Switch Theme:

Laurels of Command Question  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





I am writing to ask how the Imperial Guard relic "Laurels of Command" works with the new Voice of command ability from the Balance Dataslate, as the interaction is not clear. The two abilities are as follows:

Voice of Command: Each time a unit with the Voice of Command ability issues one of the following orders to a Infantry unit, that same order can be issued to one or more other friendly Infantry units (excluding Officer units) that are within 6" of the unit that order was originally issued to: Take Aim!; First Rank, Fire! Second Rank, Fire!; Bring it Down!; Forwards, for the Emperor!; Get Back in the Fight!; Fix Bayonets!


Laurels of Command: Officer with Voice of Command ability only. Roll a dice each time the bearer issues an order to a friendly <Regiment> Infantry unit within 6" of them. On a 4+ the bearer can immediately issue another order to the same unit. This does not count towards the maximum number of orders this model may issue each turn.


Does "Laurels of Command" affect all units within 6" of the unit that "Voice of Command" was used on? If they are affected, do you have to roll a 4+ for every unit receiving the second order, or do they all get the additional order without rolling?


There was an FAQ for how the interaction works with "Superior Tactical Training," which is relatively similar to the new rule:

Q: How do The Laurels of Command and Superior Tactical
Training interact? For example, my Warlord is a Cadian
Company Commander and I give him The Laurels of Command
and the Superior Tactical Training Warlord Trait. How many
orders is he potentially allowed to issue each turn, and how many
units can those orders affect?

A: If he issues an order to a Cadian Infantry unit within 6"
(unit A) using his Voice of Command ability, first roll a dice for
Superior Tactical Training; on a 4+, you can pick another Cadian
Infantry unit (unit B) within 6" for that order to affect. Then
roll a dice for The Laurels of Command; on a 4+ he can issue a
second order to the first unit (unit A). You can then roll again for
Superior Tactical Training; on a 4+, you can pick another Cadian
Infantry unit within 6" for the second order to affect (this does
not have to be unit B, but can be).


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/09 20:31:22


 
   
Made in us
Guard Heavy Weapon Crewman




South Africa

Essentially here is how I think it should work.

You give an order to infantry squad A, then you roll for the laurels. Then the order goes to the Squad B, then you roll for the laurels, and so on, and so forth
   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

This FAQ is outdated, because it doesnt mention Voice of Command. Its unclear how these rules now interact.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





Dirk Reinecke wrote:
Essentially here is how I think it should work.

You give an order to infantry squad A, then you roll for the laurels. Then the order goes to the Squad B, then you roll for the laurels, and so on, and so forth


That's how I interpret it, but I've had other people say you just roll the one 4+ and everyone gets the second order within 6".
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

The rules are not clear and no current guidance from GW is forthcoming. Agree with your opponent before the game how this plays out.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Issue order

Voice of command or laurels can be applied in either order due to simultaneous

If 4+ voice of command triggers again





In practice terms this means

Issue order
Voice of command original order everyone within 6" gets it
On a 4+ second original order
Voice of command second original order everyone within 6" gets it

Issue second order if character able
Voice of command second order everyone within 6" gets it
On a 4+ second second order
Voice of command second second order everyone within 6" gets it

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/14 19:23:44


 
   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

U02dah4 wrote:
Issue order

Voice of command or laurels can be applied in either order due to simultaneous

If 4+ voice of command triggers again
.
.
.


Citation ?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/15 15:33:17


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

 p5freak wrote:
U02dah4 wrote:
Issue order

Voice of command or laurels can be applied in either order due to simultaneous

If 4+ voice of command triggers again
.
.
.


Citation ?


Citation: How They Would Play It.

You've said your piece, and you know attacking HIWPI is pointless. So... just maybe... don't?

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Issue order

Roll a dice each time the bearer issues an order to a friendly <Regiment> Infantry unit within 6" of them.

" On a 4+ the bearer can immediately issue another order to the same unit. "
This does not count towards the maximum number of orders this model may issue each turn."

so two orders are issued

"Each time a unit with the Voice of Command ability issues one of the following orders to a Infantry unit,"

So this rule triggers for both orders

"that same order can be issued to one or more other friendly Infantry units (excluding Officer units) that are within 6" of the unit that order was originally issued to: Take Aim!; First Rank, Fire! Second Rank, Fire!; Bring it Down!; Forwards, for the Emperor!; Get Back in the Fight!; Fix Bayonets!"

functions well so far

if the officer could issue a second order the sequence then naturally repeats

its not HIWPI its RAW


if you wish to sequence it the other way

The order is issued "Each time a unit with the Voice of Command ability issues one of the following orders to a Infantry unit, that same order can be issued to one or more other friendly Infantry units (excluding Officer units) that are within 6" of the unit that order was originally issued to: Take Aim!; First Rank, Fire! Second Rank, Fire!; Bring it Down!; Forwards, for the Emperor!; Get Back in the Fight!; Fix Bayonets!"

then

" On a 4+ the bearer can immediately issue another order to the same unit. "
This does not count towards the maximum number of orders this model may issue each turn."

so two orders are issued

"Each time a unit with the Voice of Command ability issues one of the following orders to a Infantry unit,"

and so "Each time a unit with the Voice of Command ability issues one of the following orders to a Infantry unit, that same order can be issued to one or more other friendly Infantry units (excluding Officer units) that are within 6" of the unit that order was originally issued to: Take Aim!; First Rank, Fire! Second Rank, Fire!; Bring it Down!; Forwards, for the Emperor!; Get Back in the Fight!; Fix Bayonets!"





(And you can sequence it either way due to the sequencing rules ) - Either way, the outcome is identical the interaction is clear

Summarised as
Issue order
Voice of command original order everyone within 6" gets it
On a 4+ second original order
Voice of command second original order everyone within 6" gets it

Issue second order if the character is able
Voice of command second-order everyone within 6" gets it
On a 4+ second second-order
Voice of command second second-order everyone within 6" gets it



The FAQ has no bearing it is a snowflake ruling

This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2022/05/16 16:35:07


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

Voice of Command: Each time a <REGIMENT> unit with the Voice of Command ability issues one of the following orders to a b]<Regiment> Infantry[/b] unit, that same order can be issued to one or more other friendly <Regiment> Infantry units (excluding Officer units) that are within 6" of the unit that order was originally issued to: Take Aim!; First Rank, Fire! Second Rank, Fire!; Bring it Down!; Forwards, for the Emperor!; Get Back in the Fight!; Fix Bayonets!

Laurels of Command: Officer with Voice of Command ability only. Roll a dice each time the bearer issues an order to a friendly <Regiment> unit within 6" of them. On a 4+ the bearer can immediately issue another order to the same unit. This does not count towards the maximum number of orders this model may issue each turn.
Based on these two rules, for each ordered unit within 6" of the Officer (i.e. excluding those with 6" of the originally ordered unit but not within 6" the Officer) you may roll a dice and on a 4+ you may issue an additional order to that unit.

While you may then issue that second order (if from the list of applicable orders) to any b]<Regiment> Infantry[/b] unit within 6" of that unit, there is nothing in either the updated Voice of Command or Laurels of Command that allow those units to have a second order issued to them.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Laurels of command directly says

"the bearer can immediately issue another order to the same unit" the key phrase being " issue another order" so your explanation is wrong

Voice only cares if an order has been "issued" and shares it. it specifies "Each time" not only on the first order and laurels is clear the second order is "issued" so Voice applies

So as long as two orders are issued they all get two orders

This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2022/05/17 08:09:22


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

I would pay, everyone gets 1st order, specify which units get 2nd order, roll 4+. Otherwise using chains you could try and give additional units a second order more than once.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Yes the rules as they stand presently allow a unit to receive 4 orders if your lucky and role the 4+ twice and your units are close enough together

I fail to see how that is a problem with the rules.

They are clear and function perfectly well.

Not liking the outcome doesn't mean you go to HIWPI when the RAW functions and is clear

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/17 13:20:50


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

U02dah4 wrote:
Laurels of command directly says

"the bearer can immediately issue another order to the same unit" the key phrase being " issue another order" so your explanation is wrong
That reading couldn’t be more wrong. You are normally only allowed to issue and order to a unit that has not already received an order. Therefore “to the same unit” is actually the most important part rather than the least. Without it Laurels of Command would only allow you a free order to a different unit, one which had not yet been ordered.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

That you can not normally do it has no bearing

Voice does not say you cannot do it

Therefore in a permissive ruleset you do not need a rule granting you an exception to a rule that doesn't exist

you just need a rule saying it gets the rule

which you have in voice of command (It doesn't specify you cannot give the rules to units that already have a rule) it just issues them the order.



The only restriction is on the original target of the order. laurels gets round that once.

To get the 4 orders say i have 6 units within 6"
I target one unit on a 4+ it gets a second both are shared to all units except one by voice
I then target the unbuffed unit and repeat the process targeting all the others 5 units end up with 4 buffs and 1 two.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/05/17 15:15:23


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

VOICE OF COMMAND
This unit may issue one order per turn to the soldiers under their command at the start of their Shooting phase. Orders may only be issued to INFANTRY units within 6" of this unit that have the same <REGIMENT> keyword as this unit. To issue an order, pick a target unit and choose which order you wish to issue from the table below. A unit may only be affected by one order per turn.
You are incorrect. A unit can 9th be affected by one order per turn per the emphasis added above, except via Laurels of Command.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

The dataslate rule does not have that restriction it is an army wide rule not a modification to the voice of command ability.

your voice of command quote is not relevant to the question

That restriction only applies to the voice of command ability which is not an army wide rule it is a "ability common to several astra militarum units" it is not on the datasheet of most units in the AM book only one or two characters it only effects them.

I agree therefore that I cannot issue an order to a unit with an existing order except via laurels with the Voice of command rule itself ...as that Rule states.



But I never do in the discussed interaction voice of command only ever targets a unit with no orders.

the orders are issued by the dataslate rule which triggers off of Voice of command and has no such restriction

You still end up with 4 on a single unit if your lucky

Or to put it another way some vehicles in your army have the explodes ability they are effected by it, other units in your army that do not have that rule are not...

This message was edited 11 times. Last update was at 2022/05/17 17:27:02


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

U02dah4 wrote:
The dataslate rule does not have that restriction it is an army wide rule not a modification to the voice of command ability.
It doesn't need to. Order exist only as part of the Voice of Command ability. Since Voice of Command limits a unit to being affected by one order, there must be an explicit exception to allow a unit to be affected by more than one order. The Balance Datasheet rule does not provide any such exception.

Any semantics about Army-wide Rule versus Datasheet rule are irrelevant. The only rules for orders exist in Voice of Command (which the Datasheet rule references) and that rule states a unit can only be affected by one order. That carries over from the datasheet rule.

Now I have no idea how GW will rule on this, if they ever get around to doing so at all. I expect it fall firmly into the unintended rules complication category. It's not like anyone actually uses Laurels of Command

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/18 04:08:11


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

U02dah4 wrote:
Yes the rules as they stand presently allow a unit to receive 4 orders if your lucky and role the 4+ twice and your units are close enough together

I fail to see how that is a problem with the rules.

They are clear and function perfectly well.

Not liking the outcome doesn't mean you go to HIWPI when the RAW functions and is clear


It’s patently obvious from this thread that it isn’t clear.

And there is no way in the game to give one unit four Orders in the same turn. That’s just so far from RAW I don’t know how you even managed to type those three letters with a straight face!

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Yet noone has provided a raw alternative to mine

The only person who has tried to submit one has admitted to ignoreing the distinction between army wide and datasheet rules in order to make their argument work - invalidateing their answer as a RAW answer can't apply datasheet rules to units without that rule

Therefore there is one RAW answer thats why it is clear

The others are HIWPI and RAW trumps HIWPI

So far the alternative are the vague assertion that it is ambiguous with no evidence which is not an argument

And the interpretation involving applying rules to units that don't have that rule (actively going against RAW) (Or in other words proven wrong)

This argument really seems to be about the Correct singular RAW answer vs "I don't like it"

If you can't offer a RAW alternative WITH QUOTES you have no case



As to the you can't get 4 orders you clearly can in the below sequence

I issue order with voice of command the datasheet rule shares it to all nearby units but one

I 4+ with laurels the data sheet rule shares it to all nearby units except the one that has no orders

I then target the unit that didn't receive any orders with voice of command the datasheet shares it to all nearby units

I 4+ with laurels the datasheet shares it to all nearby units

Now it will only work 25% of the time and requires a double ordering character with laureld but it is mechanically possible useing the above sequence

This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2022/05/18 10:40:20


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Equally, you just saying “mine is RAW” doesn’t make it so.

And given you think a single unit is permitted to receive four simultaneous Orders… yeah. Discredits the rest of whatever you wrote. Usual max is 1, bumped to 2 via certain rules. Four is not possible.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/18 15:45:30


 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

No provideing all the relevant quotes in full in the 9th post of the thread is what made it a RAW argument.


You have not provided any quote showing a usual max you would need a quote to substantiate this.

The only mention of a limit in this thread is in a datasheet specific rule and as such is not relevant to the question. It does not represent a specific max as it is not attached to most of the units that get ordered.

Even if you could provide such a quote which you can't. A usual max is also irrelevant 40k doesn't work off usual, it works off specific. Something being usual is not a RAW argument its a RAI argument and RAW trumps RAI.

The orders are provided by an army wide rule and in the absence of an army wide limit it is RAW that you can because nothing says you can't and a rule issues them the orders

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2022/05/18 17:45:36


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Given its all clearly unintended and broken by a patch update, there no point in debating this ad absurdum. Just don’t set up this particular interaction to begin with would be my advice, and enjoy your game.

Otherwise you end up playing the guy who argues you can issue four orders to one unit… which doesn’t even have a purpose beyond the first couple really as they start cancelling each other out.

Honestly it’s a stupid situation so just don’t put yourself there.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Thankyou for admitting I'm correct

As far as unintended goes who knows with GW AM needed a huge boost to be remotely balanced

It also clearly isn't broken the RAW works sure it gives you four orders but that isn't broken or to be honest overpowered given how far behind AM are and given they don't stack

You cannot possible know GW intention

You just dont like the outcome that is not the same as the RAW doesn't work

That's why we stick to RAW on the forum at least it gives a consistent outcome as opposed to what every player feels is right which changes with every players personal interpretation of what is intended

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/05/19 07:35:45


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Don’t… don’t do that. Argue honestly, be polite, don’t be the “thanks for admitting I’m correct” guy. It’s puerile.

Don’t say I can’t possibly know intention. No one absolutely knows. Apply some appropriate critical judgement though and you can guess at it fairly well. If the default is “one order per unit” do you thing four is intended? Saying you’ve no info to work with when guessing is just incorrect.

If you’re looking to win YMDC, well done, gratz, completed it mate, whatever, but seriously… this place is better when it’s a robust but friendly chat, not a damn competition. Especially over a rules interaction that either won’t come up or is designed to exploit a loophole. That is anathema to a fun game. If you make that choice, enjoy your game, but your opponent won’t.

Can’t be arsed discussing further, but please be a little better! It’s more fun around here without putting words in others’ mouths and ad absurdum rationales.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/19 10:40:47


 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

The problem is guess's come up with different answers its why we don't guess - if your answer is a guess it shouldn't be on here - it cloud's rules issues.

If there is a rules based answer I am therefore going to be dismissive of a guess based answer because it is not relevant and is detrimental to the threads.


We can all agree on rules as written its clear noone has offered an alternative

We cannot agree on intention because we cannot know it and most of the time GW doesn't even know it. You cannot know if GW intention was for 4 orders to rebalance or 1 because that was the original limit on voice of command. Critical thinking results in I don't know. Anything else and your not showing critical thinking just bias in favour of your preferred intention



Where raw absolutely doesn't work we use RAI yes but that means doesn't work - as distinct from works fine but I don't like the outcome or think it leads to unintended consequences.

I also think it likely this will come up in infantry spam lists but rarely because they are a tiny part of the meta as
Take Aim!, First Rank,Fire! Second Rank, Fire!, Bring it Down!, Forwards, for the Emperor! Can all work together and while 4 would only come up 25% of the time 3 of the 4 is the expectancy

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2022/05/19 15:32:21


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

It’s like BCB is back, sheesh.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

I miss bcb a lot of times he had a point
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Yeah no he was a racist mysoginist and a dogmatic troll. He will not be missed.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: