Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I did a quick scan of the forum and didn't see anything asking this yet.

Do orders work on allies?

I'm not asking from a RAI view, but purely RAW.

I can't seem to find it addressing anything other than "single friendly non-vehicle unit within his command radius."

It doesn't seem that over bearing, although Divine Guided and "Bring it Down!" would be nice.

Pure RaW yes

Which means you can do a Vulkan impersonation with SoB.

Sloppy rules writing at its worst.

I think it makes perfect sense.

And back in the day, people though zzap guns targeting individual models made sense. Too bad it was an oversight.

My thoughts here: CCS can issue orders to any guard unit. PCS can issue orders to anything in its platoon. Now that makes sense.

Though it's also complicated to keep track of things if you have more than one platoon. Better just to say that Guard commanders can issue orders to guardsmen.

I look forward to the FAQ.

Deadshane1 wrote:Sloppy rules writing at its worst.

Unless, of course, it is written as they intended.

Bring it Down and Fire on my Target are the only orders that seem like it would have any affect. The others are underwhelming in their application to non-gaurd units.

RAW-yes; and it does make sense


Automatically Appended Next Post:
..which means what i just said has to be wrong; because GW never makes sense

Thats a fluff smasher if I ever saw one.

IG platoon officer trying to order a space marine captain in terminator armor. Yeah, that would happen.

It's slowed. I'd argue against it on the basis of the entire section pertaining to Orders having "Imperial Guard" smeared all over it. It was obviously intended only for Imperial Guard within their chain of command, not to Inquisition or Astartes.

Shotgun wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:Sloppy rules writing at its worst.

Unless, of course, it is written as they intended.

Bring it Down and Fire on my Target are the only orders that seem like it would have any affect. The others are underwhelming in their application to non-gaurd units.

How about For the Glory of Cadia on Grey Knight termies......?? Or on an assassin?

Khestra the Unbeheld wrote:It's slowed. I'd argue against it on the basis of the entire section pertaining to Orders having "Imperial Guard" smeared all over it. It was obviously intended only for Imperial Guard within their chain of command, not to Inquisition or Astartes.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise you wrote the rules. Oh wait, you didn't.

Unless you did, don't state what you think the intent is. If they intended it to only work on IG units, they'd have made it work on only IG units. Likewise for Ranked units.

don_mondo wrote:

How about For the Glory of Cadia on Grey Knight termies......?? Or on an assassin?

I missed For the Glory. That would nasty on Gk Termies. That would be -really- ugly depending on the ruling of GK terminators and valkyries. Not that I would want to spend the points for that unit.

If they intended it to only work on IG units, they'd have made it work on only IG units. Likewise for Ranked units

Oh, wait, you know what they intended? Really? Hell, rename the section "GWAR's Sandbox" and we can all just let you answer all the posts. It's amazing how you can be such a troll to other people, then make a similar statement.

mikhaila wrote: If they intended it to only work on IG units, they'd have made it work on only IG units. Likewise for Ranked units

Oh, wait, you know what they intended? Really? Hell, rename the section "GWAR's Sandbox" and we can all just let you answer all the posts. It's amazing how you can be such a troll to other people, then make a similar statement.

Yes, I do know what they intended, because that is what the rules say! What the rules say and what they Intended are ALWAYS the same thing.

Gwar! wrote:

mikhaila wrote: If they intended it to only work on IG units, they'd have made it work on only IG units. Likewise for Ranked units

Oh, wait, you know what they intended? Really? Hell, rename the section "GWAR's Sandbox" and we can all just let you answer all the posts. It's amazing how you can be such a troll to other people, then make a similar statement.

Yes, I do know what they intended, because that is what the rules say! What the rules say and what they Intended are ALWAYS the same thing.

weak arguement. RAW is a method of finding a way to interpret a rule. A method. Lot's of other ways to do it. Strangely enough, YMDC used to be about how different people played, not necessarily about how to interpret rules using RAW, only RAW, and nothing but RAW. You take it a step further, now trying to claim that RAW actually shows intent.

People have screamed over and over that RAW is the only method for rules interpretation. Now suddenly RAW is knowing the intent of the designer?

mikhaila wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

mikhaila wrote: If they intended it to only work on IG units, they'd have made it work on only IG units. Likewise for Ranked units

Oh, wait, you know what they intended? Really? Hell, rename the section "GWAR's Sandbox" and we can all just let you answer all the posts. It's amazing how you can be such a troll to other people, then make a similar statement.

Yes, I do know what they intended, because that is what the rules say! What the rules say and what they Intended are ALWAYS the same thing.

weak arguement. RAW is a method of finding a way to interpret a rule. A method. Lot's of other ways to do it. Strangely enough, YMDC used to be about how different people played, not necessarily about how to interpret rules using RAW, only RAW, and nothing but RAW. You take it a step further, now trying to claim that RAW actually shows intent.

People have screamed over and over that RAW is the only method for rules interpretation. Now suddenly RAW is knowing the intent of the designer?

I really dislike agreeing with Gwar! because I think he is unnecessarily combative. However, the only window into the intent of the rulesmakers that we have are the RAW. If we are making up our own interpretations of the rules based on what we 'think' the intent of the rule is, we may as well be shaking an 8-Ball and asking for answers. We can only judge the intent of a rule by the way that it was laid out.

If they wanted it to only work on guardsmen, why would they not have said guardsman, or Imperial guard infantry units not embarked in a vehicle? It could be that they wanted it to work on all friendly units despite fluff; or it could be that they wrote that rule sloppily (my guess). However, we CANT KNOW what reason they had for wording that rule the way they did, and so can only make reliable decisions based on what is already written, no matter how sure we are of out interpretation. It opens some wonky loopholes and creates some really weird rules that make no sense sometimes.


GWAR! don't sig me

Gwar! wrote:What the rules say and what they Intended are ALWAYS the same thing.

If this was even remotely true, there would be no notion of FAQs or erratas.

mikhaila wrote:People have screamed over and over that RAW is the only method for rules interpretation. Now suddenly RAW is knowing the intent of the designer?

Well, if the Designer intended for a Rule to work in XYZ way, he would write it in XYZ way to give it XYZ effect.

If he intended it to work in ABC way, he would have Written it in ABC way to give it ABC effect.

Or are you suggesting the Writers don't know how to write? Serious Question, because of they don't intend for rules to work how they wrote them, what did they intend? that we would just throw up our arms and go "Sod the Rules, lets get TMIR out and play chess!"?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

tjkopena wrote:

Gwar! wrote:What the rules say and what they Intended are ALWAYS the same thing.

If this was even remotely true, there would be no notion of FAQs or erratas.

Errata = Hard change a.k.a they screwed up/misprinted and are fixing it.

FAQ's are House Rules half made by random people working in Nottingham and half by Yakface because GW are too cheap to do it themselves, and are not "Official" or a Display of "intent" in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM as admitted by GW themselves, or do I need to crack out the Giant Pink text again?

Yes Gwar, the writers don't know how to write the rules in a fashion where their intent is blindingly clear. Problem being that THEY know what they meant when they wrote it, doesn't mean that is what it means to the rest of us. And yeah, I've had this discussion with them..........
In this one, the RAW is clear, IG officers can indeed issue orders to any friendly unit. Don't know what the intent is because I haven't seen anything from the writers saying how they intended it to be played. The FAQs are good indicators for intent, even if you don't accept them as "rules". Feel free to crack out the "giant pink text" but when the designers say, oh, here's how we play it, yeah, most of us are going to consider that a statement of intent on how the rule is supposed to be played. After all, why would they play it that way otherwise?

don_mondo wrote:After all, why would they play it that way otherwise?

Because they Don't. Half the FAQ's are written by Random Redshirts playing at Warhammer World, and the other half by yakface and co because GW are too lazy to do them themselves. As such, it is NOT an indication of the Intent of the Designers.

Gwar, we're just gonna have to disagree on that. Hell, Jervis told me he has been 'banned' from answering rules questions as they want only Allessio and/or the codex author to write the FAQs. The fact that they may have stolen parts of them from Yak doesn't invalidate them in the least, especially when you consider that they changed some of the answers from how the INAT had them. So some of us will indeed still accept the FAQs as indications of intent and pretty much treat them as rules (IIRC< even you have posted "FAQ FTW!", regardless of your personal antipathy towards them.

don_mondo wrote:Gwar, we're just gonna have to disagree on that. Hell, Jervis told me he has been 'banned' from answering rules questions as they want only Allessio and/or the codex author to write the FAQs. The fact that they may have stolen parts of them from Yak doesn't invalidate them in the least, especially when you consider that they changed some of the answers from how the INAT had them. So some of us will indeed still accept the FAQs as indications of intent and pretty much treat them as rules (IIRC< even you have posted "FAQ FTW!", regardless of your personal antipathy towards them.

FAQ FTW was meant to be wrapped in <SARCASM> tags. Sorry about that.

It doesn't change the fact that they need to:
A) Update the FAQ and Errata more frequently
2) Actually resolve rules issues via Errata, not FAQ
iii) Treat the Long time and Competitive players just as well as the 11 year olds they try to shovel SPESS MARHINES onto before discarding them for more 11 year olds before it is too late and they lose their fanbase.

Oh, I absolutely agree that the FAQs need to be tagged as "official" (ala the old Chapter Approved"), updated frequently, answer the questions we actually ask, etc etc.

Even better, they need to just make the INAT FAQ 100% Hard and official.

Just make it more Clear that [Clarification] = [Rules Change] and we are good to go

Just make it more Clear that [Clarification] = [Rules Change] and we are good to go

Sadly, that's not too different than how things are with the GW FAQs.

Danny Internets wrote:

Just make it more Clear that [Clarification] = [Rules Change] and we are good to go

Sadly, that's not too different than how things are with the GW FAQs.

Except the GW FAQs state the FAQ parts don't mean anything. If they Just Used the INAT FAQ saying "This is the OFFICIAL way the game should be played", then there would be far fewer arguments, and would lead to a better, more consistent gaming experience.

As a parallel, its worth noting that for marklights, they did specifiy that any Tau unit could use the marklight, not any friendly unit.

When it comes to extrapilation, that they bothered to say "a friendly non-vehicle" instead of "a guard non-vehicle" argues that it is suposed to work on anyone in the army.

Although they are not below the CC in the chain of command, IG commanders do generaly run general stratagy, not Space Marines. Particularly in a mixed group.

Mars.Techpriest wrote:Although they are not below the CC in the chain of command, IG commanders do generaly run general stratagy, not Space Marines. Particularly in a mixed group.

Very true.

Also to the people whining that a PCS can issue orders to a CCS, think if it this way:
The PCS Officer gets intel that the CCS is about to be blown to hell and back, he Screams "GET ON THE FLOOR YOU FETHING MORON, SIR!" to represent "Incoming!" and Screams "GET OVER THERE OR WE'RE ALL FETHED, SIR" instead of "Move, Move, Move!"

Although they are not below the CC in the chain of command, IG commanders do generaly run general stratagy, not Space Marines. Particularly in a mixed group.

Agreed, but then 'orders' as they are played in 40k isn't strategy, that's small unit tactics.

Strategy is "Have the BloodAngels lead the assualt and take the citadel", tactics is "would those 5 marines over there please, please do this for me?"