Returning to 2nd Edition HH with some questions...

[Unit1126PLL]

Hello everyone! I played 30k in 1st edition and 7th edition 40k ages ago, and have some questions now that I am returning. These are in no particular order and span a variety of topics, so... help where you can please!

 

1) what happens if you choose a "must be the warlord" in an Allied Detachment? The rules imply they become the warlord, which seems too good to be true.

 

2) Militia provenances are still tied to the Force Commander, but now apply only to the Detachment. Does this mean Baneblades do not get provenances (where applicable)? Given that Lord of War is a separate detachment?

 

3) How the heck does one play Solar Auxilia now? (Okay just teasing, I this isn't a rules question).

 

I am sure I will have more, but for now, thanks!

[NemoVonUtopia]

1) I would agree but I dont know what characters have that rule.

 

2) They would not, but I dont think any provenances would apply to baneblades anyway.

 

3) Lots of leman russ vanquishers.

[Unit1126PLL]

1) Archimandrite from Mechanicum

2) Cyber-augmented would make the Baneblade Battle Brothers with Mechanicum so it could get repaired (or whathaveyou)

3) Why so? Expensive lascannons... I guess? Hmm. Thanks. 

12 minutes ago, NemoVonUtopia said:

1) I would agree but I dont know what characters have that rule.

 

2) They would not, but I dont think any provenances would apply to baneblades anyway.

 

3) Lots of leman russ vanquishers.

 

[bushman101]

Your not allowed to take a Warlord in an Allied detachment. Warlords can only be from the Primary. 

Under the Detachments section on p280, it basically says you chose a Warlord before you select another detachment.

Basically, anything that 'must' be a Warlord is invalid to be chosen as a Allied HQ.

Edited July 5, 2023 by bushman101
Clarity

[Unit1126PLL]

58 minutes ago, bushman101 said:

Your not allowed to take a Warlord in an Allied detachment. Warlords can only be from the Primary. 

Under the Detachments section on p280, it basically says you chose a Warlord before you select another detachment.

Basically, anything that 'must' be a Warlord is invalid to be chosen as a Allied HQ.

Gotcha.

 

What a convoluted way to figure that out - the actual Warlord section says "your warlord must be from your primary detachment unless another rule specifically states otherwise" and I took "must be your warlord" with no caveats as stating otherwise - especially given the later line that says "this model will always be your warlord regardless of other factors". I feel like him being in an Allied Detachment might count as an other factor, haha.

 

So you can't take the character because you can't pick him as warlord because warlord is chosen before he exists in your list, am I grasping the logic correctly?

Edited July 5, 2023 by Unit1126PLL

[bushman101]

5 hours ago, Unit1126PLL said:

 

So you can't take the character because you can't pick him as warlord because warlord is chosen before he exists in your list, am I grasping the logic correctly?

That's how I read it.

 

[Unit1126PLL]

1 hour ago, bushman101 said:

That's how I read it.

 

Hmm, Samus is broken in the daemon supplement then - he can be chosen as Warlord when in an Allied Detachment... But you pick your warlord before you begin the detachment!

[General Zodd]

3 hours ago, Unit1126PLL said:

Hmm, Samus is broken in the daemon supplement then - he can be chosen as Warlord when in an Allied Detachment... But you pick your warlord before you begin the detachment!

All special rules break (or at least make amendment to) the main rules to a certain extent. But Samus’ rules calling that out specifically means that he does indeed work like that. The fact that the Archimandrite doesn’t contain that line means it doesn’t get to break that particular rule.

[Unit1126PLL]

9 hours ago, General Zodd said:

All special rules break (or at least make amendment to) the main rules to a certain extent. But Samus’ rules calling that out specifically means that he does indeed work like that. The fact that the Archimandrite doesn’t contain that line means it doesn’t get to break that particular rule.

And also means he cannot be taken in an Allied Detachment, the reason being that he doesn't exist in the army list when your Warlord is selected, even though the main rules themselves say he must be disregarding all other factors. So you have used a general rule (warlord must be in the primary detachment) to break a specific rule (Archimandrite must be the warlord) that is explicitly permitted to break any rule to be followed (disregarding all other factors).

 

I don't know if I agree.

Edited July 6, 2023 by Unit1126PLL

[General Zodd]

The rules for Archimandrite just says they must be your Warlord, it doesn’t say anything about “disregarding all other factors”. I think you’re treating this like a special ability, when in actual fact it’s an inhibiting limit. Let me logic some of this out as examples;

 

Archimandrite must be your Warlord.

Your Warlord must be chosen from your primary detachment.

Ergo, an Archimandrite must be in your primary detachment.

 

Similarly;

 

Archimandrite must be your Warlord.

You may only ever have one Warlord.

Ergo, you cannot have more than one Archimandrite in your army.

 

Another example;

 

Archimandrite must be your Warlord.

A Primarch must be your Warlord.

You may only ever have one Warlord.
Ergo, you cannot have an Archimandrite and a Primarch in the same army.

 

Samus explicitly says he breaks the rule about Warlords and primary detachments. That, and only that, allows him to be your Warlord, this is perfectly understandable given you can currently only take him in an allied detachment!

[Unit1126PLL]

The Rulebook says that any model that must be your warlord "must be your warlord disregarding all other factors".

 

Here's the quote verbatim:

Quote

In some cases, a model will have a special rule that

dictates that the model in question must be selected as

the Warlord, such as a Primarch. When this is the case,

that model is always the Warlord regardless of any other

factors. 

The very next sentence addresses your 2nd example explicitly:

Quote

An army may not include more than one model
that must be selected as the Warlord, unless another
special rule contains an exception to this rule.

 

It is very significant that such a clarifying sentence doesn't exist for an Allied Detachment.

 

1) I have permission to take another Faction's models as an ally in an Allied Detachment

2) I have permission to choose Mechanicum as that ally

3) The Archimandrite is a Mechanicum model

Ergo, I have permission to choose the Archimandrite from the rules.

 

When I ally the Archimandrite, we encounter the case where he must be the warlord. Either:

1) We obey the explicit rules, and he becomes the warlord "regardless of any other factors" (making the reasonable inference that "any other factors" includes him being in an Allied detachment; since no list of "other factors" exists, it will always be an inference).

 

2) We make another inference that the permission to take an Archimandrite in the first place is retroactively revoked implicitly.

 

I suppose it comes down to which inference you trust more.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Unit1126PLL

[Unknown Legionnaire]

It is not  'significant that such a clarifying sentence doesn't exist for an Allied Detachment'  ... bcause the clarification is not needed.

 

Your army's warlord must always be a model from your Primary Detachment.

This is stated in the Rulebook, Liber Astartes, Liber Hereticus, Liber Imperium and Liber Mechanicum as well. So I guess, that's a rule, huh.

 

The only exception (at this time) is Samus, from the 'Burning of Ohmn-Mat' pdf accessory, whose rules explicitely override the rules for choosing your warlord.

 

No other character, neiter generic nor special ones, have a comparable rule.

 

Primarchs are always part of a Primary Detachment, as per the force org chart.

 

An Archmagos Archimandrite can only be selected as a HQ choice for a Mechanicum Primary Detachment.

 

Anything else is really just word-warping, twisting of RAW, and (potentially) fishing for some sort of 'advantage' which I fail to see.

 

 

[Unit1126PLL]

Got it; the assessment is that permission to take an Archimandrite in an Allied Detachment is revoked.

[Xenith]

On 7/6/2023 at 5:45 PM, Unit1126PLL said:

And also means he cannot be taken in an Allied Detachment, the reason being that he doesn't exist in the army list when your Warlord is selected, even though the main rules themselves say he must be disregarding all other factors.

 

There's a few rules interactions that conflict that should be resolved simultaneously when building armies in 30k. 

 

For example, you can only pick the armoured spearhead rite of war if you have a tank with the HQ upgrade, however you can only add a tank with the HQ upgrade to your list if you are using the armoured spearhead rite of war. Techncially, you can never use it as your army lacks a Master of the Legion model to unlock it, however common sense says this isn't right. 

[Xenith]

I should add that based on that, in my opinion any individual model with the specific rule that says MUST be the warlord overrides the general rule that the warlord must be in the primary detachment, however this seems ripe for an FAQ. 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Xenith

[Unknown Legionnaire]

But it doesn't (override the general rules). Samus is (at the time of writing) the only special character who has such a rule.

 

And it shouldn't (override the general rules). Because the rule that the warlord has to be part of your primary detachment apparently exists for a reason.

Namely to prevent shenanigans, silly 'army builds' and min-maxing. 

 

I predict, with the advent of Daemons of the Ruinstorm or similar supplements, we might see one or two more instance like Samus, giving you the opportunity to field a daemon warlord who starts of the battlefield as part of your allied, summoned contingent.

 

As for general army structure and composition (as well as Legion fluff) this wouldn't make a lot of sense, neither for the rules, nor narratively.

 

So, no need for such a FAQ / errata at all.