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.

rigeld2 wrote:

The base rule for warlord offers no choice... it just determines the model that is the warlord (it only offers a choice in the second sentence IF there is a tie).

How can a model with no LD value be the HQ character with the highest Leadership?

Your interpretation leaves the rule useless if he's your only HQ.

Normally it can't, which is why you need a special rule, such as Tank Commander in this case (or the FAQ for Bjorn), to make a model w/o LD the warlord. My interpretation is perfectly consistent with this. You may choose the tank commander as your Warlord, despite any restrictions that would normally prevent it. Codex trumps BRB, plain and simple.

chanceafs wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

The base rule for warlord offers no choice... it just determines the model that is the warlord (it only offers a choice in the second sentence IF there is a tie).

How can a model with no LD value be the HQ character with the highest Leadership?

Your interpretation leaves the rule useless if he's your only HQ.

Normally it can't, which is why you need a special rule, such as Tank Commander in this case (or the FAQ for Bjorn), to make a model w/o LD the warlord. My interpretation is perfectly consistent with this. You may choose the tank commander as your Warlord, despite any restrictions that would normally prevent it. Codex trumps BRB, plain and simple.

The underlined is your assumption. It obviously contradicts the lack-of-leadership issue.
You have yet to prove it also conflicts with the "highest leadership" requirement.

To be fair, you're also making an assumption. It's what ever YMDC question eventually devolves to: which interpretation of a text do you follow.

You are assuming that a player must follow the normal method determining a warlord, despite a plain reading of the rule offering a choice.

It's a classic impasse.

 Polonius wrote:
To be fair, you're also making an assumption. It's what ever YMDC question eventually devolves to: which interpretation of a text do you follow.

You are assuming that a player must follow the normal method determining a warlord, despite a plain reading of the rule offering a choice.

It's a classic impasse.

No, I'm following the rules. The BRB requires a Leadership value and, in the presence of 2 HQ characters, it must be the one with the higher leadership.
The TC rule obviously conflicts with the first part (and therefore "wins") but doesn't conflict with the second. I'm making no assumptions other than we're all playing out of the same rulebook.

So rigeld2, are you saying that since the Tank Commander doesn't have a leadership value, it cannot be a Warlord? Aren't you the one leaving rules useless? (the rule saying that the Tank Commander CAN be a warlord, in case it wasn't clear)

As the rules stand now, if the TC is your only HQ, then it is your warlord, despite not having a leadership score. If you add in a second HQ that does have a leadership score, does this mean the TC can't be the warlord, despite the specific words "can be chosen as your army's warlord."?

I hear people saying that the rule doesn't override some things and does override others, but it isn't specific at all, so why would you assume that it doesn't override everything?

That is ridiculous of course, I would either say it has to be the only one or counts as LD 9, but that's just HIWPI.

rigeld2 wrote:

The base rule for warlord offers no choice... it just determines the model that is the warlord (it only offers a choice in the second sentence IF there is a tie).

How can a model with no LD value be the HQ character with the highest Leadership?

Your interpretation leaves the rule useless if he's your only HQ.

If there are no other HQ Characters, the HQ Character with no Ld value is the HQ character with the highest Ld.

No Ld Value at all is the highest value in this case, it just happens that that value is the empty set

You can have 12 HQ models with Ld 10 all you want, if not one of those models is a character then trhe character with no Ld(or a character with Ld 2, or any other value imaginable) is going to be you HQ character with the highest Ld.

 Leonus wrote:
So rigeld2, are you saying that since the Tank Commander doesn't have a leadership value, it cannot be a Warlord? Aren't you the one leaving rules useless? (the rule saying that the Tank Commander CAN be a warlord, in case it wasn't clear)

No, I didn't and would never say it.
Without the TC rule, he could not be your Warlord.

As the rules stand now, if the TC is your only HQ, then it is your warlord, despite not having a leadership score. If you add in a second HQ that does have a leadership score, does this mean the TC can't be the warlord, despite the specific words "can be chosen as your army's warlord."?

You can select the TC to fulfil the HQ selection requirement - which is choosing him to be your army's warlord.

I hear people saying that the rule doesn't override some things and does override others, but it isn't specific at all, so why would you assume that it doesn't override everything?

Precisely because it isn't specific is why it should be limited. You're not allowed to do things without a rule telling you.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Leonus wrote:
So rigeld2, are you saying that since the Tank Commander doesn't have a leadership value, it cannot be a Warlord? Aren't you the one leaving rules useless? (the rule saying that the Tank Commander CAN be a warlord, in case it wasn't clear)

No, I didn't and would never say it.
Without the TC rule, he could not be your Warlord.

As the rules stand now, if the TC is your only HQ, then it is your warlord, despite not having a leadership score. If you add in a second HQ that does have a leadership score, does this mean the TC can't be the warlord, despite the specific words "can be chosen as your army's warlord."?

You can select the TC to fulfil the HQ selection requirement - which is choosing him to be your army's warlord.

I hear people saying that the rule doesn't override some things and does override others, but it isn't specific at all, so why would you assume that it doesn't override everything?

Precisely because it isn't specific is why it should be limited. You're not allowed to do things without a rule telling you.

I agree that it SHOULD be limited. The problem is that there are no limits placed by the rules. The rules told me that he can be my warlord, end of rule.

 Leonus wrote:
I agree that it SHOULD be limited. The problem is that there are no limits placed by the rules. The rules told me that he can be my warlord, end of rule.

And he can be.
He has to follow the rest of the rules to be Warlord, however.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
To be fair, you're also making an assumption. It's what ever YMDC question eventually devolves to: which interpretation of a text do you follow.

You are assuming that a player must follow the normal method determining a warlord, despite a plain reading of the rule offering a choice.

It's a classic impasse.

No, I'm following the rules. The BRB requires a Leadership value and, in the presence of 2 HQ characters, it must be the one with the higher leadership.
The TC rule obviously conflicts with the first part (and therefore "wins") but doesn't conflict with the second. I'm making no assumptions other than we're all playing out of the same rulebook.

Kids, here's a protip: whenever you make a comment in a bona fide rules debate that you are "following the rules," you look either naive or inflammatory.

Guess what? English isn't FORTRAN, and few sentences have only one reading. There's a reason constitutional law is slightly more complicated than "read the rules."

Especially when you read them wrong. Being a warlord does not require a leadership value. The warlord is always the HQ character with the the highest leadership value, with the controlling player free to choose in the case of a tie. The rule simply tells you what model you have to nominate as your warlord.

Any rule that allows a model to be chosen as a warlord would ignore that, just like a rule that states that a model/unit is scoring would ignore all the multitude of rules for scoring units.

The real rub is in the interpretation of the word "chosen." Keep in mind, the rules are strict about who your warlord has to be, with choice only serving as a tie-breaker.

there are two interpretations: GW is making clear that a Tank commander can serve as a warlord, despite not having a leadership value. Or: GW is saying that a player can freely select this model to serve as the warlord, ignoring the normal process.

The problem with the former is that it is really arcane. Rules should be clearer, and Occam's razor favors plain reading of rules.

the problem with the latter is that it creates a new option out of whole cloth: that a player is not bound by the warlord determination rules.

And I think that's the biggest problem with my stance: GW could have been very slightly clearer in stating that TCs can be chosen, despite the other requirements. I still feel it's a smaller assumption then thinking that GW 1) knew their own Warlord rules, 2) expects all players to understand those rules, and 3) felt that a reminder about them would be unnecessary.

Right now the difference between you and I is that I understand why you could be correct, and I still feel that my interpretation makes more sense. You can't even see another interpretation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Leonus wrote:

I agree that it SHOULD be limited. The problem is that there are no limits placed by the rules. The rules told me that he can be my warlord, end of rule.

If the only only stated that he could be your warlord, rigeld2 would be quite correct in his interpretation. The ability to become something is necessary, but not sufficient, to become that thing.

The rule actually allows a player to "choose" a tank commander as a warlord, despite player choice being a tie-breaker in normal warlord selection.

It's the possibility that GW meant "freely chosen" or "chosen regardless of other factors" that makes this a debate.

 Polonius wrote:
Kids, here's a protip: whenever you make a comment in a bona fide rules debate that you are "following the rules," you look either naive or inflammatory.

Here's a protip right back at you - giving "pro tips" is inflammatory and insulting. I'm being neither naive nor inflammatory.

Guess what? English isn't FORTRAN, and few sentences have only one reading. There's a reason constitutional law is slightly more complicated than "read the rules."

Almost like Constitutional Law is more "What was intended" than "What does it say".
I'm discussing what it says, not what's intended.

Especially when you read them wrong. Being a warlord does not require a leadership value.

Really?

The warlord is always the HQ character with the the highest leadership value, with the controlling player free to choose in the case of a tie. The rule simply tells you what model you have to nominate as your warlord.

If it has to be the model with the highest Leadership value, wouldn't you have to, I dunno... have a Leadership value to know if it's the highest or not? Hard to know if you have the most Oranges if you don't have any Oranges.

Any rule that allows a model to be chosen as a warlord would ignore that, just like a rule that states that a model/unit is scoring would ignore all the multitude of rules for scoring units.

And you can choose the model for your Warlord.

The real rub is in the interpretation of the word "chosen." Keep in mind, the rules are strict about who your warlord has to be, with choice only serving as a tie-breaker.

Look at the Army List section of your codex. Which model is your Warlord? Oh - you get to pick? So ... it's a choice?

The problem with the former is that it is really arcane. Rules should be clearer, and Occam's razor favors plain reading of rules.

Arcane? Really? It's the simpler of the two readings. It conflicts with the fewest amount of rules.

the problem with the latter is that it creates a new option out of whole cloth: that a player is not bound by the warlord determination rules.

Yes - your interpretation makes things up out of whole cloth. And somehow that's the simpler interpretation?

Right now the difference between you and I is that I understand why you could be correct, and I still feel that my interpretation makes more sense. You can't even see another interpretation.

I can see how what you're saying may have been intended, but I don't care. I'm not discussing Intent, I'm discussing what they Wrote. That's the difference between you and I. You're clouding your thoughts with what you think they meant, I'm simply looking at what's there.

 Polonius wrote:
Words words words

Your post was too wordy for my little brain to figure out your opinion, aside from that you don't think much of one or more of our opinions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rigeld2, the BRB does say that a 0 or a - are the same thing in a stat line. pg 3

So if we are assuming that the rule saying you can choose the TC as your warlord is still under the exception of needing to be highest leadership, then it is considered to be 0.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The only real question left is WHICH rules the "Leman Russ Commander" rule is trying to let you break.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Kids, here's a protip: whenever you make a comment in a bona fide rules debate that you are "following the rules," you look either naive or inflammatory.

Here's a protip right back at you - giving "pro tips" is inflammatory and insulting. I'm being neither naive nor inflammatory.

I wasn't giving it to you, but to the thread. But fair enough.

I think that claiming completely unassailable objective truth in any field outside of mathematics is problematic, but that's more of a philosophical view. In the specific, GW rules are written by semi-literates, and believing that you have the one true reading is, alas, kind of naive.

Almost like Constitutional Law is more "What was intended" than "What does it say".
I'm discussing what it says, not what's intended.

Well, it's a lot more complicated than that.

Especially when you read them wrong. Being a warlord does not require a leadership value.

Really?

Really. Bjorn doesn't have a Leadership value, and he can be a warlord all day long.

The warlord is always the HQ character with the the highest leadership value, with the controlling player free to choose in the case of a tie. The rule simply tells you what model you have to nominate as your warlord.

If it has to be the model with the highest Leadership value, wouldn't you have to, I dunno... have a Leadership value to know if it's the highest or not? Hard to know if you have the most Oranges if you don't have any Oranges.

Turns out when two baskets each have no oranges, both have the most oranges.

The real rub is in the interpretation of the word "chosen." Keep in mind, the rules are strict about who your warlord has to be, with choice only serving as a tie-breaker.

Look at the Army List section of your codex. Which model is your Warlord? Oh - you get to pick? So ... it's a choice?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

The problem with the former is that it is really arcane. Rules should be clearer, and Occam's razor favors plain reading of rules.

Arcane? Really? It's the simpler of the two readings. It conflicts with the fewest amount of rules.

I'd agree with that, but it also changes the meaning of the rule from the simplest reading. That's a good point though, and one of the few good points in this thread.

the problem with the latter is that it creates a new option out of whole cloth: that a player is not bound by the warlord determination rules.

Yes - your interpretation makes things up out of whole cloth. And somehow that's the simpler interpretation?

I don't grant the premise that I"m making things up, but you'd be amazed how often creating a new option is the simplest thing.

Right now the difference between you and I is that I understand why you could be correct, and I still feel that my interpretation makes more sense. You can't even see another interpretation.

I can see how what you're saying may have been intended, but I don't care. I'm not discussing Intent, I'm discussing what they Wrote. That's the difference between you and I. You're clouding your thoughts with what you think they meant, I'm simply looking at what's there.

I think you believe that.

I know what the words "may be chosen" mean. The fact that this conversation exists is because you're assuming that phrase doesn't mean exactly what it says.

Looking at the warlord rules we have these requirements:

1) It must be a model.
2) It must be a HQ choice.
3) It must be a character.
4) It must have the highest leadership of your choices (choices being between things that meet the first 3 requirments) -not check!

So the TC is a model already, and is given these things by the "Lemon Russ Commander" rule:

2) It is an HQ choice.
3) It is a character.
4) It can be chosen as your warlord.

The only possible thing that the last part could be talking about is the leadership requirement, right?

Also, I like the auto-append feature a lot.

 Leonus wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Words words words

Your post was too wordy for my little brain to figure out your opinion, aside from that you don't think much of one or more of our opinions.

I actually think most of the opinions in this thread are fine. There are bona fide arguments for both, and some interesting arguments made. I dont' think much of the insight people have in their own opinions, but that's pretty common.

I was just saying that there's a key distinction, I feel, between a model being able to be a warlord, and a model being chosen as a warlord. One allows it to be selected by a passive process, the other allows it to be selected despite the process.

 Leonus wrote:
Rigeld2, the BRB does say that a 0 or a - are the same thing in a stat line. pg 3

Agreed.

So if we are assuming that the rule saying you can choose the TC as your warlord is still under the exception of needing to be highest leadership, then it is considered to be 0.

I don't agree with this - there's no reason to make that assumption.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

Almost like Constitutional Law is more "What was intended" than "What does it say".
I'm discussing what it says, not what's intended.

Well, it's a lot more complicated than that.

Of course it is. But I'm not the one that brought it up.
But seriously - all I'm discussing is what the rules say.

Especially when you read them wrong. Being a warlord does not require a leadership value.

Really?

Really. Bjorn doesn't have a Leadership value, and he can be a warlord all day long.

Go ahead - keep bringing up a model that has a specific exception to the Warlord rules as an example of how the rules work in general.
In general, being a Warlord requires a leadership value.
It's like me saying "Isn't it great that everyone can spawn a Troop unit?"

The warlord is always the HQ character with the the highest leadership value, with the controlling player free to choose in the case of a tie. The rule simply tells you what model you have to nominate as your warlord.

If it has to be the model with the highest Leadership value, wouldn't you have to, I dunno... have a Leadership value to know if it's the highest or not? Hard to know if you have the most Oranges if you don't have any Oranges.

Turns out when two baskets each have no oranges, both have the most oranges.

And if one basket has Oranges and the other doesn't...

The real rub is in the interpretation of the word "chosen." Keep in mind, the rules are strict about who your warlord has to be, with choice only serving as a tie-breaker.

Look at the Army List section of your codex. Which model is your Warlord? Oh - you get to pick? So ... it's a choice?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

You can choose him to be your Warlord. Select the unit to be your HQ and poof - he's your Warlord. You're choosing to not make him your warlord by adding a second HQ character.

The problem with the former is that it is really arcane. Rules should be clearer, and Occam's razor favors plain reading of rules.

Arcane? Really? It's the simpler of the two readings. It conflicts with the fewest amount of rules.

I'd agree with that, but it also changes the meaning of the rule from the simplest reading. That's a good point though, and one of the few good points in this thread.

... It's the same point I've been saying the entire thread.

the problem with the latter is that it creates a new option out of whole cloth: that a player is not bound by the warlord determination rules.

Yes - your interpretation makes things up out of whole cloth. And somehow that's the simpler interpretation?

I don't grant the premise that I"m making things up, but you'd be amazed how often creating a new option is the simplest thing.

When it comes to what the rules say, making things up is pretty much never the right answer.

I can see how what you're saying may have been intended, but I don't care. I'm not discussing Intent, I'm discussing what they Wrote. That's the difference between you and I. You're clouding your thoughts with what you think they meant, I'm simply looking at what's there.

I think you believe that.

I know what the words "may be chosen" mean. The fact that this conversation exists is because you're assuming that phrase doesn't mean exactly what it says.

Except it does. You're choosing to believe that "may be chosen" overrides literally any possible restriction.
The choice is already there - you are never required to have a second HQ.

rigeld2 wrote:

Of course it is. But I'm not the one that brought it up.
But seriously - all I'm discussing is what the rules say.

Well, we're discussing what the rules mean, and how they interact. Reducing anything to simple line reading is, as always, a bit unsophisticated.

Go ahead - keep bringing up a model that has a specific exception to the Warlord rules as an example of how the rules work in general.
In general, being a Warlord requires a leadership value.
It's like me saying "Isn't it great that everyone can spawn a Troop unit?"

Well, if we were discussing how the rules work in general, than Bjorn has no place in the conversation. This is a discussion on how the rules work in the specific. In general, warlords always have a LD value. You're arguing that a leadership value is inherently required, and there is evidence that, nope, it's not. Bjorn might be a super duper exception, but I doubt it.

And if one basket has Oranges and the other doesn't...

The first one has more oranges. If I'm allowed to choose the empty basket though, I can chose the empty basket, even if I normally have to pick the fuller one.

You can choose him to be your Warlord. Select the unit to be your HQ and poof - he's your Warlord. You're choosing to not make him your warlord by adding a second HQ character.

This is the sort of loophole stuff I'm taking about when I refer to a simpler interpretation, by the by. If that's what GW meant, that's really, really dumb.

the problem with the latter is that it creates a new option out of whole cloth: that a player is not bound by the warlord determination rules.

Yes - your interpretation makes things up out of whole cloth. And somehow that's the simpler interpretation?

I don't grant the premise that I"m making things up, but you'd be amazed how often creating a new option is the simplest thing.

When it comes to what the rules say, making things up is pretty much never the right answer.

Man, you love scoring points by repeating things like "making things up," don't you? I can't tell the quest for truth is important.

Rules create new options all the time. That's what makes them rules, in a permissive universe.

Except it does. You're choosing to believe that "may be chosen" overrides literally any possible restriction.
The choice is already there - you are never required to have a second HQ.

Well, I'm hard pressed to think of any real restrictions aside from highest LD it would ignore. But I suppose you're correct in that I feel that the wording does trump the BBB rules.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
If anybody is interested in analyzing the phrase "may be chosen," I've got a few thoughts:

1) This is a great example of poor use of the passive voice. As written, this just means that there is some way in which the tank could end up the warlord. The active voice "A controlling player may choose the Tank Commander to be his warlord" gives more agency to the player.

Does the choice of passive voice imply that the tank commander cannot be chosen at will, but rather can only be selected through the normal process? And if so, how does that reconcile with the fact that GW had to realize they were sending players to compare a null value for leadership?

2) Are there other instances in the rules where a player has a restricted choice?

One rule error that I have kept hearing is with the Smite at Will rule and split fire. People assume that they can split the heavy weapons from a blob and fire at a different target with them, even though split fire only lets one weapon fire at a different target. Maybe add it to the original post, as I can see it being a common mistake.

Fragile wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, not even close. I assume you remove artillery immediately then?

And space marines cant fire because they have no "eyes".....

No, Artillery has its own set of rules which simply enough clarify how it interacts with everything else. Much like the tank commander having a stat line that pretty much just raises the BS to 4 and lets it be a warlord. You cannot mesh a infantry model profile (commander) with a tank (vehicle) so you have to accept that certain things work. Otherwise you have extremes in RAW like Kel was trying to demonstrate.

Again, you cut out the part of the quote proving your argument wrong.

Don't quote out of context, it's rude and a poor way to argue.

Well since you felt like quoting me twice on this. Being reduced to or at zero does not matter. Once you are at 0, you are done. So yes, pure RAW, artillery pieces are removed from play immediately. And since you felt like bringing that up, I quoted it as a comparison to pure RAW stupidity of the "eyes" argument. It is clearly unintended and Artillery has their own specific set of rule that clearly does not need a S characteristic. Just like Vehicles use a completely different set of Characteristics and LD is not one of them. Therefore you are trying to compare a Vehicle with permission to be warlord to a HQ character, when as Rigeld says, you have apples to oranges. So therefore the simple basic rule does not apply and you have to take the codex rule into consideration. Permission to be the warlord is granted through codex rule.

Wrong. Seriously, how are you reading two very different sentences and thinking they are the same?

You are only removed if you are REDUCED TO zero. If you are ALREADY AT zero you have not been "reduced to" zero by definition. 1->0 is reduced to zero. 0 is not reduced to 0, it is 0.

So no, it is not a comparison to silly raw, as artillery are not removed by strict raw. Only if you misread plain English can you think that.

Do independent characters who join squads with Medpacks gain feel no pain?

They are part of the unit for all Rule purposes.
I just have to ask though, I have not seen the new book, if the Medic still gives Feel No Pain to the entire unit?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Leonus wrote:
Rigeld2, the BRB does say that a 0 or a - are the same thing in a stat line. pg 3

Agreed.

So if we are assuming that the rule saying you can choose the TC as your warlord is still under the exception of needing to be highest leadership, then it is considered to be 0.

I don't agree with this - there's no reason to make that assumption.

I thought that was your main argument, that you are still required to pick the HQ character model with the highest leadership, and therefor cannot have the TC as warlord if you have a second HQ choice with a LD score.

@Hollismason, Yes! It's awesome. I do that all the time with my Space Marine Command Squad Apothecary and my Captain.

@JinxDragon, yes.

 Leonus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Leonus wrote:
Rigeld2, the BRB does say that a 0 or a - are the same thing in a stat line. pg 3

Agreed.

So if we are assuming that the rule saying you can choose the TC as your warlord is still under the exception of needing to be highest leadership, then it is considered to be 0.

I don't agree with this - there's no reason to make that assumption.

I thought that was your main argument, that you are still required to pick the HQ character model with the highest leadership, and therefor cannot have the TC as warlord if you have a second HQ choice with a LD score.

Yes, but there's no basis for assuming his LD is 0.
It's simply undefined.

Okay next question is in regards to Command Squads.

Officer of the Fleet
Master of Oridance
Astropath

Can officer of the fleet use Castellan Creeds Leadership value? If he gets inspiring presence can it use his leader ship instead of his own?

If it has a Telepath in the army can he fire his witchfire power out of a Chimera?

Can a Master of Ordance fire his blast from inside the chimera

rigeld2 wrote:

 Leonus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Leonus wrote:
Rigeld2, the BRB does say that a 0 or a - are the same thing in a stat line. pg 3

Agreed.

So if we are assuming that the rule saying you can choose the TC as your warlord is still under the exception of needing to be highest leadership, then it is considered to be 0.

I don't agree with this - there's no reason to make that assumption.

I thought that was your main argument, that you are still required to pick the HQ character model with the highest leadership, and therefor cannot have the TC as warlord if you have a second HQ choice with a LD score.

Yes, but there's no basis for assuming his LD is 0.
It's simply undefined.

Then how can you assume it's always the lowest leadership? 9/0 is not less or more than 9, because 9/0 does not exist. Can you truly say, honestly, that something which does not exist is lower than X? Or higher? Or has any relationship at all?

The emperors Benediction has the precision shot special rule, Does this mean that every shot from it is a precision shot regardless of the to hit roll (excluding misses of course)?

Can orders be issued by officers that have already received an order? I can't find anything that says they can't like the previous edition.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Then how can you assume it's always the lowest leadership? 9/0 is not less or more than 9, because 9/0 does not exist. Can you truly say, honestly, that something which does not exist is lower than X? Or higher? Or has any relationship at all?

Whoever has the bigger basket of oranges wins.
If you don't have a basket, let alone one full of oranges, how can you possibly win?

Okay guys I'm going to make a comparison

Skyshield landing pad says you can place a flier on it in hover mode at the start of the game. Does that mean you get to forget about other restrictions like where you are legally allowed to deploy your units or do you just get to put it anywhere on your table half and that's where the flier is.

When I saw the Skyshield discussion it seemed that most felt you must take all rules into account. I feel that the tank commander is similar in that it is given a special rule that allows it access to be the warlord but still must abide by the other requirements (much like deployment on the skyshield).

Lamo wrote:
Okay guys I'm going to make a comparison

Skyshield landing pad says you can place a flier on it in hover mode at the start of the game. Does that mean you get to forget about other restrictions like where you are legally allowed to deploy your units or do you just get to put it anywhere on your table half and that's where the flier is.

When I saw the Skyshield discussion it seemed that most felt you must take all rules into account. I feel that the tank commander is similar in that it is given a special rule that allows it access to be the warlord but still must abide by the other requirements (much like deployment on the skyshield).

Exactly.

Lamo wrote:
Okay guys I'm going to make a comparison

Skyshield landing pad says you can place a flier on it in hover mode at the start of the game. Does that mean you get to forget about other restrictions like where you are legally allowed to deploy your units or do you just get to put it anywhere on your table half and that's where the flier is.

When I saw the Skyshield discussion it seemed that most felt you must take all rules into account. I feel that the tank commander is similar in that it is given a special rule that allows it access to be the warlord but still must abide by the other requirements (much like deployment on the skyshield).

The thing is, it could already be the Warlord while it is the Only HQ unit, meeting the Warlord Requirements: It is an HQ, It is a Character, There are no HQ characters with a higher Ld than it.

So by all normal rules it can be your warlord. This is either a special rule that does nothing, or one that overrides the only variable condition: An HQ character that has a higher Ld