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.
Much has been said about who can give orders to whom regards brood brothers detachments etc.
If you have an AMHQ with voice of command as part of an AM det, now re-branded a brood brothers detachment (with all the appropriate keywords), can it give orders to a brood brothers unit taken from the GSC codex? This is assuming the AM/brood brothers det is part of a battle forged GSC list alongside a legit GSC det.
Under the voice of command wording it says it works on infantry units within 6” that share a <Regiment> keyword. Since that keyword is replaced with brood brothers when forming a BB det from the AM codex, and brood brothers from the GSC codex also have the keyword does that qualify? Or is the fact they are from different codexes a barrier?
Reanimator wrote: Much has been said about who can give orders to whom regards brood brothers detachments etc.
If you have an AMHQ with voice of command as part of an AM det, now re-branded a brood brothers detachment (with all the appropriate keywords), can it give orders to a brood brothers unit taken from the GSC codex? This is assuming the AM/brood brothers det is part of a battle forged GSC list alongside a legit GSC det.
Under the voice of command wording it says it works on infantry units within 6” that share a <Regiment> keyword. Since that keyword is replaced with brood brothers when forming a BB det from the AM codex, and brood brothers from the GSC codex also have the keyword does that qualify? Or is the fact they are from different codexes a barrier?
Edit: On second thought, while you replace <REGIMENT>, BROOD BROTHERS doesn't actually count as a <REGIMENT> keyword (see the wording for Militarum Tempestus that makes that keyword count as a <REGIMENT>.
It's the same "problem" that FW Space Marine Characters have, they have a Keyword that is "supposed" to be a <CHAPTER>, <REGIMENT> etc. but it actually isn't one. This will need an errata to fix (but will most likely be FAQed).
I will freely admit that this interpretation might be overly strict and that there is some wiggle room given the wording of the <REGIMENT> rule itself in the Codex.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2019/02/14 21:40:54
It's unclear. We could have a multi page back and forth about the merits of various readings, but I think it will be better to wait for the likely very soon FAQ that will hopefully clarify it.
If it's doesn't, THEN we can have the multi page thread :p
Bullveye wrote: You cant use orders as tells you you cant.
Start of last paragraph in Insurrection section.
Do not gain any detachment abilities listed in AM dex, such as Regimental doctrines, nor can they use any regiment-specific stratagems, Orders etc.
You can't just ignore words. You can't use "regiment-specific stratagems, Orders etc.", not all "stratagems, Orders etc."
However, after re-reading the Brood Brothers rule, it replaces all instances on the datasheet, which would include Voice of Command (since it is on the datasheet), so it doesn't matter that Brood Brothers isn't technically a regiment because <REGIMENT> is replaced in the Voice of Command rule by Brood Brothers.
Bullveye wrote: That is typed relavent part direct from the dex sitting on my lap!!
Is there specific regiment orders? (no idea dont play them never played vs them)
But to me the commer after regiment-specific stratagems is used instead of and/or. So it is just orders in general.
Typical English ambiguity.
If you want "precedent" (for what little that means) the Stepping Into a New Edition documents suggests that GW applies modifiers to all clauses in a rule.
Q: A Space Marine Apothecary’s Narthecium ability says to select a ‘friendly <Chapter> Infantry or Biker unit’. Does this mean ‘a friendly <Chapter> Infantry or <Chapter> Biker unit’ or can it be used to affect Biker units from other Chapters? A: It means ‘<Chapter> Infantry or <Chapter> Biker’ – you cannot select a Biker unit from a different Chapter.
So it's again a case of both answers are true for a specific value of true.
I can see that it could indeed be parsed as you cannot use regiment specific stratagems and you cannot use orders, period.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/14 22:23:20
Bullveye wrote: That is typed relavent part direct from the dex sitting on my lap!!
Is there specific regiment orders? (no idea dont play them never played vs them)
But to me the commer after regiment-specific stratagems is used instead of and/or. So it is just orders in general.
An grammar teacher will frown mightily upon anyone who intended that results. The proper way to write that would be "cannot use orders or regiment-specific stratagems" to delineate that regiment-specific only applies to things coming after it.
Stux wrote: It's unclear. We could have a multi page back and forth about the merits of various readings, but I think it will be better to wait for the likely very soon FAQ that will hopefully clarify it.
If it's doesn't, THEN we can have the multi page thread :p
This. Expend any energies writing to GW for now.
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"
You guys keeping make my eye twitches every time “we need FAQ this and that”
I give in, no more lurking.
It’s simple!
Broodbrothers can take Orders as this
Take Aim!
First Rank, Fire! Second Rank, Fire!
Bring it Down!
Forwards for the Emperor! (four arm Emperor)
Get Back in the Fight!
Move! Move! Move!
Fix Bayonets!
And for Lemen russ-
Full Throttle!
Gunners, Kill on Sight!
Strike and Shroud!
The Orders that Broodbrothers do not allow to use -
Pound Them to Dust! ( Cadian )
Burn Them Out! ( Catachan )
Fire on My Command! ( Valhallan )
Repel the Enemy! ( Vostroyan )
Get Around Behind Them! ( Tallarn (Tank Order))
Elimination Protocal Sanctioned! ( Militarum Tempestus (I know, but still, you can’t))
Form Firing Squad! ( Mordian )
Simple!
Same story as Stratagem, you can’t use Cadian, Catachan, Valhallan, Vostroyan, Tallarn, Militarum Tempestus and Mordian stratagems.
I know there are hint at Militarum Tempestus, Stratagem and order and stuff but Broodbrothers cannot use that because this order and Stratagem cannot change.
It's not that simple, I don't know if you missed the issue being discussed, or you simply aren't addressing it.
The rule says to replace <REGIMENT> with BROOD BROTHERS. Not, crucially, that BROOD BROTHERS is the Regiment. The implication is that they don't have a regiment, and if they don't have a regiment then Orders won't work.
We don't know for certain what the intention is, but hopefully the FAQ will clear it up. Personally I think it is intended to function as a Regiment still, in which case what you say will apply.
Stux wrote: It's not that simple, I don't know if you missed the issue being discussed, or you simply aren't addressing it.
The rule says to replace <REGIMENT> with BROOD BROTHERS. Not, crucially, that BROOD BROTHERS is the Regiment. The implication is that they don't have a regiment, and if they don't have a regiment then Orders won't work.
We don't know for certain what the intention is, but hopefully the FAQ will clear it up. Personally I think it is intended to function as a Regiment still, in which case what you say will apply.
If it is not regiment then GW don’t done their job right.
I am say it both is regiments until erratic stat it otherwise.
Stux wrote: It's not that simple, I don't know if you missed the issue being discussed, or you simply aren't addressing it.
The rule says to replace <REGIMENT> with BROOD BROTHERS. Not, crucially, that BROOD BROTHERS is the Regiment. The implication is that they don't have a regiment, and if they don't have a regiment then Orders won't work.
We don't know for certain what the intention is, but hopefully the FAQ will clear it up. Personally I think it is intended to function as a Regiment still, in which case what you say will apply.
If it is not regiment then GW don’t done their job right.
I am say it both is regiments until erratic stat it otherwise.
Whether you say it is irrelevant. They have used somewhat confusing wording. They have also restricted access to many other things. We can't be certain until we know more.
That said I do expect most people to treat it as a Regiment until we get confirmation, because it won't occur to most people otherwise.
Stux wrote: It's not that simple, I don't know if you missed the issue being discussed, or you simply aren't addressing it.
The rule says to replace <REGIMENT> with BROOD BROTHERS. Not, crucially, that BROOD BROTHERS is the Regiment. The implication is that they don't have a regiment, and if they don't have a regiment then Orders won't work.
We don't know for certain what the intention is, but hopefully the FAQ will clear it up. Personally I think it is intended to function as a Regiment still, in which case what you say will apply.
If it is not regiment then GW don’t done their job right.
I am say it both is regiments until erratic stat it otherwise.
Whether you say it is irrelevant. They have used somewhat confusing wording. They have also restricted access to many other things. We can't be certain until we know more.
That said I do expect most people to treat it as a Regiment until we get confirmation, because it won't occur to most people otherwise.
I think they should put “this Broodbrothers keyword treat as their <REGIMENT> keyword in all respects.”
And Broodbrothers rule is like regiments Doctrines for all Astra Militarum detachments really....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/17 21:38:24
Regiment specific orders, and orders are related but not the same in meaning. GW took the time to spell out regiment specific doctrines, and regiment specific stratagems, then just orders.
If they intended it to be regiment specific orders, which are an actual thing, they could ha e spelled out regiment specific orders but they did not.
Currently rules as written it says orders, and current raw brood brothers cannot use orders. Given their different vox casters rules than AM it is likely also RAI.
There is also the large assumption being made that replacing regiment with brood brothers means brood brothers is a regiment and not some other keyword, which is akin to saying ynnari is the same as a craftworld or a Kabal. Voice of command targets regiments, the replacing of regiment with brood brothers does not mean brood brothers is a regiment.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/18 21:16:09
I can see that it could indeed be parsed as you cannot use regiment specific stratagems and you cannot use orders, period.
That's how I parsed it. Especially since they state 'regiment-specific Stratagems, Orders" instead of "regiment-specific Stratagems, regiment-specific Orders". If I wanted it to be unambiguous I would have stated it the second way. But I guess this is GW we're talking about here
Reminds me of the Gaze of Fate reroll a dice roll vs single dice roll grammar drama.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/21 05:54:39
Im going with the clearer interpretation that regiment has been removed from their data sheet and therefore cannot give or take orders.
People just want the the regiment to be brood brothers when the rules have not stated this at all. The rules dont indicate that Brood Brothers is a regiment like it does on page 84 of the AM codex. Brood Brothers itself is not a name of a regiment like the AM ones.
As for losing regimental specific orders, i think this is what is confusing people. You cannot lose something you could never have gained. Regimental specific orders could only be used by specific regiments so if you cannot become cadian, you cannot gain their specific order. This does not imply that you still have regular orders.
Imagine if the guard codex stated, if you become Cadia regiment, you lose access to Catachan orders. No you never had Catachan orders to begin with. With the way that the AM codex has been set up, you can only gain stuff, not lose.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/21 06:29:23
I'm of the opinion that BROOD BROTHERS can receive Orders.
BROOD BROTHERS replaces all instances of <Regiment> on a datasheet. One of these instances of <Regiment> is in the Voice Of Command ability. That would mean Officers no longer give Orders to <Regiment> but to BROOD BROTHERS instead.
For the issue of "any regiment-specific stratagems, Orders etc" I believe BCB made mention earlier of GW's take on what their lists mean from the Designer Commentary. The same issue comes up with Malakim Phoros and I've yet to see many argue that he buffs non-LAMENTERS Dreads and Bikers.
Pakman184 wrote:I'm of the opinion that BROOD BROTHERS can receive Orders.
BROOD BROTHERS replaces all instances of <Regiment> on a datasheet. One of these instances of <Regiment> is in the Voice Of Command ability. That would mean Officers no longer give Orders to <Regiment> but to BROOD BROTHERS instead.
For the issue of "any regiment-specific stratagems, Orders etc" I believe BCB made mention earlier of GW's take on what their lists mean from the Designer Commentary. The same issue comes up with Malakim Phoros and I've yet to see many argue that he buffs non-LAMENTERS Dreads and Bikers.
Exact. Imagine that we remove Regiment like anti-GSC said then all of AM buffs are useless! All HQ become just guardman with better save roll..
slave.entity wrote:All fair interpretations. Let's hope the FAQ sheds some light.
What would you do if this don’t come up? I am said we are allow to give order until GW said no.
Has GW addressed what happens when a Commissar is given the Master of Command warlord trait? He doesn't have a <Regiment>, so who can he issue Orders to?
"If a man dedicates his life to good deeds and the welfare of others, he will die unthanked and unremembered. If he exercises his genius bringing misery and death to billions, his name will echo through the millenia for a hundered lifetimes. Infamy is always more preferable to ignominy."
BaconCatBug wrote: I was under the impression you couldn't make a BROOD BROTHER your warlord, but I might be misremembering. Away from books right now.
Brood Brother, yes, but not if they're from an Astra Militarum detachment that's been allied in as Brood Brothers. Such detachments can't have your Warlord. Or, maybe I'm misremembering as well.
Galef wrote: If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
BaconCatBug wrote: I was under the impression you couldn't make a BROOD BROTHER your warlord, but I might be misremembering. Away from books right now.
You remember it correctly. Tyranid > Genestealers Cult > Astra Militarum.
If there are Genestealers Cult detachments then you can’t made HQ in Broodbrothers detachment as warlord, even if Genestealers Cult don’t have HQ.
Hive Fleet Kronos 3500pts
Craftworld {Insert eldar name} 3000 pts
1000pts and growing fast
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress
2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)