idea anyway). 

[ChaoticEric]

 

Tiggy wont help your Rites of Teleportation."Gift of Prescience: If your army contains Tigarius, you can choose to re-roll any Reserve Rolls that apply to units from the same detachment - even successful ones."keywords being 'same detachment'.

 

Attach a GK IC to an UM unit, or vice versa. You can't spread the benefits of both detachments to solo models though (so Dreadknights should start on table, which is a good idea anyway).

Doesn't all units in a detachment usually have to come from the same faction, for example combined arms and nemesis strike force? Of course they might be able to join each others units but it seems strange that a unit would benefit from something affecting a detachment which they can't be part of?

 

Edit; on the other hand it states that battle brothers does benefits from each others modifiers to reserve rolls.

[Shadrach03]

From what I gather from the aegis discussion a re-roll isn't a modifier only a +-to the value rolled counts as a modifier.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Doesn't all units in a detachment usually have to come from the same faction, for example combined arms and nemesis strike force? Of course they might be able to join each others units but it seems strange that a unit would benefit from something affecting a detachment which they can't be part of?

 

Edit; on the other hand it states that battle brothers does benefits from each others modifiers to reserve rolls. 

 

That's the issue. See, what is a mixed unit considered to be? Reserves rolls are made for entire units, not for any IC's attached to said unit prior to deployment. GW don't provide a clear answer, so we resort to RAW. Under RAW, GK Libby+UM Terminators in Reserves, you roll a single Reserve die for the whole unit to come on. The UM Terminators are part of Tiggy's detachment, and thus benefit from his 'Gift of Prescience' re-roll to their Reserve roll. The GK Librarian meanwhile is part of the Nemesis Strikeforce detachment, and thus benefits from 'Rites of Teleportation'. You only make a single Reserves roll for the entire unit to come on, so there is no way to seperate out the buffs, or claim they're seperate units. If your opponents argue the point, ask them to explain which detachment that mixed unit belongs to, and how they determine it. By RAW, a mixed unit is considered to be part of both detachments, and thus the benefits stack. 

 

I'm not sure GW intended the rules to work that way, but it is how it functions. Pretty hilarious IMO, because Tiggy fixes so many issues in one go, and he's not even that expensive (he's just easily killed). 

 

From what I gather from the aegis discussion a re-roll isn't a modifier only a +-to the value rolled counts as a modifier. 

 

 

Correct, and that's why if you want to buff a Knight unit to benefit from Tiggy's re-roll to Reserves, you have to attach him to that unit. 

[Quozzo]

 

 

By RAW, a mixed unit is considered to be part of both detachments, and thus the benefits stack.

Do have a reference for that, as I'm sure that units cannot be part of more than one detachment, along with faction.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

 

Do have a reference for that, as I'm sure that units cannot be part of more than one detachment, along with faction. 

 

 

I can quote you the relevant sections from the main rulebook, if that's what you mean. GW clearly never considered the implications of Battle-Brother Allies attaching their IC's to eachother's units, and the implications of it. 

 

"...However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-Forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong to what Detachments and what Command benefits each will receive (if any) before you can start deploying your army"

pg. 118, 40k rulebook 7th edition

 

Note the key word here is 'units'. Aside from the grammatical errors, the main issue with this restriction is that Allied IC's attaching to friendly units from a different detachment cannot be rolled for seperately in Reserve. By definition, once that Allied IC joins the unit in Reserve, you have a single unit that is comprised of models from two different detachments. See the rules below;

 

"Combined Reserve Units: 

During deployment, when deciding which units are kept as Reserves, you must specify if any of the Independent Characters in Reserve are joining a unit, in which case they must arrive together. Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserve are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in Reserve, in which case they will arrive together. In either case, when making a Reserve roll (see below) for a combined unit, roll a single dice for the unit and/or its Independent Character/Transport vehicle"

pg. 135, 40k rulebook 7th edition

 

In addition, the first rules quote mentions 'what Command benefits each will receive'. Tiggy's 'Gift of Prescience' special rule is not a Command benefit, its a special rule as follows;

 

"Gift of Prescience:

If your army contains Tigurius, you can choose to re-roll any Reserve rolls that apply to units from the same detachment - even successful ones"

pg. 218, Codex Space Marines 6th edition

 

Of special note here are two things. Firstly, Tiggy doesn't have to be on-table for his special rule to function (he just has to be in the army). Secondly, the rule is explicitly saying 'Reserve rolls that apply to units from the same detachment'. Because you must make a single Reserve roll for a combined unit, its impossible for his rule to not apply to Hammernators joined by a GK Libby. 

 

 

So, here is how the rules progress from the following combos;

 

 

Step 1: Before deployment, declare your Grey Knight Librarian is attaching to a unit of Ultramarine Terminators in Deep Strike Reserve

Step 2: Turn 1 begins. As per the Command benefit of the Nemesis Strikeforce, you may start making Reserve rolls this turn instead of Turn 2 for "any unit in the Nemesis Strikeforce detachment that is placed in Deepstrike Reserve...". 

Step 3: You check to see which units from your Nemesis Strikeforce detachment you have placed in Deepstrike Reserve. The Grey Knight Librarian is in Deepstrike Reserve ('Rites of Teleportation' doesn't care what he is attached to, or even if he's alone), so he fulfills that criteria. In addition, 'Rites of Teleportation' lets such units Run and Shoot after they arrive (this is not restricted to units who show up Turn 1, its anytime you arrive from Reserve via Deepstrike). It's impossible to claim that the GK Libby is not part of the Nemesis Strikeforce detachment, as he must belong to a detachment and he was not selected as part of the Ultramarine detachment. 

Step 4: When you make the Reserve roll for the combined unit of Libby+Hammernators, you check if a unit from the Ultramarines detachment is making a Reserve roll. The Ultramarine Hammernators are from the Ultramarine detachment, so they fulfill that criteria. You may therefore re-roll the Reserve roll you are making Turn 1 for the combined unit. Your opponent cannot claim the Hammernator unit is not part of the Ultramarine detachment, for the exact same reasons as the GK Libby and 'Rites'. 

 

 

Now, I hasten to add, this is only going to work for combined units, or if you embark a unit from one detachment inside a non-dedicated transport of the other detachment (ie Ravens). Note that 'Rites' never applies to Ravens anyway, as they do not Deepstrike. 

[Brom MKIV]

I'm away from my rules today but there is language regarding rules not transferring from characters to units unless specifically stated. That and it's pretty obvious gw tried to limit this type of thing by stating same detachment only. Lastly taking a loose interpretation opens the door for opponents to do the same and there are nastier combinations available to other factions once the gloves are off.

 

  Anyway tldr I'm of the opinion attached ICs benefit from deployment rules that aren't specifically limited but do not themselves confer such rules unless specified.

[Happy-inquisitor]

 

Now, I hasten to add, this is only going to work for combined units, or if you embark a unit from one detachment inside a non-dedicated transport of the other detachment (ie Ravens). Note that 'Rites' never applies to Ravens anyway, as they do not Deepstrike.

At the risk of repeating myself this is why an allied storm eagle is so good - it can deep strike. Fill with as many Purifiers and IC as you like and the purifiers are in deep strike reserve so can make reserve rolls turn one. Deep strike into hover mode if you want to disembark and flame on the first turn or just don't want your expensive cargo crashing and burning vs an opponent with really serious AA firepower.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I'm away from my rules today but there is language regarding rules not transferring from characters to units unless specifically stated. 

 

Yes, which is fine. I'm not claiming the Ultramarine Chapter tactics transfer to the GK Libby, or vice versa. But the Reserves rules are very clear on his matter, you can't roll seperately for an IC+unit, you make one roll for the whole unit. 

That and it's pretty obvious gw tried to limit this type of thing by stating same detachment only.

 

Yes but as I proved using the quotes above, that restriction is circumvented by Allied IC's attaching or vice versa. Because a unit in Reserve with attached IC's and even inside a transport, you make one Reserve roll for the whole unit. 'Gift of Prescience' triggers when you make a Reserve roll for a unit from the Ultramarines detachment, which the Hammernators most clearly are (they were selected from the UM detachment). 'Rites of Teleportation' triggers when you select a unit from the Nemesis Strikeforce detachment in Deep Strike Reserve, which the GK Libby fulfills. 

 Lastly taking a loose interpretation opens the door for opponents to do the same and there are nastier combinations available to other factions once the gloves are off.

 

Well you can't very well deny your opponents pulling the same tricks, because that's how the rules work. I agree, it's a little silly they never considered this issue and thus never wrote rules to cover it. But that's GW for you, never thinking through implications (Support Shas'O and Riptide come to mind, amongst many other examples). 

 

  Anyway tldr I'm of the opinion attached ICs benefit from deployment rules that aren't specifically limited but do not themselves confer such rules unless specified.

 

 

Well this is precisely the issue. How do you determine which units in Reserve benefit from which rules? The only answer GW gave was 'tell your opponent which detachment they belong to, and what Command benefits apply to each'. 'Gift of Prescience' is not a Command benefit, its a special rule of Tiggy's that affects any unit from his detachment in Reserve. 'Rites of Teleportation' is a Command benefit, but you can't argue the GK Libby doesn't benefit from it, as he fulfills all the criteria. 

 

So my point is, their rules are inadequate to cover this situation. Because as it stands, attaching Allied IC's to units from a different detachment offers up three different answers;

 

A: The mixed unit doesn't belong to either detachment

B: The mixed unit only belongs to one detachment. This is determined on a unit by unit basis, using arbitrary rules (as none exist in the actual rules, so you literally houserule)

C: The mixed unit contains units from both detachments, and thus benefits from special rules affecting units from both detachments

 

A is impossible, as a unit must belong to a detachment

B is the answer you're advocating, but that doesn't really help, because now you have to go unit by unit and determine which detachment it belongs to. It's completely arbitrary. 

C is the most logical, because whilst it does break the supposed 'a unit can only belong to one detachment' restriction GW claim exists, the very fact you can have a unit comprised of models from different detachments breaks that rule straight away. The moment an Allied IC joins a unit from another detachment, or you attach your HQ to an Allied unit, that restriction i null and void. 

 

Mind you, this is par for course with GW. Every edition has had loopholes or unintended consequences. It's why they need an FAQ for 7th. 

[Quozzo]

Yes but as I proved using the quotes above, that restriction is circumvented by Allied IC's attaching or vice versa. Because a unit in Reserve with attached IC's and even inside a transport, you make one Reserve roll for the whole unit. 'Gift of Prescience' triggers when you make a Reserve roll for a unit from the Ultramarines detachment, which the Hammernators most clearly are (they were selected from the UM detachment). 'Rites of Teleportation' triggers when you select a unit from the Nemesis Strikeforce detachment in Deep Strike Reserve, which the GK Libby fulfills.

The GK libby is not a unit though. The rules are only conferred to the unit and an IC is attached to the unit, not the other way round. You claimed that units can be part of multiple detachments, but although they can consist of models from multiple detachments they cannot be mixed detachments according to the first rule you quoted, which contradicts your previous statement. Thus units cannot benefit from more than one rules which effects units from different detachments, such as RoT and Tiggy's rule.

[Gentlemanloser]

A: The mixed unit doesn't belong to either detachment

B: The mixed unit only belongs to one detachment. This is determined on a unit by unit basis, using arbitrary rules (as none exist in the actual rules, so you literally houserule)

C: The mixed unit contains units from both detachments, and thus benefits from special rules affecting units from both detachments

 

A is impossible, as a unit must belong to a detachment

B is the answer you're advocating, but that doesn't really help, because now you have to go unit by unit and determine which detachment it belongs to. It's completely arbitrary. 

C is the most logical, because whilst it does break the supposed 'a unit can only belong to one detachment' restriction GW claim exists, the very fact you can have a unit comprised of models from different detachments breaks that rule straight away. The moment an Allied IC joins a unit from another detachment, or you attach your HQ to an Allied unit, that restriction i null and void. 

 

 

Both A and B are impossible.

 

(Caveat, A is possible if you play Unbound.  And all the minis invooved are of a different Faction to your Warlord)

 

B is impossible as every Detachment in the game has a restriciton that units in it have to belong to a single Faction.

 

It is also impossible for an IC to change which Faction they belong to.

 

Option C is the only possible way to work this.

 

 

The GK libby is not a unit though.

 

Of course it is! ;)

 

You can be a 'unit' of a single mini.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

The GK libby is not a unit though.

 

Yes he is, he's an Independent Character model, which means he is a unit comprised on a single model. Read his unit entry. 

The rules are only conferred to the unit and an IC is attached to the unit, not the other way round. 

 

There are plenty of examples of rules that transfer from IC to unit, and vice versa.

You claimed that units can be part of multiple detachments, but although they can consist of models from multiple detachments they cannot be mixed detachments according to the first rule you quoted, which contradicts your previous statement. 

 

Wat

Thus units cannot benefit from more than one rules which effects units from different detachments, such as RoT and Tiggy's rule. 

 

Well clearly they can, as I've outlined. So I suggest you re-read the rules I quoted and come up with a better answer. 

[Quozzo]

The GK libby is not a unit though.

Yes he is, he's an Independent Character model, which means he is a unit comprised on a single model. Read his unit entry.

I meant when ICs are attached to units, as the unit is not attached to the IC. The unit doesn't become 2 units, it's still one unit and the IC benefits from the units rules. He is only regarded as a unit if taken alone. If he is attached to other ICs then they all become a unit, not a group of single units inside one unit. That's in the BRB although I don't have the book with me.

 

 

The rules are only conferred to the unit and an IC is attached to the unit, not the other way round.

There are plenty of examples of rules that transfer from IC to unit, and vice versa.

But this isnt one.

 

 

You claimed that units can be part of multiple detachments, but although they can consist of models from multiple detachments they cannot be mixed detachments according to the first rule you quoted, which contradicts your previous statement.

Wat

You said this:

By RAW, a mixed unit is considered to be part of both detachments, and thus the benefits stack.

Which is clearly wrong, as proven by the first rule you quoted.

However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment.

 

Thus units cannot benefit from more than one rules which effects units from different detachments, such as RoT and Tiggy's rule.

Well clearly they can, as I've outlined. So I suggest you re-read the rules I quoted and come up with a better answer.

You quoted rules, but nothing mentions units can be from multiple detachments that would allow them to benefit from two rules which specifically only benefit units from their respective detachments. In fact quite the opposite. It explicitly states that a unit cannot be a part of two detachments, the one I quoted above.

 

 

Oh, and my quotes got messed up so i had to resort to this

[Gentlemanloser]

I meant when ICs are attached to units, as the unit is not attached to the IC. The unit doesn't become 2 units, it's still one unit and the IC benefits from the units rules. He is only regarded as a unit if taken alone. If he is attached to other ICs then they all become a unit, not a group of single units inside one unit. That's in the BRB although I don't have the book with me.

 

As I said in the other thread on this, for USRs, totally.

 

We know how they transfer, or don't, when ICs join units.

 

Command Benefits however, aren't USRs.  They don't use the same rules that USRs do, and if we start imposing them, we start to get into situations where Troop units can lose Objective Secured (remember, that's just a Command Benefit, the same as Rites of Teleportation).

 

Why do we think a unit loses the Command Benefit of the detachment it was purchased in, if it joins, or is joined by another unit?

 

Do units Embarked in allied Transports lose Command Benefits?  That's also a combined unit.  Especially for a single reserve roll....

[Quozzo]

A unit doesn't lose OS/RoT if joined by an IC, but it does lose it if an IC joins a unit. As it is the unit which has the rule. Transports are not joined by the unit. They have different rules covering them and no unit may join a vehicle.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

 

A unit doesn't lose OS/RoT if joined by an IC, but it does lose it if an IC joins a unit.

 

I'd like to ask for a book reference to that. ;)

 

A Command Benefit is not a USR.

[Brom MKIV]

I see how that interpretation can be made but lets take a further look (after which I'll throw my own monkey wrench):

 

Pg 166- joining and leaving a unit, 5th paragraph:

 

"while an independent character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he follows the rules for characters." 

 

This is the only statement needed. Lone ICs count as units. ICs joined to a unit count as part of the unit for all rules purposes. Therefore any verbage referring to "the unit" is not referencing the IC while he is with the unit, but rather the unit he/she has joined. Simple.

 

To play devils advocate, if the character would still count as a unit while so joined then every single rule referring to "the/a unit" could also apply to said character.. i.e. he could be targeted seperately with shooting attacks, take seperate moral checks and so on. Obviously this cannot be the case. This is why such an interpretation cannot hold true, because it unravels every other reference to "unit" in the entire rulebook. Besides its gonna create constant arguments and detract from your gaming experience. 

 

Now for the monkey wrench:

 

If the "unit" is composed only of 2 ICs what takes precedence? I have no clue.. geedub?

[Gentlemanloser]

If the "unit" is composed only of 2 ICs what takes precedence? I have no clue.. geedub?

 

Nice!

 

HAHA!

 

It must be obvious to everyone that these rules just do not stand up to scrutiny, and GW just don't care.  They've left the designers job to us the players.  Without paying us for our time and effort.

 

Let's go back to the IC rules;

 

 

 

while an independent character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes

 

Is bogus, and *can not* work.

 

A Grey Knight IC joining a Blood Angels unit in no way counts as a Faction: Blood Angel mini, and would not benefit from any rule that would only effect a Faction: Blood Angel mini.  Like the FnP granted by a Sanguinary Priest.

 

But GW hand wave this away with the all powerful Narrative, and expect us to sort out their mess and make their game playable.

 

Simply, the rules do not work.  The deeper you dig into them, the more game breaking flaws you uncover.

 

How long has 7th been out now?  And we don't have a FAQ/Errata to address any of these issues...

 

Back to the topic at hand;

 

 

 

ICs joined to a unit count as part of the unit for all rules purposes. Therefore any verbage referring to "the unit" is not referencing the IC while he is with the unit, but rather the unit he/she has joined. Simple.

 

It is impossible for the IC to become a mini of Faction: Whatever they have joined.  Therefore they cannot count as part of the joined unit for all rules purposes.

 

An IC always retains their own Faction, and whatever Detachment they were purchased in.

 

As such, they always retain any Command Benefits their detachment might give.

 

 

To rule otherwise, you will need to show how a mini can change both Faction and Detachment.

 

It's just not possible to do so.

[Brom MKIV]

Yes an IC retains their same faction. However the faction is not really a factor. It is the definition of 'unit' that is important.

 

An IC joined to a unit ceases to be a unit in its own right, instead becoming part of something else but still follows the rules for characters (note characters NOT Independent Characters).

 

 

Command benefits- rites of teleportation excerpt states "..you can make reserve rolls for any unit in this detachment..". (emphasis mine).

The key here is that the IC is no longer a 'unit' for rules purposes for the duration he is joined to something else [unit] so that units command benefits apply while his do not. i.e. he is treated as a sergeant with better LO,S.

 

But again the point where it really falls down is when considering a unit of 2 or more ICs from different factions with different command benefits. That I admit, and GWs likely response would be forge it, dice off, most important rule yada yada.