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.

Question about officers and orders: can my catachan tank commander issue the catachan order "burn them out" to my unit of 3 leman russ (russes? not sure...) equipped with heavy flamers? If yes, will this order affect all 3 vehicles?
Or since the tank commander doesn't have the "voice of command" ability, then he can't issue this order at all? thanks for the clarification

No. Tank commanders issue tank orders, they do not have voice of command and can't issue 'Burn Them Out'.

You can select three Russes as one unit for Detachment purposes, but once deployed Leman Russes become individual units (see the Vwhicle Squadron rule on their Datasheet for details).

Voice Of Command is only for regular orders. Tank Commanders have the Tank Orders ability right on their Datasheet, with the special orders they can issue right there.

No. Tank Commanders to not have Voice of Command and cannot give Orders including Regimental Orders. They may only give Tank Orders per the Tank Orders ability.

Additionally, there are no units of 3 Leman Russ Tanks in play. Per Vehicle Squadron ability, once deployed all models in the unit operate independently as a separate units. You therefore can only issue a Tank Order to one Leman Russ Battle Tank.

If you make your tank commander your warlord you can give him the warlord trait voice of command, which allows him to order leman russes.

 p5freak wrote:
If you make your tank commander your warlord you can give him the warlord trait voice of command, which allows him to order leman russes.

You mean "Master Of Command" that allows them to issue one additional tank order per turn. They don't get the Voice Of Command ability.

Master of Command gives your warlord the voice of command ability.

 p5freak wrote:
Master of Command gives your warlord the voice of command ability.

And what does the rest of the rule say?

If your Warlord already has the Voice of Command or Tank Orders ability, they may instead issue one additional order per turn.

So 'Master of Command' would not give a Tank Commander the 'Voice of Command' ability.

Its bad GW wording

If it said "instead they" then it would default to an extra tank order

Because it says"They may instead" it sounds optional to me so you could issue an extra tank order or gain voice of command

Except it isn't an optional swap, and everyone knows what it means. Don't twist the clear stuff... we'll be here all damn day!

May gives permission, which is not the same as giving an option.

The giving voice of command is a closed sentence

The may gives permission and the permission is to instead do something instead of doing what you would normally.

Is that not an option to all intensive purposes.


Essentially May= Permission it does not = Must or a requirment

U02dah4 wrote:
Its bad GW wording

If it said "instead they" then it would default to an extra tank order

Because it says"They may instead" it sounds optional to me so you could issue an extra tank order or gain voice of command

It would become a fragment if it had read:
"If your Warlord already has the Voice of Command or Tank Orders ability, INSTEAD THEY issue one additional order per turn."

As per rule of English, instead is not a conjunction that can connect a dependent clause to an independent clause ('instead' is a conjunctive adverb and can only link two independent clauses when used as a conjunction). What you had intended to say probably was:
"If your Warlord already has the Voice of Command or Tank Orders ability, they issue one additional order per turn INSTEAD."

Note however, there is no rule telling you that you MUST issue two ordesr if you CAN make two orders. Hence, semantically coherent sentence then would read:
"If your Warlord already has the Voice of Command or Tank Orders ability, they CAN issue one additional order per turn instead."

Here, the phrase "If your Warlord already has the Voice of Command or Tank Orders ability" is the conditional clause in which the phrase "issue one additional order per turn" becomes active/valid.

Which then, is the same sentence as:
If your Warlord already has the Voice of Command or Tank Orders ability, they may instead issue one additional order per turn.

Here it reads "If your warlord already has such abilities, it is allowed to make one additional order, instead of gaining the same ability twice."

So, no. It's not GW's poor wording in this case. It is a case of willful and intentional misinterpretation of the English language.

I never said use instead as a conjunction its an adverb

an adverb is a word or phrase that modifies the meaning of an adjective,

If your Warlord already has the Voice of Command or Tank Orders ability, instead issue one additional order per turn.

would be a clear sentence

If your Warlord already has the Voice of Command or Tank Orders ability, they may instead issue one additional order per turn.

is subject to interpretation

And we all know that GW is far from the best wordsmiths when it comes to writing rules.

Exactly which often means rules require clarity through FAQ and quite often when rules are clearly written GW claim a completely different intention.

Here we have an ambiguous rule however neither interpretation is broken or provides a seemingly huge advantage.

U02dah4 wrote:
Exactly which often means rules require clarity through FAQ and quite often when rules are clearly written GW claim a completely different intention.

Here we have an ambiguous rule however neither interpretation is broken or provides a seemingly huge advantage.

Sorry it's really not ambiguous at all...

Master of Command
Your Warlord gains the Voice of Command ability. If your Warlord already has the Voice of Command or Tank Orders ability, they may instead issue one additional order per turn.

The literal meaning as written, without an ounce of bias or willful misinterpretation, is:

If your Warlord is given the [Warlord Trait: Master of Command], it gains the [Ability: Voice of Command]. However, if the said Warlord already has either [Ability: Voice of Command] or [Ability: Tank Order], it then does not receive [Ability: Voice of Command], but instead may issue additional order per turn.

Your current interpretation of, “if the Warlord already has Voice of Command or Tank Orders, it can choose to either take another instance of Voice of Command ability or issue an addition order per turn” is an erroneous comprehension of the paragraph. The phrase “they may instead” is being misinterpreted here. It’s not telling you that you choose from gaining VoC or issue additional order. It’s actually rather clearly and concisely written to read “THIS happens, but under certain conditions, THAT happens.” It doesn’t say “THIS happens, but under certain conditions, THIS or THAT happens.”

You are creating undue sequential hierarchy to the individual sentences within the same paragraph and reading in segments . You don't gain the VoC ability BEFORE the second clause comes into effect because there's a period, but rather, when you assign the Warlord Trait: Master of Command, you have to see which one of the two effects the Warlord Trait grants is applied to the designated warlord.

It's not ambiguous unless trying to misread it. It's really clear.