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.

Speaking of the Adepta Sororitas Betadex. The question is whether or not the Indomitable Belief warlord trait, when taken on a warlord that DOES NOT have the <ORDER> keyword apply to units that do have the <ORDER> keyword.

Indomitable Belief:

"The invulnerable save friendly <ORDER> units receive from the Shield of Faith ability is improved to 5+ whilst they are within 6" of the Warlord." CA 2018 page 98.

For determining what is a friendly <ORDER> unit we have the following:

"All members of the Adepta Sororitas belong to an order and have the <ORDER> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must nominate which order that unit is from. You then simply replace the <ORDER> keyword in every instance on that unit's datasheet with the name of your chosen order. You can use any of the orders that you have read about, or make up your own. For example, if your army included a Canoness from the Order of the Bloody Rose, her <ORDER> Faction keyword is changed to ORDER OF THE BLOODY ROSE, and her Lead the Righteous ability would say "Re-roll hits rolls of 1 for friendly ORDER OF THE BLOODY ROSE units whilst they are within 6" of this model." CA 2018 page 78.

Further, there are characters that have the Adepta Sororitas keyword that DO NOT have the <ORDER> keyword. These are characters drawn from the ranks of Adepta Sororitas orders that are not conventional Sisters of Battle, like the Hospitaller and Dialogus that do not have the <ORDER> keyword. This is on purpose, consistent with the fluff, and not an omission or misprint.

The contention is that while an Adepta Sororitas character without the <ORDER> keyword can be named your warlord. Giving them the Indomitable Belief warlord trait would be useless as the trait grants the 5+ Shielf of Faith save to "friendly" <ORDER> units and those characters not having the <ORDER> keyword themselves the warlord cannot have any friendly <ORDER> units to pass them too.

It is accepted that if you had two detachments comprised of units from two different <ORDER> that a warlord with the Indomitable Belief warlord trait from one of those orders would not have any benefit for units from the other order. Is it possible that simply by not having the <ORDER> keyword at all a Dialogus warlord with the Indomitable Belief warlord trait would be able to pass it to any <ORDER> units, or indeed units from multiple orders?

Thanks for your help!

That's actually a good question. The rules for <ORDER> state that you replace it on their datasheet, which doesn't include Warlord traits. If you do assume it works for Warlord Traits too, then you could replace <ORDER> with any keyword, even if the model with the trait doesn't have <ORDER>, and even if it did, you can replace the Warlord Trait <ORDER> with a different keyword.

I would say that they would affect at most one order, but could possibly affect none.

I may have misunderstood the question, as it is a fairly lengthy post, but:

Once an <ORDER> unit is added to your army, it no longer has <ORDER>, instead it is replaced by a specific keyword. Therefore they are no longer <ORDER> units, and will not benefit from the ability unless <ORDER> in the text of the ability has also been replaced with the same keyword.

EDIT: I agree with BCB above, you can replace it with a specific Order.

But you can't leave it null, and even if you could somehow then it wouldn't affect anyone.

 Stux wrote:
I may have misunderstood the question, as it is a fairly lengthy post, but:

Once an <ORDER> unit is added to your army, it no longer has <ORDER>, instead it is replaced by a specific keyword. Therefore they are no longer <ORDER> units, and will not benefit from the ability unless <ORDER> in the text of the ability has also been replaced with the same keyword.

EDIT: I agree with BCB above, you can replace it with a specific Order.

But you can't leave it null, and even if you could somehow then it wouldn't affect anyone.

The question is what happens if you give that trait to a unit that doesn't have <ORDER> on their datasheet.

It’s a beta Codex.

Rule how you feel best with your opponent and feed back this oversight to GW.

If a unit doesnt have order then the warlord trait does nothing

Just as the landstrider trait does nothing on an imperial knight freeblade

U02dah4 wrote:
If a unit doesnt have order then the warlord trait does nothing

Just as the landstrider trait does nothing on an imperial knight freeblade

If there a faq or commentary to this?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
If a unit doesnt have order then the warlord trait does nothing

Just as the landstrider trait does nothing on an imperial knight freeblade

If there a faq or commentary to this?

Well, a freeblade has no <HOUSEHOLD>. <HOUSEHOLD> is replaced with <FREEBLADE>. Landstrider says <HOUSEHOLD>, which is no longer present on the freeblade.

 p5freak wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
If a unit doesnt have order then the warlord trait does nothing

Just as the landstrider trait does nothing on an imperial knight freeblade

If there a faq or commentary to this?

Well, a freeblade has no <HOUSEHOLD>. <HOUSEHOLD> is replaced with <FREEBLADE>. Landstrider says <HOUSEHOLD>, which is no longer present on the freeblade.

Didnt answer my question, b.c if there was a faq from a different army, then this would solve the question much faster than going through the ring a rosy of "Yes b.c xyz" "No b.c xyz".

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
If a unit doesnt have order then the warlord trait does nothing

Just as the landstrider trait does nothing on an imperial knight freeblade

If there a faq or commentary to this?

Well, a freeblade has no <HOUSEHOLD>. <HOUSEHOLD> is replaced with <FREEBLADE>. Landstrider says <HOUSEHOLD>, which is no longer present on the freeblade.

Didnt answer my question, b.c if there was a faq from a different army, then this would solve the question much faster than going through the ring a rosy of "Yes b.c xyz" "No b.c xyz".

Ok, i change my answer to no. Ignore what i wrote. Forget you ever read it.

How can you replace a keyword that doesn't exist?

Might be meant to work like Master of Command in an AM army:

Page 140 – Master of Command (From AM FAQ)
Add the following sentence:
‘If your Warlord is a Commissar, it can issue an order
to any <Regiment> Infantry unit (irrespective of what
regiment that unit is from – e.g. Militarum Tempestus,
Cadian, etc.)’

where a warlord with the trait that does not have <ORDER> can affect any unit with the <ORDER> tag no matter what the <ORDER> is. Seems to set precedent, though of course it's not the same rule exactly.

Master of Command is a specific rule allowing Warlord Commissars to do so. This is about units that do not have an <ORDER> keyword being able to use an <ORDER> warlord trait to affect friendly <ORDER> units as the warlord trait requires.

I don't think you could replace a keyword on your warlord they don't even have. So there would never be any friendly units with that keyword to begin with.

 Kcalehc wrote:
Might be meant to work like Master of Command in an AM army:

Page 140 – Master of Command (From AM FAQ)
Add the following sentence:
‘If your Warlord is a Commissar, it can issue an order
to any <Regiment> Infantry unit (irrespective of what
regiment that unit is from – e.g. Militarum Tempestus,
Cadian, etc.)’

where a warlord with the trait that does not have <ORDER> can affect any unit with the <ORDER> tag no matter what the <ORDER> is. Seems to set precedent, though of course it's not the same rule exactly.

based on this, I would say you can't, because the AM version gives you premission

Yes this rule specifically gives permission to effect regiment units even though its not. This is an exemption to the normal rules and therefore evidences why it wouldnt effect order units

 deviantduck wrote:
How can you replace a keyword that doesn't exist?

By wishing really hard the rules say what you wanted them to say, and not what they actually say?

terry wrote:

 Kcalehc wrote:
Might be meant to work like Master of Command in an AM army:

Page 140 – Master of Command (From AM FAQ)
Add the following sentence:
‘If your Warlord is a Commissar, it can issue an order
to any <Regiment> Infantry unit (irrespective of what
regiment that unit is from – e.g. Militarum Tempestus,
Cadian, etc.)’

where a warlord with the trait that does not have <ORDER> can affect any unit with the <ORDER> tag no matter what the <ORDER> is. Seems to set precedent, though of course it's not the same rule exactly.

based on this, I would say you can't, because the AM version gives you premission

That something "doesnt say you can't" isnt an argument anymore than this is.

Reading it simply is all you need to do. Trying to apply things from other codex's is sort of pointless. The writers of one don't anticipate the others and so on.

Overcomplicating it is what this has turned into.

 Jancoran wrote:

terry wrote:

 Kcalehc wrote:
Might be meant to work like Master of Command in an AM army:

Page 140 – Master of Command (From AM FAQ)
Add the following sentence:
‘If your Warlord is a Commissar, it can issue an order
to any <Regiment> Infantry unit (irrespective of what
regiment that unit is from – e.g. Militarum Tempestus,
Cadian, etc.)’

where a warlord with the trait that does not have <ORDER> can affect any unit with the <ORDER> tag no matter what the <ORDER> is. Seems to set precedent, though of course it's not the same rule exactly.

based on this, I would say you can't, because the AM version gives you premission

That something "doesnt say you can't" isnt an argument anymore than this is.

Reading it simply is all you need to do. Trying to apply things from other codex's is sort of pointless. The writers of one don't anticipate the others and so on.

Overcomplicating it is what this has turned into.

I think Terry's point is that since the other codex had to give explicit permission for it to work, and there's no permission given here, it's not going to work here.

nekooni wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

terry wrote:

 Kcalehc wrote:
Might be meant to work like Master of Command in an AM army:

Page 140 – Master of Command (From AM FAQ)
Add the following sentence:
‘If your Warlord is a Commissar, it can issue an order
to any <Regiment> Infantry unit (irrespective of what
regiment that unit is from – e.g. Militarum Tempestus,
Cadian, etc.)’

where a warlord with the trait that does not have <ORDER> can affect any unit with the <ORDER> tag no matter what the <ORDER> is. Seems to set precedent, though of course it's not the same rule exactly.

based on this, I would say you can't, because the AM version gives you premission

That something "doesnt say you can't" isnt an argument anymore than this is.

Reading it simply is all you need to do. Trying to apply things from other codex's is sort of pointless. The writers of one don't anticipate the others and so on.

Overcomplicating it is what this has turned into.

I think Terry's point is that since the other codex had to give explicit permission for it to work, and there's no permission given here, it's not going to work here.

Theres literally no connection between the two.

The warlord trait tells you that it passes to friendly <ORDER> units. The army rules tell you how to achieve that. You must have the <ORDER> keyword first, and only units of the same <ORDER> are considered friendly to the character.

A warlord with the Sacred Rose order therefore would not pass the warlord trait to units of the Bloody Rose. Likewise, a warlord who does not have the <ORDER> keyword at all would never have any friendly <ORDER> units.

 Jancoran wrote:


Theres literally no connection between the two.

please show us the part of the rules that lets you replace <order> with <whatever your order is> that does not have the prerequisite that the model have the <order> keyword

Keeping in mind that under your own self instated rule, you cannot use another codex as precedent

<order> is not a magic wildcard meaning any order you want, its just a keyword