Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,848 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So this might be an obvious one, but RAI vs RAW...

Many (maybe all) of the FW special characters for the various marine chapters have 'If this guy is part of the army, he will always be the Warlord'. What if he's in the allied force? If you run two chapters, primary and allied, and both have that rule, i assume the primary wins, but if you run that HQ as the ally, and NOT the primary?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,166 Posts
I believe that they say "If he is part of the Primary Detachment" in codexes where there mention warlords.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,848 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Direct quote:

If Tyberos the Red Wake is part of an army then he will always....

Nothing about detachment listed. In the FW character sheet, 7 of the 24 characters listed say the exactly same wording, while the others say 'If XXX is an army's warlord, then...'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,166 Posts
Oh, I don't pay any attention to FW, they're only mostly edited in my opinion. I would go with the GW published Codexes which say only Primary Detachments have warlords.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,634 Posts
My guess is it may be due to a balance issue, a lot of the ones that 'must be warlord' have a pre-defined warlord trait. Perhaps it's so you can't synergise them with another warlord to make them more powerful.

The only other reason i can see to do this is just fluff really.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,848 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Actually, EVERY single one of them forces a warlord trait on them. the point is, those particular units don't differentiate between primary or secondary detachment. I'm assuming it's an oversight, and yet... RAW, they are warlord, no matter what.
 

·
Rattlehead
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
Warlord must be from the Primary Detachment. We know this from the rulebook. We also know that Codex rules take precedence over rulebook rules. However, I cannot find anything in the rulebook that says Imperial Armour books or Forge World .pdf files take precedence over the main rulebook. As such, I would argue that the standard rule of 'Rulebook contains the rules' takes precedence and the Imperial Armour stuff must follow it as such.
 

·
Entropy Fetishist
Joined
·
4,249 Posts
As far as I'm concerned, it's a case of edition change gumming up the wording. I would be awfully cross with an enemy player who tried to argue that they had to bring an Allied Warlord. That's like buying Cybork bodies for non-Codex: Ork models because a Big Mek lets you "upgrade any model in the army" with cybork bodies for a couple points. *cough*Ragewind*cough*
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top