Allied Detachments and 'Must Always be your Warlord'

[Noctus Cornix]

Good evening, brothers. 

 

So, recently, one of my friends has been wanting to get into Horus Heresy and play Sons of Horus with Ruinstorm Daemon Allies. Earlier today, he posed an interesting question for my group that we've been discussing.

 

Does a rule that specifically states a unit MUST be your army warlord allow you to make a model in an allied detachment be your warlord?

 

The background to this is that he wants to take a Ruinstorm Daemon Lord in his allied detachment. He's not taking Horus in his Primary detachment, and the Daemon Lord has the special Rule 'Lord of Chaos' which states that he MUST be your Warlord.

 

Now, the HH rulebook states (on page 136,) that 'the model that you choose as your Warlord must be from your Primary Detachment of the Force Organization chart in use, unless another rule specifically states otherwise. 

 

The last part of that section is what's giving us pause, and I quickly realized that this presents a question for multiple situations (such as taking an allied detachment and having the allied HQ be a model with 'Jealous Command'.

 

Most of our initial conversation has concluded that, RAW, he is unable to take the Daemon Lord because you the rules state it must be from the primary detachment. And, since he can't be the Warlord, you are unable to take him at all. 

 

The problem is it's just ambiguous. "Unless another rule specifically states otherwise" is rather vague. Lord of Chaos and Jealous Command both say that the character MUST be the Warlord, but neither rule says 'Must be the Warlord, even if he's in an Allied detachment'. 

 

I can honestly see both ways, but I wanted to ask you guys and see what you all think.

 

Thanks, y'all.  

[Gorgoff]

Good evening, brothers. 

 

So, recently, one of my friends has been wanting to get into Horus Heresy and play Sons of Horus with Ruinstorm Daemon Allies. Earlier today, he posed an interesting question for my group that we've been discussing.

 

Does a rule that specifically states a unit MUST be your army warlord allow you to make a model in an allied detachment be your warlord?

 

The background to this is that he wants to take a Ruinstorm Daemon Lord in his allied detachment. He's not taking Horus in his Primary detachment, and the Daemon Lord has the special Rule 'Lord of Chaos' which states that he MUST be your Warlord.

 

Now, the HH rulebook states (on page 136,) that 'the model that you choose as your Warlord must be from your Primary Detachment of the Force Organization chart in use, unless another rule specifically states otherwise. 

 

The last part of that section is what's giving us pause, and I quickly realized that this presents a question for multiple situations (such as taking an allied detachment and having the allied HQ be a model with 'Jealous Command'.

 

Most of our initial conversation has concluded that, RAW, he is unable to take the Daemon Lord because you the rules state it must be from the primary detachment. And, since he can't be the Warlord, you are unable to take him at all. 

 

The problem is it's just ambiguous. "Unless another rule specifically states otherwise" is rather vague. Lord of Chaos and Jealous Command both say that the character MUST be the Warlord, but neither rule says 'Must be the Warlord, even if he's in an Allied detachment'. 

 

I can honestly see both ways, but I wanted to ask you guys and see what you all think.

 

Thanks, y'all.  

I think "must be the warlord" let no jiggling room for discussions really. ;)

I'd say that those models just can't be taken as allies.

[MichaelCarmine]

 

Good evening, brothers. 

 

So, recently, one of my friends has been wanting to get into Horus Heresy and play Sons of Horus with Ruinstorm Daemon Allies. Earlier today, he posed an interesting question for my group that we've been discussing.

 

Does a rule that specifically states a unit MUST be your army warlord allow you to make a model in an allied detachment be your warlord?

 

The background to this is that he wants to take a Ruinstorm Daemon Lord in his allied detachment. He's not taking Horus in his Primary detachment, and the Daemon Lord has the special Rule 'Lord of Chaos' which states that he MUST be your Warlord.

 

Now, the HH rulebook states (on page 136,) that 'the model that you choose as your Warlord must be from your Primary Detachment of the Force Organization chart in use, unless another rule specifically states otherwise. 

 

The last part of that section is what's giving us pause, and I quickly realized that this presents a question for multiple situations (such as taking an allied detachment and having the allied HQ be a model with 'Jealous Command'.

 

Most of our initial conversation has concluded that, RAW, he is unable to take the Daemon Lord because you the rules state it must be from the primary detachment. And, since he can't be the Warlord, you are unable to take him at all. 

 

The problem is it's just ambiguous. "Unless another rule specifically states otherwise" is rather vague. Lord of Chaos and Jealous Command both say that the character MUST be the Warlord, but neither rule says 'Must be the Warlord, even if he's in an Allied detachment'. 

 

I can honestly see both ways, but I wanted to ask you guys and see what you all think.

 

Thanks, y'all.  

I think "must be the warlord" let no jiggling room for discussions really.

I'd say that those models just can't be taken as allies.

 

Yeah, "must always be the warlord" seems pretty clear to me. =]

If you are reffering to Kyr Vhalens "jealous Command" then it states, that he has to be in Primary detachment... and must be the warlord, unless Perturabo is also present.

So even if you would put him in Primary and the Daemon Lord in secondary - between "must always be..." and "must be, unless...", even without Pert, the Daemon Lord wins in my opinion! =]

[Noctus Cornix]

 

Yeah, "must always be the warlord" seems pretty clear to me. =]

 

If you are reffering to Kyr Vhalens "jealous Command" then it states, that he has to be in Primary detachment... and must be the warlord, unless Perturabo is also present.

So even if you would put him in Primary and the Daemon Lord in secondary - between "must always be..." and "must be, unless...", even without Pert, the Daemon Lord wins in my opinion! =]

 

 

Sorry, I was thinking of "Warlord's Pride", not "Jealous Command", the rule that Typhon and Eidolon have, though I think Warlord's Pride was just a proto version of Jealous Command and should've been replaced in the Red Books. Unfortunately, Forgeworld and Games Workshop have never exactly been stellar at rules oversite.

[MichaelCarmine]

 

 

Yeah, "must always be the warlord" seems pretty clear to me. =]

 

If you are reffering to Kyr Vhalens "jealous Command" then it states, that he has to be in Primary detachment... and must be the warlord, unless Perturabo is also present.

So even if you would put him in Primary and the Daemon Lord in secondary - between "must always be..." and "must be, unless...", even without Pert, the Daemon Lord wins in my opinion! =]

 

 

Sorry, I was thinking of "Warlord's Pride", not "Jealous Command", the rule that Typhon and Eidolon have, though I think Warlord's Pride was just a proto version of Jealous Command and should've been replaced in the Red Books. Unfortunately, Forgeworld and Games Workshop have never exactly been stellar at rules oversite.

 

 

Ah, i see. ^^

 

Warlords Pride says, that " ...will always be...,unless...", so i would also count "...must always be..." as the superior version.

The only exception is a Primarch, which "automatically is the Warlord".

Atleast in my opinion! xD

[Noctus Cornix]

 

 

 

Yeah, "must always be the warlord" seems pretty clear to me. =]

 

If you are reffering to Kyr Vhalens "jealous Command" then it states, that he has to be in Primary detachment... and must be the warlord, unless Perturabo is also present.

So even if you would put him in Primary and the Daemon Lord in secondary - between "must always be..." and "must be, unless...", even without Pert, the Daemon Lord wins in my opinion! =]

 

 

Sorry, I was thinking of "Warlord's Pride", not "Jealous Command", the rule that Typhon and Eidolon have, though I think Warlord's Pride was just a proto version of Jealous Command and should've been replaced in the Red Books. Unfortunately, Forgeworld and Games Workshop have never exactly been stellar at rules oversite.

 

 

Ah, i see. ^^

 

Warlords Pride says, that " ...will always be...,unless...", so i would also count "...must always be..." as the superior version.

The only exception is a Primarch, which "automatically is the Warlord".

Atleast in my opinion! xD

 

 

Entirely fair. I sincerely appreciate the feedback!

 

I think my group and I have decided that the rules are pretty explicit in this regard and we won't let him take the Daemon Lord in an allied detachment, but I wanted to get some outside opinions before we all agreed on it and completely shut him down. He'll just have to live with a normal Greater Daemon :P

[SkimaskMohawk]

It's in the faq.

 

Is it possible to field multiple HQs with a provision that they must be the army’s Warlord?

 

You may only do this in the case of a Primarch. In all cases, a Legion’s Primarch takes precedence over others, and so if present in an army representing their Legion, they must be the army’s Warlord and can subordinate other characters with this special rule (although you will gain no Warlord benefits from subordinate characters). With the exception of a Primarch and subordinates, however, you may not include more than one model with this limitation in any particular army.

So the answer is no.

[Noctus Cornix]

It's in the faq.

 

Is it possible to field multiple HQs with a provision that they must be the army’s Warlord?

 

You may only do this in the case of a Primarch. In all cases, a Legion’s Primarch takes precedence over others, and so if present in an army representing their Legion, they must be the army’s Warlord and can subordinate other characters with this special rule (although you will gain no Warlord benefits from subordinate characters). With the exception of a Primarch and subordinates, however, you may not include more than one model with this limitation in any particular army.

So the answer is no.

 

 

But the question was never about fielding multiple HQs with the same rule that they must be the army's Warlord. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

Sorry I got confused by the rest of the conversation you had with Michaelcarmine.

 

In general when rules say you need explicit exceptions that means it needs to spell it out, in this case with something like "this model must always be the warlord, even if taken as part of an allied detachment".

[Noctus Cornix]

Sorry I got confused by the rest of the conversation you had with Michaelcarmine.

 

In general when rules say you need explicit exceptions that means it needs to spell it out, in this case with something like "this model must always be the warlord, even if taken as part of an allied detachment".

You're good, man. :)

 

I'm entirely in agreement with you on that.