|
Post by krasimirova on Aug 7, 2012 2:25:28 GMT -5
I' All i'm saying is he's the best choice for warlord in addition to his other benefits to an infantry based army. And all i am saying is that you are wrong.. The pro's of a CCS outweigh those of the Lord Commissar in all aspects.. The Commissar lord gives you a Ld bubble which should be utilized in conjunction with shooting (which is what guard win doing) all the extra abilities gives you CC "boosts/abilities" something our units don't do.. We do tarpits where we win over time, and in this situation the regular commissar is better and cheaper.. And he might be more durable with the fact that you can hide him in a squad, but that kinda defeats the purpose of the "trait 4" you mentioned dosn't it..? But then again that durability rests on 1 single T3 model, worth 1 VP and 1 KP in some instances = high high /game winningly high priority target.. The lord commissar is a fluffy choice, no doubt about that.. But don't say that he is better than the CCS, which has on paper, on the board and in the tournement scene proven itself throughout the time of the current codex IG to be the best HQ choice in our army..
|
|
|
Post by Deathkorpsman on Aug 7, 2012 3:19:16 GMT -5
This is all I was trying to say. I'm not saying they are better than a CCS, they should be taken in addition to one. Also, I'm not against allies (if you must) but when someone jumps up and says "Wrong! Space Wolves are better!" I feel like patting them on the head and say "Yes, fine, go play spesh mehreens". I was talking about Warlord tables and commissars, not how to use allys for meta-beard-cheese. thats another thread So who would be your warlord, then? Surely not the primaris. so the CCS? fine, i guess. I feel the LC is the beter choice only because of the random nature of the warlord table and the fact that he can be moved to the squad that can most use the trait, unlike a CCS which can't join other squads and cant do much on its own, being only 5 or 6 models. In sgtsamvimes defense, every time he's referenced a LC being as good or better than one of the other HQ choices in the book, it has been in conjunction with taking a CCS and specifically for the purpose of being warlord or bringing warlord traits to another unit. A CCS can't bring traits to other units (unless it has a radius) and can't become more durable without a serious points investment in advisors. A LC can be as durable as any squad he joins, which means he can be extremely durable. There is a good point to be made there (Primaris can too, with different benefits). I also haven't heard anyone try to argue that the CCS isn't the best HQ choice in the army. All I'm hearing in support of the LC is that it has uses as warlord which the CCS doesn't. It is purely opinion based, since it depends entirely on playstyle. Making the argument that a LC can't take a lascannon or give orders is kind of silly (one specific person isn't meant here), because we all know they can't. All they do is make the units around them - and any unit they've joined - more reliable in one way or another. They are slightly tougher due to higher WS (basically challenges only, depending on how you play that rule) and being able to get a better cover save and 2+ LoS! rule. The CCS and Primaris each get one or the other of those options, but not both. So if the argument is that they aren't the best HQ option in a vacuum, great, we've heard the argument. I hope the discussion of this topic comes up with some inventive ways to use the LC as a warlord, because that seems to be what sgtsamvimes was going for. From what I've read and from looking over the warlord traits more in depth, I can see opportunities opening up for having an IC that can bring warlord traits to any units or a bubble of that trait to pretty much anywhere on the table pre-deployment. Since I don't particularly like the Primaris, due to having trouble rolling low on perils checks, the LC looks like a fine choice. Whether he ends up being better than a dual CCS, I'm not as sure. In a total foot gunline list he probably wouldn't be, because double CCS orders would be much better. But in an army with fewer gunline infantry units, the LC as warlord seems much better.
|
|
|
Post by krasimirova on Aug 7, 2012 6:20:26 GMT -5
Fair enough..
But i stand by the point that due to the random nature of the Warlord trait roll, you can't have any battle plan that accommodates them.. So you will have to bring a unit that has the "largest potential" to have use of any given Personal Trait.. This i have already done: The infantry platoon which would benefit from a roll of 1 or 5, since you don't wanna change the roll of the infantry blob squad last minute (ei. at deployment) (Mentioned it before, but it wasn't clear apparently: Roll of 2 [furious charge in enemy deployment zone] isn't good since you are too slow to actually get there so most fighting will happen in the 24" between deployment zones.. Roll of 3 isn't good because you are moving you veterans [which would be the ones we wanna outflank] is gonna have to go on foot, which again removes mobility and makes them much easier targets including your warlord who is worth a VP.. Roll of 4 isn't good since the LC is super in CC anyway and rolls of 6 is worthless since most infantry in our army worth taking is already scoring..)
Those 2 rolls (1 and 5) synergize good (Very good if you get FNP) with the blob squad being taken as a home objective holder along with a Aegis defence line and a Quadgun (Maned by the Lord Commissar with BS5 and camo cloak) This i have ALSO mentioned before.. And this is the one and only way I can see it being "worth" taking the Lord Commissar..
There you go, that is the use for the Lord Commissar, if you do have a free HQ spot and are planing to use a blob squad for home objective hugging, then the Lord Commissar as Warlord will synergize well with this as well as making it hard for your enemy to get the Warlord Kill VP.. And if you get lucky your might actually get a Trait that benefits that unit..
|
|
|
Post by krasimirova on Aug 7, 2012 6:28:59 GMT -5
A CCS can't bring traits to other units (unless it has a radius) and can't become more durable without a serious points investment in advisors. ----- Making the argument that a LC can't take a lascannon or give orders is kind of silly (one specific person isn't meant here), because we all know they can't. All they do is make the units around them - and any unit they've joined - more reliable in one way or another. To the first comment: Page 111 main rule book - Command Traits.. ALL of them have 12" radius.. Basically it is only a roll of 6 you can't really use, the rest are very open and useful (ei. not situational like the Personal Traits) = dependability which you don't get from personal traits.. And in a chimera they are normally just fine.. Yes they don't benefit from the blob squad the same way that the LC does, which only strengthens my post above with the actual use of the LC.. Second, regarding comparing the two.. Lord commissars and CCS can both affect Ld tests via either upgrades or orders in the later case.. As an added bonus the CCS brings enough firepower to put down a Wraithlord.. So they are very very comparable..
|
|
|
Post by Deathkorpsman on Aug 7, 2012 8:37:27 GMT -5
A CCS can't bring traits to other units (unless it has a radius) and can't become more durable without a serious points investment in advisors. ----- Making the argument that a LC can't take a lascannon or give orders is kind of silly (one specific person isn't meant here), because we all know they can't. All they do is make the units around them - and any unit they've joined - more reliable in one way or another. To the first comment: Page 111 main rule book - Command Traits.. ALL of them have 12" radius.. Basically it is only a roll of 6 you can't really use, the rest are very open and useful (ei. not situational like the Personal Traits) = dependability which you don't get from personal traits.. And in a chimera they are normally just fine.. Yes they don't benefit from the blob squad the same way that the LC does, which only strengthens my post above with the actual use of the LC.. Second, regarding comparing the two.. Lord commissars and CCS can both affect Ld tests via either upgrades or orders in the later case.. As an added bonus the CCS brings enough firepower to put down a Wraithlord.. So they are very very comparable.. Good call, sorry about the confusion on the traits. I was talking specifically about Personal Traits, since that was what the thread was about, but referencing that is quite fair. Command traits, in general, are going to be just as good no matter who takes them (as are Strategic traits, obviously). The viability of personal traits was, by and large, the point of discussion. I don't agree that the Personal traits are as bad as they are being described, but again I think it comes down a bit to playstyle. Option 6, for example, doesn't sound all that great but I've had occasion where a single model can hide comfortably from the enemy while scoring an objective for me over a turn or two. If I can break off my LC to take an objective by himself while his squad takes another, I might go for it. Or I might attach him to some ST's, which I take pretty regularly, and use that to take one. The only one that is overall a loss, no matter which way I look at it, is option 2. There are 2 on Command traits (options 4 and 6) which I find to be pretty worthless, we can order the same as #4 and 6 I'd never really benefit from. Option 4 on Personal traits I could actually see coming up fairly often, as unit sergeants are characters too and should be pretty easy for an LC to kill most of the time. In any case, I think the overall discussion of our (non-unique) HQ choices is always a good thing. We don't have many, but the ones we do have come with lots of options and ways to use them. I don't think any of the three are bad choices, even if I can't seem to get a Primaris to do anything myself, and finding out how to make them shine may assist someone in their strategy.
|
|
|
Post by majorspeirs on Aug 7, 2012 10:28:50 GMT -5
Firstly, my understanding of the rules is the the warlord must be the HQ character with the highest leadership. This means that if someone takes a CCS and LC, the LC must be the warlord (unless they also have Creed or Yarrick) as he is ld10.
Now for my opinion on this matter. I accept and will not argue that a CCS is a more competitive choice; it is a simple fact. That said the LC is not useless, and can be employed to good effect by a clever player. Whilst it has a place, pure bottom line competitiveness shouldn't be the sole consideration of making army lists and playing games.
The whole point of this thread should be a discussion about how to make use of warlord traits IF somebody decides to take a LC (for whatever reason). Yes, for balance it should be highlighted that a CCS is more efficient choice, but this doesn't invalidate the choice of using LC. This should be a discussion about how to mitigate the weaknesses of a LC and how to play to its strengths. Whilst the warlord traits are random, it would be helpful to discuss what can be done with each IF you happen to roll it. This would be more beneficial to people who use LCs, or people who are considering it.
|
|
|
Post by Ymmot (M.I.A) on Aug 7, 2012 12:19:53 GMT -5
Firstly, my understanding of the rules is the the warlord must be the HQ character with the highest leadership. This means that if someone takes a CCS and LC, the LC must be the warlord (unless they also have Creed or Yarrick) as he is ld10. Good point, seems to me a very important oversight.
|
|
|
Post by valdrog on Aug 7, 2012 14:16:13 GMT -5
How about using Creed as the Warlord ? dont see him mentioned much. I like that he can give 4 orders a turn and ha s a24 inch range. LC is to fragile for a front line.
|
|
|
Post by krasimirova on Aug 8, 2012 2:25:38 GMT -5
The whole point of this thread should be a discussion about how to make use of warlord traits IF somebody decides to take a LC (for whatever reason). Yes, for balance it should be highlighted that a CCS is more efficient choice, but this doesn't invalidate the choice of using LC. This should be a discussion about how to mitigate the weaknesses of a LC and how to play to its strengths. Whilst the warlord traits are random, it would be helpful to discuss what can be done with each IF you happen to roll it. This would be more beneficial to people who use LCs, or people who are considering it. And that is what i have done.. twice... Regarding the highest Ld character being your Warlord, that is true, in this case we where looking at the choices in isolation, a combination of the two would be a okay solution as it will protect you from the enemy getting the warlord kill VP (This is ofc. only if you use the LC in my previous mentioned way, nothing can protect your Warlord if you play directly stupid and send him face first into the fray..) Regarding Creed, i find that he isn't really worth his points since you can have the same number of orders with 2 CCS and almost the same range this way.. He is mainly, if not exclusivly, used in gunline IG armies..
|
|
|
Post by krasimirova on Aug 8, 2012 2:52:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Aug 8, 2012 16:17:41 GMT -5
I' All i'm saying is he's the best choice for warlord in addition to his other benefits to an infantry based army. And all i am saying is that you are wrong.. The pro's of a CCS outweigh those of the Lord Commissar in all aspects.. Though I normally agree with what you have to say 100% of the time, this is not one such time. You seem to be forgetting about Stubborn. CCS have no way of getting it without a Lord Comm. I will look at the HQ choices and see if I can come up with some nice combos for Warlords. I know one thing, I will always field a Primaris Psyker from now on!
|
|
|
Post by sgtsamvimes on Aug 8, 2012 20:41:59 GMT -5
This all started because I got my Colonel-Commissar Gaunt model in the mail...
I'm still going to use him along side my CCS, though I do see the benefit of a second CCS or Psyker. I'm also going to make him my warlord, though if I get stomped in the dirt enough times i'll cede the point eventually. I like the idea of mitigating the randomness of the warlord roll with the flexibility of an IC that you can deploy after your roll.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Aug 9, 2012 0:30:50 GMT -5
I think once you start using them you may get some good tactics sgtsamvimes. Truly the only REAL approach to know what's worthwhile and what isn't.
Plus with Psykers now getting a huge dose of new abilities I couldn't imagine not taking one at least.
|
|
|
Post by hendrik on Aug 9, 2012 6:05:37 GMT -5
when researching some of the older topics here I found a member that used colour sgt Kell instead of a lord commisar. at 85pts you can buy the LC a PF while kell comes with both a PF and a PW! the listen up maggots means all the units will be testing their orders on ld 9. I'm a new IG player and after my last couple of games i was thinking of adding a LC for the extra ld-bonus on my orders. offcourse for 85 pts I might aswell just add a second CCS?
|
|
|
Post by commisarblur on Aug 9, 2012 13:30:58 GMT -5
when researching some of the older topics here I found a member that used colour sgt Kell instead of a lord commisar. at 85pts you can buy the LC a PF while kell comes with both a PF and a PW! the listen up maggots means all the units will be testing their orders on ld 9. I'm a new IG player and after my last couple of games i was thinking of adding a LC for the extra ld-bonus on my orders. offcourse for 85 pts I might aswell just add a second CCS? Your playing kell without Creed? Heresy! Not saying you can't go that route but the way GW words it, he's implied to be working alongside creed in a CCS only. Now then about the primias psker. I've recently received one and am in the process of painting. Best right now for me to put him a PCS with three GLs and Capt Al'rahem. I'm not too familiar with pskers just yet so I'll be sticking with my warlord commisar and his stubbornes.
|
|