Yarrick's Senior Officer Rule and Warlord

[The Sovereign]

So the Militarum codex says lord commissars (which Yarrick is) can only be warlord if no other senior officers are present, but Yarrick also has the senior officer rule. Does that make him an exception as a lord commissar who can be warlord despite the presence of a CCS?

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

He can be the Warlord regardless, yes. He is a mighty and venerated hero of the Imperium, and everyone views him as a superior.

[The Sovereign]

Well, I agree that's fluffy and how the rules should work, but I'm not seeing where it states explicitly that he can be warlord when other senior officers are present...

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

By the fact that he is a Senior Officer.

[Gleipnir]

Yarrick has the Chain of Command special rule the same as Lord Commissars, so you are correct that he would only be the Warlord in a primary detachment absent a Company Command Squad, Creed, or Stracken, though he can accompany another Lord Commissar or Tank Commander just fine.

A Lord Commissar would automatically be second behind Yarrick because as TDA said he is also a Senior Officer so would have greater authority than a standard Lord Commissar.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I've just emailed the Events Team, we'll see what they say. :D

[Gleipnir]

If it helps the Warlord would be based on priority

Creed>Stracken or Company Commander>Yarrick>Lord Commissar>Tank Commander for who your Warlord can be.

Rules say this;

CHAIN OF COMMAND
- May only be your Warlord if you have no models with the Senior Officer special rule.

Funny as it may sound technically speaking the wording on Chain of Command actually makes it impossible for Yarrick to be the Warlord since he is a model with the Senior Officer special rule, though I can't see that as being RAI, personally think they should have omitted the Chain of Command rule from his entry where only Creed has the option to defer to him or not. Simple errata fix would be to add "no other models" if they expected Yarrick to keep the rule or simply to remove the Chain of Command rule from his unit thus making the new priority for Warlords

Creed or Yarrick>Stracken or Company Commander>Lord Commissar>Tank Commander

Personally just gonna play is as the first priority options where Yarrick defers to any other senior officers as a Warlord option, until such time they change the rule or remove Chain of Command from his unit.

doncha just love these day 1 rules issues :)

[Nabterayl]

Chain of Command plainly disallows Yarrick from being a warlord, ever, for the reasons Gleipnir said. Just as clearly, that can't be the intent - otherwise he wouldn't have a specified warlord trait. But ... what then is the point of him having Chain of Command? Why not just leave it off? The only answer I can come up with is that even Yarrick is not allowed to be your warlord if your primary detachment contains another model with the Senior Officer rule. He's still a commissar - he isn't going to take command of somebody's company unless the company commander has proven himself incompetent.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I'm just going to wait and hear from John Bracken.

[Gleipnir]

Ask him when we can expect a new set of FAQs while you're at it :)

[Blood Shadow]

What's more important is that in the ibooks version Yarrick doesn't have stubborn! What's that about?

[The Sovereign]

What's more important is that in the ibooks version Yarrick doesn't have stubborn! What's that about?

Another good point. Just went and checked for meself. :)

[Gleipnir]

So remove Chain of Command from Yarrick, add Stubborn and Bob's your uncle everyone happy.

[Blood Shadow]

So remove Chain of Command from Yarrick, add Stubborn and Bob's your uncle everyone happy.

Well yes this ^^^. Except he used to be Fearless.....

[The Sovereign]

So remove Chain of Command from Yarrick, add Stubborn and Bob's your uncle everyone happy.

Hopefully they'll do this in the next couple of days.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Oh yeah, they are uploading the FAQs in a couple of days, I know that much. They may be delayed, no longer than two weeks away.

Plus, they are going to be updated too.

[Gleipnir]

Oh yeah, they are uploading the FAQs in a couple of days, I know that much. They may be delayed, no longer than two weeks away.

Plus, they are going to be updated too.

That would be a plus, we haven't had a real FAQ update since Chaos Daemons 15 months ago

[John Bower]

Chain of Command plainly disallows Yarrick from being a warlord, ever, for the reasons Gleipnir said. Just as clearly, that can't be the intent - otherwise he wouldn't have a specified warlord trait. But ... what then is the point of him having Chain of Command? Why not just leave it off? The only answer I can come up with is that even Yarrick is not allowed to be your warlord if your primary detachment contains another model with the Senior Officer rule. He's still a commissar - he isn't going to take command of somebody's company unless the company commander has proven himself incompetent.

The guy took command of the ENTIRE Armageddon military in the position pretty much of a Lord Commander Militant. So yes he can be your warlord regardless. He IS a senior officer so that automatically gives him the right regardless of who is present.

[Nabterayl]

The guy took command of the ENTIRE Armageddon military in the position pretty much of a Lord Commander Militant. So yes he can be your warlord regardless. He IS a senior officer so that automatically gives him the right regardless of who is present.
In your view, then, Chain of Command does nothing in Yarrick's case, and its inclusion was simply a mistake?

[Lord Asterion]

As he has Senior Officer, he can be the Warlord, Chain of Command is probably just because he's a Commisar and outside the normal chain of command

[Nabterayl]

Yes, but in Yarrick's case, what does the rule do? I proposed that it permits Yarrick to be warlord but only if there are no other Senior Officers present in the detachment. John appears to be contending that it does literally nothing, and I wanted to double check to make sure that was his contention.

[The Sovereign]

I consider Yarrick to be a special exception as far as commissars go; he's supposed to be one of the army's two heavy hitter bigwigs (the other being Creed), so I think he should have the option to be warlord despite the presence of other senior officers.

[Nabterayl]

I'm still not comfortable preferring a reading that says, "The model has this rule, but it literally does nothing" over one that says, "The model has this rule, and we can't read it literally for <reasons>, but here's a way of reading it where it still does something." If we get a FAQ, that'd be a different story.

[John Bower]

I'm still not comfortable preferring a reading that says, "The model has this rule, but it literally does nothing" over one that says, "The model has this rule, and we can't read it literally for <reasons>, but here's a way of reading it where it still does something." If we get a FAQ, that'd be a different story.

Okay, lets just suppose then that we have Yarrick and Strakan, who is in overall command? Yarrick of course, they are both senior officers but Yarrick has the higher ld at 10. Strakan is 9. With that in mind BRB would insist that Yarrick is warlord as it must be higher leadership. That would normally give us a problem though as a Lord commissar is also ld10, but then we have the rule that a Lord Commissar cannot be a warlord unless there are no senior officers present.
Yarrick though is a special case, but think it through, the Eldar jetbikes have the run and shoot rule but it means squat, they can't run so can't run and shoot; so saying that Yarrick has a pointless rule is not in and of itself anything but rules lawyering to say he can't be warlord because of said pointless rule. He IS a senior officer and if anything I would say it's either a mistake or meant to prevent you having to use a lower ld character as warlord over him. At the end of the day, does it matter; read the fluff he was Grand Warlord of Armageddon campaign, so there is a precedent. I would let a player have him as warlord if they wish, I would not want somebody telling me I can't use him as my warlord when there is a precedent. It's a game, it's about fun. Don't nitpick rules because frankly people that play me and do that get on my nerves to the extent that I end up refusing to play with or against them.

Just use rule of cool in such disputes as this; is it cool to have Yarrick as your warlord? Hell yeah.

[Gleipnir]

hardly nitpicking to interpret a rule as written.

Chain of Command which Yarrick has as a special rule says he cannot be warlord if there is a senior officer model in the primary detachment.

I'm with Nab on this one in agreeing its better when interpretting the rule by retaining the rule and inserting other model than to remove the rule outright barring a FAQ that tells you to remove the rule. If you wanna house rule it to remove rules from models hey more power to ya but massaging a rule's wording and removing a rule outright are very separate things.

I also think an errata should remove Chain of Command from Yarrick and add either Stubborn or Fearless, but until that happens, its better to massage the wording on Chain of Command to permit Yarrick to be a Warlord selection.

[sebi81]

But as I read it, the rule does change something.

There are three possible ways to field Yarrick.

If you have only Yarrick, he is the warlord. If this wasn´t the case why should he have a special warlord trait?
If you have Yarrick and a CCS, Yarrick can´t be the warlord because Chain of Command. The rule is needed, cause Yarrick would have the higher ld and would have to be the warlord otherwise.
If you have Yarrick and a Lord Commissar, Yarrick must be the warlord, because he is a senior officer. The rule is needed, cause Yarrick an the Lord Commissar have the same ld, so without it, you could choose.
If you read it that way, all rules have an effect.

[Tynskel]

But as I read it, the rule does change something.

There are three possible ways to field Yarrick.

If you have only Yarrick, he is the warlord. If this wasn´t the case why should he have a special warlord trait?
If you have Yarrick and a CCS, Yarrick can´t be the warlord because Chain of Command. The rule is needed, cause Yarrick would have the higher ld and would have to be the warlord otherwise.
If you have Yarrick and a Lord Commissar, Yarrick must be the warlord, because he is a senior officer. The rule is needed, cause Yarrick an the Lord Commissar have the same ld, so without it, you could choose.
If you read it that way, all rules have an effect.

That seems simple enough. 1 interpretation that satisfies all rules...
I don't see what the problem is.

[Nabterayl]

While I agree with sebi's interpretation, the literal problem is that no interpretation can satisfy all rules. Chain of Command says that a model with Chain of Command cannot be warlord if the detachment includes a model with Senior Officer. Yarrick has both Chain of Command and Senior Officer. Thus, Yarrick cannot be warlord, ever. Except that is plainly wrong, because if Yarrick could never be warlord he wouldn't have a warlord trait.

So the question is, do we go for a least-violence approach, which is what sebi (and others, including myself) advocate, or do we go for an interpretation in which we strike Chain of Command from Yarrick's profile, which is what John Bower (and others) advocate?

[John Bower]

While I agree with sebi's interpretation, the literal problem is that no interpretation can satisfy all rules. Chain of Command says that a model with Chain of Command cannot be warlord if the detachment includes a model with Senior Officer. Yarrick has both Chain of Command and Senior Officer. Thus, Yarrick cannot be warlord, ever. Except that is plainly wrong, because if Yarrick could never be warlord he wouldn't have a warlord trait.

So the question is, do we go for a least-violence approach, which is what sebi (and others, including myself) advocate, or do we go for an interpretation in which we strike Chain of Command from Yarrick's profile, which is what John Bower (and others) advocate?

My other point here is that of course GW do put utterly useless rules in just because. Eldar Jetbikes like I mentioned before... They have Battle Focus but it is meaningless. They can't 'run' therefore can't use it. Yarrick also has Voice of Command, which normal Lord Commissars don't, so for them Chain of Command makes sense. He IS a senior officer, so can choose to ignore it surely. If my opponent wanted to contend that I'd just proxy Creed for my other officer, he doesn't have 'senior officer' and 'supreme commander' doesn't count, so then Yarrick can be warlord. And really, does it matter? At the end of the day all you'd be doing by making Yarrick your warlord is attracting fire to him. He's a powerful dude, probably better left as an officer than a warlord. Leave some ordinary muppet of a colonel/major to take the flak while Yarrick does what he does best.

For the same reason that in the last nid dex I never used the SWarmlord as my warlord, I'd take a prime or something and keep it back out of harm's way instead. Let swarmy do what he did best. Bit of a hard call now as he guarantees the 18" synapse WLT

[DireAvenger20]

While I agree with sebi's interpretation, the literal problem is that no interpretation can satisfy all rules. Chain of Command says that a model with Chain of Command cannot be warlord if the detachment includes a model with Senior Officer. Yarrick has both Chain of Command and Senior Officer. Thus, Yarrick cannot be warlord, ever. Except that is plainly wrong, because if Yarrick could never be warlord he wouldn't have a warlord trait.

So the question is, do we go for a least-violence approach, which is what sebi (and others, including myself) advocate, or do we go for an interpretation in which we strike Chain of Command from Yarrick's profile, which is what John Bower (and others) advocate?

If you're going to be that nitpicky, I would say that sense that Yarrick is not a "Lord Commisar" unit and the Chain of Command rule states, "A Lord Commissar may only be your Warlord if you have no models with the Senior Officer special rule in your primary detachment." that the Chain of Command rule does not apply to him. Of course that's dumb but so is saying he can never be your Warlord.

[Gleipnir]

I'd hardly say he was being nitpicky or trying to say Yarrick shouldn't have the ability to be the Warlord he was simply pointing out that any change you use to make it possible for Yarrick to be the warlord is still a change in the rules, but that changing the wording of Chain of Command from "May only be your Warlord if you have no models with the Senior Officer special rule." to "May only be your Warlord if you have no other models with the Senior Officer special rule." was a better solution than the position others were taking that you simply ignore the Chain of Command rule entirely as if it doesn't exist on Yarrick, reason given because the fluff says so.

Which is hardly a good method of interpreting rules as you would end up with 5 man squads of Ultramarines with Eternal Warrior, Feel No Pain, It will Not Die, 4 wounds able to Run and Shoot and Assault all in the same turn and every time you Roll a 6 to Hit against Chaos Space Marines daboarder dies a little more inside, and a Swooping Hawk Exarch gets his wings.

[Katharon]

According to the rules as stated in the Warlords section of the BRB, a Warlord is "always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership. If several characters are tied for highest Leadership, you choose among them which is your warlord." (p.111)

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

Yarrick is given de-facto Lord Commissar status by having the "Chain of Command" special rule. He is also a Senior Officer, as dictated in his list of Special Rules. Because Yarrick has Chain of Command - which uses the very precise word "models - but also Senior Officer, he is both. Not only is he a special character in every sense of the idea, but he is both rulewise and fluffwise unique.

Chain of Command does not repeal Yarrick's senior officer status, and due to Yarrick having Leadership 10 and by the rules state in the BRB for picking a warlord; it is clear that Yarrick may be taken as your warlord regardless of what other HQ choices you decide to take - even Creed - because his rules do not conflict with each other.

[Anggul]

If we go strictly by what is written, he can't be Warlord. Chain of command says he can only be warlord if you have no models with the senior officer special rule in your primary detachment. Yarrick himself has the senior officer special rule, which means you do indeed have a model with that rule in your primary detachment, which means that due to the chain of command rule, he can never be warlord.

We are not, however, stupid. Sure that's what it says, but due to the fact that he has a warlord trait and we aren't morons who want to ruin the game for other people by disallowing something that is clearly intended, I'm pretty sure we can all agree to let anyone use him as their warlord, because to say otherwise would be ridiculous.

The rules saying something that doesn't make sense doesn't force you to do it, especially when there is obvious proof that it isn't intended due to his having a warlord trait.

[Haighus]

RAW, Yarrick is not once described as a LORD Commissar, and the rule specifically refers to LORD Commissars, so to me that reads as the rule having no effect on him. I don't see why him having the special rule listed on his profile overrides what is written in the rule, so if people are going to be nitpicky and not let him be warlord, I'm just going to point that out.

[Katharon]

RAW, Yarrick is not once described as a LORD Commissar, and the rule specifically refers to LORD Commissars, so to me that reads as the rule having no effect on him. I don't see why him having the special rule listed on his profile overrides what is written in the rule, so if people are going to be nitpicky and not let him be warlord, I'm just going to point that out.

As I said above: him having the rule makes him a "de facto" Lord Commissar, if not in title. He is a Senior Officer & a Commissar, but these two things do not conflict with each other, so why this continues to be an issue baffles me.

[John Bower]

I'd hardly say he was being nitpicky or trying to say Yarrick shouldn't have the ability to be the Warlord he was simply pointing out that any change you use to make it possible for Yarrick to be the warlord is still a change in the rules, but that changing the wording of Chain of Command from "May only be your Warlord if you have no models with the Senior Officer special rule." to "May only be your Warlord if you have no other models with the Senior Officer special rule." was a better solution than the position others were taking that you simply ignore the Chain of Command rule entirely as if it doesn't exist on Yarrick, reason given because the fluff says so.

Which is hardly a good method of interpreting rules as you would end up with 5 man squads of Ultramarines with Eternal Warrior, Feel No Pain, It will Not Die, 4 wounds able to Run and Shoot and Assault all in the same turn and every time you Roll a 6 to Hit against Chaos Space Marines daboarder dies a little more inside, and a Swooping Hawk Exarch gets his wings.

It's no worse than arguing the rule stops him being warlord if you have a 'senior officer' present because it would make his rule useless on him.. When we know that is no argument when it comes to GW rules writing. I've stated before and will again, Eldar jetbikes have a totally worthless rule on them.... Why? Who knows, and frankly who cares? It's just proof that GW do put useless rules on models; possibly because they are ridden by guardians who do have that rule? In which case could it just be the same on Yarrick?

[Charon]

While I agree that GW rules are sometimes lazy design there is a difference.
The Eldar Jetbike has a positive rule you cant use because the Jetbike rules prevent it.
Yarrick has a negative rule which people want to ignore because its poorly written and they dont like it.

Im quite sure that RAI Yarrick cant be Warlord when ANOTHER senior officer is present. Seeing it also from a fluff POV he was always the sole imperial leader and didnt command Colonels or Generals.
So it seems to feel right to have Yarrick without ANOTHER senior on his side as the warlord...

[Gleipnir]

RAW, Yarrick is not once described as a LORD Commissar, and the rule specifically refers to LORD Commissars, so to me that reads as the rule having no effect on him. I don't see why him having the special rule listed on his profile overrides what is written in the rule, so if people are going to be nitpicky and not let him be warlord, I'm just going to point that out.

The only place the rule uses words Lord Commissar is on the unit entry for Lord Commissars elsewhere it uses the more general wording, that was the first thing I was looking for as well since it would have made for an easy way to disregard the rule entirely. As I said before I personally would prefer an errata to simply remove the rule and add Stubborn which unlike every other Commissar he lacks. And based on the wording of the rule I expect an errata to either change it to include "other model" or remove it altogether.

[John Bower]

Okay, let's put it another way, I turn up with 2 guys, Yarrick and Strakan, does it matter to you really which I 'choose' to be my Warlord? Really? Think on it, whoever I decide is my overall warlord all it means is they have this huge target painted on their head that says... 'Hey, kill me for an extra point'.
Actually I reckon 90% of the time there's better options for your warlord, but my point is it doesn't really affect my opponent. It's no worse than an Eldar player having 4 Farseers in his/her list, or a nid player with Swarmlord and a Hive tyrant. In fact in one game I played my Swarmy was just there, I had a Prime as my warlord just because I wanted to hide my warlord away where it wouldn't give my opponent a nice juicy target, which back then Swarmy would've been; I wanted him to charge forwards into combat. Now he has to be my warlord (the synapse thing) and for that reason he now has guards. But I digress, it makes no difference really to my opponent which idea we use surely.

[Katharon]

Im quite sure that RAI Yarrick cant be Warlord when ANOTHER senior officer is present.

That would be in violation of the BRB's rules on choosing your warlord, unless that "other" senior officer is Creed. He is a Senior Officer and because GW wanted to give him Lord Commissar status without the actual title in his name, they gave him a rule that is specifically Lord Commissars only - a de facto bestowal of that rank. They took that into account when, in the rules for Chain of Command, they made it clear that "models" with the Senior Officer rule must be taken before Lord Commissars as Warlord choices. So while Yarrick might have de facto Lord Commissar status, he is not considered as such except via that single rule, which doesn't bear out anything since he also possess the Senior Officer rule.

[Gleipnir]

Actually Codex rules like Chain of Command trump Basic Rule Book Rules, same way the Inquisitor Codex Trumps Basic Rulebook rules when it comes to how a Warlord is chosen, where there is no contradiction nothing is changed so if say you have Yarrick and his rule actually read "other model" plus Creed then yup Yarrick can be your Warlord if so so choose, but add something with the Senior officer rule and Chain of Command rule would take priority over the HQ unit with the highest leadership rule.

[Katharon]

Actually Codex rules like Chain of Command trump Basic Rule Book Rules, same way the Inquisitor Codex Trumps Basic Rulebook rules when it comes to how a Warlord is chosen, where there is no contradiction nothing is changed so if say you have Yarrick and his rule actually read "other model" plus Creed then yup Yarrick can be your Warlord if so so choose, but add something with the Senior officer rule and Chain of Command rule would take priority over the HQ unit with the highest leadership rule.

In this particular case, I'm still going to argue that Yarrick can be chosen as your Warlord even with another model with the Senior Officer rule is in the list. They're both Senior Officers, but Yarrick always (unless Creed is there) has the higher Ld.

Unless a new FAQ comes out that says that Codex trumps BRB in this case, I'm going with the BRB. Speaking of which, where was it ever written or said by whom that Codex always trumps BRB? Obviously there are Codex-specific special rules, but the core of the game comes from the BRB. Seems rather nonsensical to assume that what is, ultimately, an expansion to the BRB (i.e. a codex) would trump the core rule set.

[Gleipnir]

In this particular case, I'm still going to argue that Yarrick can be chosen as your Warlord even with another model with the Senior Officer rule is in the list. They're both Senior Officers, but Yarrick always (unless Creed is there) has the higher Ld.

Unless a new FAQ comes out that says that Codex trumps BRB in this case, I'm going with the BRB. Speaking of which, where was it ever written or said by whom that Codex always trumps BRB? Obviously there are Codex-specific special rules, but the core of the game comes from the BRB. Seems rather nonsensical to assume that what is, ultimately, an expansion to the BRB (i.e. a codex) would trump the core rule set.

pg.7 in the Basic Rule Book section titled Basic vs Advanced, again though that rule is intended for where conflicts in the rules exist, so while a Lord Commisar can't be Warlord if a Company Commander in in your detachment, he would follow all the basic rule book rules of using the HQ unit with the highest Leadership when no Senior Officer is present since their is no conflict