40K: The Yarrick Conundrum

The Hero of Hive Hades has a very peculiar rules issue with his “default” Warlord Trait.

Now that we’ve covered the Warlord Traits of the Astra Militarum, Stable Abe pointed out something to me that was pretty silly. It involves the most iconic Commissar of the Imperium: Commissar Yarrick.

The issue starts with Name Characters and Warlord Traits:

If Commissar Yarrick is your Warlord, he must have the Master of Command Warlord Trait.

So what is Master of Command?

Sweet right? Commissar Yarrick gets “Voice of Command” so that means he can issue orders, right? Not exactly…

Now, that is technically the Voice of Command rule from the Index, not the Codex – but they are identical. Notice anything funny?

The Order may only be issued to Infantry units within 6″ of this unit that have the same Regiment keyword as this unit.

“OKAY – what’s the big deal?” The problem is Yarrick doesn’t have a Regiment keyword.

Officio Prefectus is a keyword denoting that this unit is part of the Advisors and Auxilla – which is to say that this unit can be included in an Astra Militarum detachment without preventing the other units from gaining a Regimental Doctrine. (Normally, all units in that a detachment must be of the same Regiment to gain access to the Regimental Doctrine.)

If Officio Prefectus is a Regiment (I don’t think it is), then the only models that fall under that category are other Commissars. Which, hey, I guess is cool…

On one hand, this seems like a pretty silly oversight. Commissar Yarrick would be a better Warlord option if he had any of the other 5 “generic” traits. Master of Command is literally the ONLY trait that grants him an ability that doesn’t add anything to the tabletop. On the other hand, there is a VERY simple work around for all you Astra Militarum Commanders out there – Don’t take Yarrick as your Warlord. I’m hoping you can scrounge up 30 points in your list to add a Company Commander who can be your Warlord instead.

Oversight or not, it’s a shame that the Hero of Hive Hades will be relegated back to the support role of a Commissar. He does bring some pretty great buffs to the board and he’s tough to kill. I’m not saying don’t take him in your army – I’m saying one of your other HQs should probably get the Warlord Title for the game.

 

Alas Poor Yarrick…

  • Dan

    Or we can use common sense to understand that clearly the intention is to let him issue orders so maybe we can just let him issue orders instead of getting caught up on what is obviously an unintended oversight?

    • Agent of Change

      The easiest solution is to simply say that Yarrick is teh same as the detachment he is purchased in… like just about everything else in the AM codex. Or even easier say he can issue orders to ANY as befits teh nature of a character who is one of the most well known personalities in the AM.

      Unlike many of the silly rules debates that crop up over wording, this is a legit oversight where critical information is missing entirely… but ultimately is would be truly stupid to ignore the intent of a character clearly intended in both rules and lore to give orders to guardsmen and say he can’t give orders to almost anyone.

    • So he can issue orders to anyone? That’s pretty generous. If he can order Scions, that’s a pretty big deal. You could also treat him as Steel Legion only. That’s pretty limiting and not fluffy, since Commissars aren’t actually part of a Regiment. Also, if he was Steel Legion, he’d would’ve had the Steel Legion warlord trait. You could say he can order other regiments, but not Scions, but at that point you are just making things up. There are many things in 40k rules that aren’t “common sense.”
      I’d like to hear what GW actually intended, common sense or not.

      • Agent of Change

        To be fair issuing order to anyone makes far more sense than being unable to issue orders to anyone. Barring a quick FAQ from GW I’d error on the side of “Clearly he should be able to issue orders” vs. not being able to do so.

        I am inclined to say that Making him steel legion would make a ton of sense though in the official ruling.

        • Since he only gets one order, as I understand it, I would go with he could order anyone. I think a Tempestus Prime is scarier anyway if someone wants to order Scions around.

    • gordonshumway

      Every time someone makes a comment like this I roll my eyes so hard it hurts. Yes, we get it, your common sense is EXACTLY the same as every other person you’ve ever met, no two people ever disagree and every single person interprets every rule the exact same way. Even a small amount of participation in this hobby should tell you that none of that is remotely true.

      And let’s be clear, it’s not about this one instance, necessarily, though in a tournament/rules-as-written setting this could become an issue if brought before a TO for a ruling. It is about a history and tendency from GW to write very sloppy rules and, until the very recent past, completely wash their hands of any consequences.

      I think it is clear to anyone that while the Keyword system was a notable improvement in rules writing, GW has consistently made some pretty big errors in its regard, and not really thought out or tested all the possible interactions and their consequences. Why would you begrudge the communities efforts to call attention to problems as they arise? Especially since now more than ever GW actually seems open to addressing them.

      Rules are rules, and without them you do not have a game. If the rules can be corrected and improved with community input I am all for it, especially in a product I pay for.

      • Dan

        so are you saying you don’t interpret him specifically being given the warlord trait that lets him give orders as an indicator that he’s supposed to be able to give orders?

        I’m not saying it shouldn’t be FAQ’d but c’mon, if a character is given a rule “Hey Dawg He Can Shoot His Gun Because We Gave Him A Gun To Shoot And Also This Special Rule That States That He Can With The Clear Intention Of Him Shooting His Gun” then someone comes back with “well technically he doesn’t have the keyword that interacts with the detachment that doesn’t stop him from shooting because of the specific wording of this one rule” you’d just go “welp, the rules lawyers have spoken. Until there’s a FAQ I guess he cannot do this thing”

        Did you also not allow people to escape the hatch-less transport when that was a thing? There are rules about using common sense and having fun aren’t there?

        • gordonshumway

          I mean again, it’s not important how I interpret it, or how you and I talk it out and interpret it in our friendly game, it’s just about having rules that work the same way all the time. Even rules that aren’t “broken” get interpreted differently by different people, so fixing up small ones that are as easy as adding a keyword seems like a no-brainer.

          I mean in this comment section alone we have people suggesting several different fixes, and one guy just joked (I think) that he should only be able to give orders to other units without regiments (such as Ratlings, etc).

          While a quick convo or roll-off is a good way to solve disagreements between two players in any given game, it shouldn’t eliminate the need to clean up bad/broken/unfinished/untested/ rules at all.

          • Dan

            I agree coming to agreements on unclear rules doesn’t mean rules shouldn’t be clarified in an official capacity. Again at no point did I say this shouldn’t be addressed in a FAQ. There are clearly questions about *just how* orders would be handled. Even if there weren’t it’s good policy.

            I did say, however, that it should be obvious he can give orders. This is a useful statement because the point of this article isn’t “gee what a funny oversight” but “he cannot give orders well that sucks for him better not make him your warlord” which, frankly, is stupid.

          • Muninwing

            he can give orders.

            but he cannot give them to anybody, because GW forgot to include a vital part of their new mechanic when they wrote him.

            that vital part is… well, vital. there are a few different ways that this can be used, and we do not know how, until they realize their mistake and clarify it.

            i bet that the intent was for him to give orders to other Steel Legion units… but because there’s this lack of clarity, there’s a possibility that they wanted him to be able to order ANYONE — since he was, in fact, a major commander during the Armageddon battles.

            but again, we do not know.

            the Keyword system is supposed to make things simpler, to cut down on space that rules take up. in reality, it’s a gimmick, and we see why here.

          • gordonshumway

            Exactly! Someone gets it.

          • Tyr

            Actually, being able to order anyone would be pretty fluffy. He isnt part of any one regiment, hes a widely celebrated war hero, and even SM listen to his advice. As such, it would make sense for him to be able to order any friendly regiment. Imo.

          • Muninwing

            agreed — it would be fluffy. however, it would not be for others who (if it is not somehow clarified that only he gets that ability) would be able to take advantage of the same power.

          • Tyr

            True. In any case, I think the most likely option is going to be that Yarrick (or any other commissar with the WL trait) gets to decide what his regiment keyword is at the beginning of the battle. Still useful, but probably not OP.

          • Muninwing

            i’m thinking that they might add a rule to yarrick that gives him the ability to command anyone… despite how that will affect power level.

            then again, what would make the most sense would be just giving him the de facto keyword Armageddon, and going with it.

            we’ll see.

          • Tyr

            Maybe, though that still wouldnt fix normal lord commissars with the WL trait…

          • Muninwing

            no, and rightly so. they are not leaders — they are advisors.

            then again, if you wanted to play Cain on the table, he’d need to be able to give orders.

            maybe the rule gets a slight change, specifying giving the model one regiment keyword if it does not already have one?

          • Tyr

            True, but the warlord trait is specifically worded to give the ability to character that dont have it. The idea being that especially influential commissars could be represented with this trait. Think Gaunt, Cain, Yarrick. If youre choosing the commissar as your WL, hes obviously the most important commander on the field.

            But yeah, giving a regiment keyword should probably fix it. 🙂

          • gordonshumway

            See my comment above, what would you do in a game where a player had two AM detachments of different Regiments? Which units would you say Yarrick is allowed to give orders to? Can he give orders to any Regiment, or do you have to pick one at the start of the game. Again, just because your brain works one way doesn’t mean other people’s perspectives/legitimate questions aren’t also valid.

          • James Regan

            the issue here being that it is almost impossible to misinterpret the intent of the rule unless you are specifically rules lawyering in order to prevent your oponent from using Yarric as intended. The only people who will lose out when the FAQ arrives stating Yarric’s rule saying he can issue orders means he can issue orders is WAAC players who’ve either been playing against Yarric, or aren’t fielding him alongside the steel legion he has fought with the entirety of the time the character profile refers to (given he lost his arm on Armageddon, previous regiments aren’t covered here, even if he was born naturally talented rather than acquiring skills through practice and training like other humans, and men don’t live that long, especially in 40k)- oh and possibly the odd armageddon ork hunters army that might mean the ruling ends up as ‘any regiment’

          • gordonshumway

            Again, I disagree that it is “impossible to misinterpret.” In saying that you are presuming quite a lot about how your opponent’s brain works.

            For instance it has been brought up in this thread: should he be assumed to have a or instead should he be able to give orders to any on the field? Is it truly unambiguously 100% clear to you? It sure isn’t to me. If I were to go up against a player who brought two detachments of AM of differing Regiments to get some of those tasty new rules from the shiny new rulebook, who would Yarrick be able to give orders to? Would he have to pick a Regiment before the battle and stick to it? Or swap off depending on which unit benefits the most from the orders in a given moment?

            Again, none of this is game-breaking per se, but it also isn’t as cut and dry as you are making it out to be. Hence why it is important to raise the issue and have it clarified. It’s not all whiners and WAAC players, some of us just like our rules to be as unambiguous as possible and working the way GW intended them to work.

          • Muninwing

            nope. it is 100% impossible to tell which of three possible interpretations was intended without more information.

            – can he command Steel Legion troops?
            – can he command any and all IG troops?
            – can any commissar (or other non-regiment HQ) command any and all IG troops?

            don’t try to look at the fluff to justify it — GW does not always accurately represent their fluff on the table. just look at the rules.

            everyone is agreeing that the intent is that he can issue orders. how, to whom, etc. is the issue. but those are some big issues, and have effects upon other units. so no comments about “common sense” are relevant here. this is neither clear enough to suss out the intent, nor is it common enough to be easily interpreted.

            and i’m about as non-WAAC as they come. i don’t play Steel Legion. i don’t plan on buying a Yarrick to throw in my Vostroyan Tank Company. I would rather focus on fun games for all or narrative games than competitive, or the overcompetitive bs that brings out the rules lawyers.

            but if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work, no matter how blind an eye we want to turn to it, no matter what assumptions we are prone to making.

          • James Regan

            fortunately, it is possible to tell Yarrick can command steel legion troops- in any of the possible intentions you pointed out, Yarrick can command steel legion troops- either because he can command steel legion, or because he can command all guard (and steel legion are guard) or because commissars can command all guard (and he is a commisar and steel legion are guard)- in cases where it is not known, dice for it (as that’s the actual rule, as per the rule books section on disputed rules), but for Yarrick in a steel legion detachment I can’t see the counter argument (apart from the aforementioned WAAC players, but the less said about them, the better)

        • mgdavey

          I interpret this that they intended him to be able to give orders to somebody, but they didn’t specify who. That’s a problem. Where you go from there isn’t clear, but the RAW is not currently playable. If you say that he belongs to any regiment, that’s one fix. If you say he belongs to a particular regiment, that’s another. But neither fix counts as “common sense”.

          • Dan

            what is common sense is that he is intended to give orders so you should play him that way. That statement is in direct opposition to the article which ends, and I quote:

            “Oversight or not, it’s a shame that the Hero of Hive Hades will be relegated back to the support role of a Commissar.”

            I never provided a fix, nor advocated for one being more sensical than the other. I said Yarrick giving orders is common sense. full stop. Because this article suggests otherwise; that players just forget about the rule blatantly stating he can give orders

          • mgdavey

            You didn’t repsond to my post or the article’s original point. Every one agrees Yarrick is able to give orders. But to whom? RAW is that it’s nobody. How do you fix that without just making up an arbitrary rule? “Common sense” is that Yarrick’s rule is broken.

          • James Regan

            wait, did they remove the section on unclear rules from the rules in this edition? because, as i remember, the actual rule is ‘dice off for it until its fixed’. just keep dicing off, every time he uses the ability. I mean it now only works on a 4+ effectively, but it also works on any until they clarify which it is supposed to work on (we’re not arguing that it’s not supposed to, because that’s just being silly)

          • Charon

            The rule in itself is not unclear. Dicing this off is like saying “The chaos lord in my deathguard book has less T then my plaque marines and no disgustingly resilient. As this can only be an error from GW, I roll a dice to see if I can add on special rules from which I think he should have”

          • James Regan

            the rule is unclear, as you have read it differently to me. that indicates a lack of clarity, and puts it under ‘disputed rules’ which i believe is still a dice off- it’s obvious yarrick can give orders, just not to whom, but if you disagree on that, it’s a dice off, because that’s why we have those

          • Agent of Change

            OK I can give it a shot though.

            Yarrik is able to give orders that much is clear.

            There are three likely scenarios for designer intent:

            1. Yarrick should have the keyword anyone else who is capable of giving orders. The lack of that keyword is an oversight.
            2. Yarrick Is able to give orders to anyone because no keyword being provided was intentional and the explanation of the exception is missing as an oversight.
            3. Yarrick is able to order Steel Legion and that keyword was simply left off as a key word as an oversight.

            In scenario 1 it is the most general and most consistent with comparative characters and seems in line with with how Yarrick used to be used anyway.

            Scenario 2 makes the fewest assumptions, but is also the least restrictive and arguably the most powerful interpretation. It also finds itself in line with the way Yarrick has seen teh table in the past if you ignore the pattern for how keywords have generally shifted how characters work.

            Scenario 3 Makes the largest most restrictive assumption but is backed up by the fluff. It however does contradict previous uses of Yarrick by limiting what lists he can be fielded with from previous edition so that seems unlikely.

            WE agree Yarrick CAN give orders, which means common sense indicates he should be able to give them to someone. Saying he can’t give orders to anyone because of a slavish blind reading of RAW ignoring context is a purely nonsensical exercise, which means really it comes down to picking which of the above 3 scenarios you think fits best.

            In my opinion 1. makes the most sense in keeping with previous rules, uses, context, and effective power of the ability.

          • LankTank

            Man you like Barack Obama with that smooth tongue =) Agent of Change indeed

          • LankTank

            I would allow him to have the Keyword. If you were in a tournament would you allow your opponent the same?
            I think we should all encourage this as players, the same fix to an obvious mistake, allow him the rule. It will be sorted eventually but players in the mean time should not be punished for a oversight

          • Dan

            and you didn’t address mine. I said “it is clear Yarrick is supposed to be able to give orders. you should play him that way”

            Which is actually addressing the article’s original point. The article’s final paragraph, it’s summary stating the point in a nice concise package, is as follows.

            “Oversight or not, it’s a shame that the Hero of Hive Hades will be relegated back to the support role of a Commissar. He does bring some pretty great buffs to the board and he’s tough to kill. I’m not saying don’t take him in your army – I’m saying one of your other HQs should probably get the Warlord Title for the game.”

            The articles point is that Yarrick cannot gives orders full stop. It does not suggest an alternative or that the intention is anything other than “hey look Yarrick has a Warlord trait that does nothing ROFLMAO guess you should pick a different warlord LOL”

            I addressed that point by saying it is common sense that he is intended to be able to give orders. It’s lawyering and pedantic to argue he shouldn’t. Literally everyone is agreeing with this, yourself included. I did not respond to your post because your post was not responding to mine *or* the original article’s point.

            I don’t need to give a solution, I was critiquing the article as I was one of the first comment. It turns out that was a good idea because a number of people seem to misunderstand what the article is saying.

          • mgdavey

            You: Yarrick should be able to issue orders.
            World: We agree, but the rules make it impossible.
            You: Stop rules-lawyering. He can issue orders.
            World: To whom?
            You: I don’t know and I don’t care. Just make him issue orders.
            World: But how? The rules don’t allow it.
            You: Stop rules-lawyering, he can issue orders.

        • Aaron

          I only play casual games with friends these days, I dont miss rules lawyering bs

    • AEZ

      Bending the rules isn’t necessary. ..
      Yarrick is 40k Chuck Norris. . He doesnt have to bend the rules, the rules bend for him.

    • BaconCatBug

      I say it’s common sense for my Space Marines to have 6000 wounds and move 40″. No less valid than your “common sense”

      • Dan

        Actually that’s plenty less valid.

        Model without ability to give orders, if taken as warlord, gets ability that states “if this model cannot give orders normally it now has the ability to give orders.”

        Here, I’ll throw you a definition of common sense:

        “Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things that are shared by (“common to”) nearly all people and can reasonably be expected of nearly all people without need for debate.”

        Nearly all people would see “this model gets a rule that specifically says it can do x” as meaning the model is intended to do be able to do x. The specifics of how that is managed is not something I have ever touched on, nor is it the point of this article.

        On the other hand your pedantic example is saying “hey its common sense this model has stats of value y.” whereas the model is stated as having stats of value x. That’s not anywhere close to common sense, that is an out-and-out lie.

  • EnTyme

    Have you pointed this out on the FB page? Looks like a good candidate for an Errata. Maybe change the wording of Yarrick’s rules to state that he can use the ability on infantry of any regiment. Simple fix, really.

  • Davis Centis

    Sounds like there needs to be an addendum to make him Armageddon Steel Legion.

    • Jeremy Larson

      Yeah, Yarrick really needs to be regiment-specific. I’m tired of seeing him everywhere.

      • generalchaos34

        everyone else is regiment specific, the Old Man of Armageddon needs to be at home

        • Muninwing

          hear hear.

          i’m really sick of every named character being spammed in every army. i’m also sick of homebrew or variant chapters getting screwed.

          i wish we saw the “opponent’s permission only” rule for SCs going back in place.

          • Spacefrisian

            Just force peeps to play the same regiment or whatever when they take a SC for the entire army, and build in some downsides, like Catachans dealing d3 mortal wound to any Commisar in there army and they can never be the warlord.

      • Spacefrisian

        We see Cawl everywhere as well. Some just mix and match Forgeworlds and dont care about bonuses being lost.

        • Muninwing

          yes, “Deus Ex Mechanicum” is, fluffwise, one of the worst aspects of the “new 40k”

          so i’m not surprised that in-game he’s just as obnoxious.

  • SilentPony

    Well that’s the ballgame. 8th was fun, but there’s no coming back from this minor oversight. The tournaments are ruined, casual play is over, soon the world will be spammed with Yarrick’s attached to Marine Chapters and regiments of Warlord Titans.

    Scrap the whole thing, we’re all going back to Magic!

    • Navaren

      Usually I kinda find the hyper”BOLS”e in the comment sections kinda frustrating but this is Hysterical!

    • gordonshumway

      Wait wait wait wait wait, you’re telling me we haven’t been playing Magic all these years?

      • Spacefrisian

        I will now activate my trapcard…

        • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

          Don’t know what’s funnier: that this appears to be an attempt to troll M:tG players, or that Trap is an actual subtype of Spells in Magic that no one who started playing after Zendikar Block rotated out would likely recognize.

          • Muninwing

            i stopped playing M;tG in the mid 90s, and i have no idea what a trapcard is…

            then again, i see the mindset of a good M:tG player, ported over to 40k, being the source of the increased meta issues and WAAC problems.

            if most of your strategy is explored before you put your stuff on the table (deck or list building), then playing doesn’t really explore your skill as much as getting the combo options to actually show up does.

            i think that listbuilding is an important part of the game, but it’s not THE most important, or shouldn’t be able to be, and the looking-for-exploit mentality really isn’t a fun experience for whoever you use said exploit on. and M:tG games being (comparatively) much shorter means that if someone wants to use you to show off their cleverness, you only waste minutes, not hours.

          • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

            They’re a subset of Instants that get cheaper when your opponent does something in line with the fluff of the card.

            Like I’ve said before, the reason why there are so many lists that supposedly win at the list-building phase is because tournament players focus on lists with a lots of strategic strength rather than learning to play tactically, because strategy is proactive, and easy to build toward, while tactics are reactive, and change game by game. This is also why top tier lists tend to be from the same factions, if not exactly identical.

          • Muninwing

            it’s also why any game of this size needs constant monitoring and FAQing anything that was not intended…

            as well as needing a better points-algorithm.

            only with those two things on the competitive end will the deciding factor of the game be the actual playing of the game.

    • Muninwing

      reductio ad absurdem via hyperbole…

    • ZeeLobby

      LOL

    • Grimbuddha

      Your use of hyperbolic reaction is ironic, considering you had a very public meltdown on these forums over several minor issues like this when 8th was being previewed, such as your emphatic belief that special characters wouldn’t be able to enter vehicles.

      • Marcet

        This I got to hear, on what basis did he believe that?

        • SilentPony

          On the basis the rules were being leaked days at a time, and people are retroactively applying rules shown AFTER the new HQ rules were shown.
          They like to bring it up any time I’m being too snarky as if it hurts me.

          Kinda’ like if I said the old Force Org charts were all gone, you are shocked, then I come back days later like ‘You fool you didn’t even know about the NEW Org Charts!’

          • Marcet

            I mean no disrespect, however, at no time has any leaked rule from back then struck me as disallowing special characters into transports.

            You’ll have to be more specific how you reached that conclusion at the time.

          • SilentPony

            If I remember correctly it was New Rule: HQs can no longer be attached to squads, and New Rule: HQs must be deployed separately.
            And my worry was how does this effect transports. Do I have to pick between an HQ, or a command squad in a Razorback.

            Then a few days later the rules on multiple units allowed in transports, HQ auras, etc…came out.

            To be fair I didn’t know the rules. But also to be fair they hadn’t told us the rules.
            My experience of 7th was that unless stated in the transport unit itself otherwise, 1 unit in a transport at a time. And HQs were then made a separate unit not allowed to join others.

          • Marcet

            Ah, I see how that could have been interpreted that way. I guess I just never thought in that direction. As I recall I thought ‘surely HQ’s can go with a squad in a transport? otherwise I would have to buy a special transport for a HQ….then again this is GW…’

          • SilentPony

            See looking back is kinda’ silly, but then again it IS Games Workshop. Its not entirely crazy to think they’d change the rules to make you buy new models.

          • Marcet

            Yeah, it’s not entirely crazy. Though currently I’m willing to look more positively at GW, rather than thinking they are money milking instantly.

          • Muninwing

            half of the “they just did this to get you to spend more” arguments are people griping about needing to change how they think about the game for a new edition, not legitimate complaints.

            i don’t always cut them slack, but i also understand that they are a corporation and only continue to exist if they make sales.

          • SilentPony

            I don’t get why a land raider, stormraven or thunderhawk can’t transport Primaris. Only the Repulsor can, and that seems like a pretty big cash grab.

          • Muninwing

            A: something i don’t like
            B: …
            C: it’s a cash grab!

            you’re missing a step.

            sorry, but if you don’t like it, don’t buy Primaris. end.

            there are units that cannot fit into transports, units that tend not to use them, and units that operate differently on the battlefield, and that’s not a “cash grab” — so why is this one quibbling point so maligned?

            i’d say the volume of guns on a repressor, and the new rules allowing it to shoot everything (unlike nearly every edition before) would be more indicative of a “cash grab.” or if they released a new IG set that could be customized to make a ton of new regiments, but was more expensive due to being more filled with extra bitz, that might be.

            but “i don’t like the rules” is a pretty petty excuse for such an accusation.

          • SilentPony

            I never said anything about the rules, not really. I just expressed surprise that with an entire new flagship line, only 1 vehicle can be used as a transport and it cost $80

          • Muninwing

            the Death Guard got more new stuff than Primaris, and it’s better, and they already had existing fluff and models.

            so being butthort over the supposed “flagship line” that consists of… 5 kits? one is the vehicle we are referencing? seems a bit of a reach.

            again, if you need to skip over or handwave away the logic on this one, maybe you might need to rethink your argument.

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    Seems easy enough to fix. Either give Yarrick a (should be steel legion) or make it so he can issues orders to whichever the detachment belongs to.

    • Frostasche

      The first solution has also its problems. He would also gain all buffs for that regiment. As he has the keyword infantry, he could also be ordered around for example. I am not sure this is what GW intended. So i suppose it will be something like your second suggestion.

      By the way i also think Voice of Command should work only on non character infantry. As it is now a character with voice of command can give another officer or even himself an order. Feels a little weird.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        He could order himself… That’s just clunky. Lol

    • Spacefrisian

      Give him another warlord trait, a unique one.

      Maybe a return of CP on a 6+ and when Orks use a strategem he can do it as well but on a 5+.

      • Parthis

        There seems to be a trend of having high value chracters fixed to some of the lower value traits. Take Draigo, for example. A unique Warlord trait isn’t a good idea generally in design. Give him unique rules, sure, but don’t lock the warlord into being an auto-take if he’s the only one who can do it. The current system works.

    • Tyr

      Or the slightly more powerful, but still valid (fluffwise) option would be to allow him to order any infantry unit with the keyword. I mean, hes outside the chain of command anyway, the orders thing is meant to show that everyone respects him and follows his advice. Fluffwise, even SM chaptermasters respect him (though ordering SM would be pushing it…).

      As such, Id just give him a rule that allows him to order units with the regiment keyword, no matter what that keyword might be. Fluffy, and makes him useful for any army. 🙂

  • Neil Burns

    So, can he issue orders to Ratlings, Ogryns, Priests, and other dudes who don’t technically have a regiment?

    • mgdavey

      RAW, it doesn’t seem so.

    • Heinz Fiction

      Nah. Two units with no keyword is not the same as two units with the same keyword. If it was the same, all non Space Marines would share the same chapter keyword…

  • I_am_Alpharius

    Its one unfortunate oversight* for sure. You would want to think that Yarrick would at minimum be able to order Steel-Legion about; and logically, give his background status, order around all the regiments. If it is an oversight I would hazzard GW would just give him an additional ability that allow him to use ‘Voice of Command’ when he is the Warlord – they could even tack it on to the Hero of Hades Hive ability. I say this rather than adding the keyword to his datasheet, as this would open a can of worms with the Doctrine. Of course there is always the possibility that he can’t….unlikely…but possible.

    *Do we need to throw a party or something? I mean, this has got to be the first genuine rules ‘conundrum’ presented on BoLS? Right?

    • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

      Easy fix: “as long as Yarrick is part of a Battleforged Detachment, he may issue orders to any valid unit from that Detachment that has a Keyword. He may not use specific orders.” This way, you can take him where you need him, and he isn’t any better or worse than an unnamed Officer.

      • Muninwing

        … which prevents abuse. yes.

        i’d even be ok with Yarrick being allowed to order *just* Steel Legion around, as if he was one of them, but not actually get the keyword. it would make sense.

  • Jack

    Lets skip the astra milibordom already and start talking about the next codex release…. infact how bout we skip to Dark Angels, Orks and throw in Angron also. All these other codices are boring and lame *grabs popcorn*

  • Frank O’Donnell

    I hope you where as quick to send an FAQ to GW as you where posting this, so as you know help them fix the mistake.

    • LankTank

      Also can’t wait when we get a quick FAQ fixing this to read all the tossers complaining about how GW now does quick FAQ’s so they are sloppy.

      • Muninwing

        well, that is their new trend. but if you don’t know their track record and why people expect FAQs to be laughable and slow, count yourself lucky.

        i like reminding people about 5th edition’s mess.

        so… SM stormshields got a reduction in points and an increase in effectiveness in their 5th ed codex. but only in the core SM codex, and the BA, DA, and SW had the same gear as before. the question came out: should they get the same stuff at the same price?

        the FAQ was expected to fix this. it would be an easy “yes, and here’s the new value” patch, or a “no, play RAW, sorry” stasis. easy, fast, and without argument.
        if they wanted, they could give a quick explanation:
        –“we are not accustomed to making such changes outside of codexes, you’ll have to wait, we don’t want to set precedent (despite setting said precedent with a dramatic DElf point-change in WHF just a few years earlier)
        or
        — “the gear has fundamentally changed, so all versions of the gear will follow the new rules”

        instead?

        a full page of “well, you’re supposed to have fun, and technically, it’s RAW is this, but you should be open to someone wanting to play like that… but it’s just a game…” with the final technicality of “we’re not changing the rule”

        they made sure to have these FAQs out for the ‘Ard Boyz tournament. meaning that not only did they defeat the entire point of a FAQ, and it was written with the exact opposite approach of an effective FAQ, but they also did so right before a national tournament — where game balance is supposed to matter.

        it was also outsourced. i’ve not trusted anything with “yakbreath” on it since. especially when he tried to promote his own game.

        • LankTank

          Yeah only been playing Warhammer 40k for 19 yrs so guess I know nothing about their track record. The point as you stated is that the new “trend” is to release the faq’s in good time as we have seen with ALL codex’ so far in 8th. So I will be basing my expectations of FAQ’s and GW new business model on the last year rather than what they were doing 9 years ago during 5th ed.
          “i like reminding people about 5th edition’s mess”. Really? 9 years ago and you’re still sore? They really must have broken your heart

          • Muninwing

            long downward trends do not get magically erased due to minimal recent improvements, sorry. i think many longtime gamers feel the same as i do, waiting for the other shoe to drop.

            we’ve already seen GW claim “four pages of rules” and have to eat crow as those rules were not clear enough to be functional. we’re already seeing codex creep and power imbalances.

            we’ve already seen GW change business model (5th ed) and not pull back when it ended up in the weeds. WD supposedly coming back bigger and better, get replaced when it was not, get replaced again when that failed.

            right now, their business model has been in flux for the past year. if you want to base on that, you’ve got to make a ton of assumptions on what that actually is, and whether what is happening as a transition is going to be the actual pattern.

            i mention the 5th ed occasion, partly because that was a huge turning point — the full emergence of the “ward era,” the foundations of the problems that led to players abandoning WHF, and the doubling down on patterns that were not working. partly, though, because that’s close to where we are now… and while i hope they make the right choice, there’s no guarantee.

            they have tried new strategies that ultimately failed. even looking at the current datasheet/keyword thing… that’s actually more burdensome and bulky ruleswise than the old USRs were… it’s also all about sticking to the model and following through. we have no idea if they will.

          • LankTank

            I pity your pessimism. I personally love 8th and also have had NO issues with the 4 pages of rules or any conflicts in my 20+ games of 8th. There have been a few discrepancies in codex/index, missing details or for example the Yarrick Warlord Trait, but GW has been on top of that so much better, And I don;t agree that MOST gamers feel the same as you. I feel MOST gamers are actively loving and enjoying 8th and see the current release of codex’ as good sign of multiple levels of play, depth and flavour in their army and a more engaged GW. People are excited to see what their codex will be. Additionally they have done a lot to make more units usable so players who decide to take their favourite unit of Warp Talons aren’t consigning themselves to an instant defeat.

  • Spacefrisian

    The weirdest part is more that he executes guardsmen where as before he and Gaunt were the only 2 Commisars explicitly stated not to do that…Ever

    Lets talk about that for a moment first, oke?

    • Muninwing

      three if you mention Cain… though he does it when it’s utterly necessary, that’s usually not in the field.

  • Heinz Fiction

    Probably an oversight. Either they’ll give him a regiment keyword in the next Errata or rephrase the voice of command rule.

    Until then it’s 100% clear that he can’t issue orders to anyone unless both players agree on a reasonable solution.

  • Frostasche

    The problem is actually bigger. Every normal Astra Militarum warlord can take this trait, even the ones without the regiment keyword, commissars, priests, astropaths,… Yarrick is just one example, that shows it is intended they can take it.

  • vash113

    While this seems like an obvious oversight it’s only really a problem if we don’t apply a little common sense. A simple FAQ would totally clear this up and maybe in the new Codex he’ll have a line or something to modify this but really I think if you are playing Yarrick and your opponent wants to make an issue of this it’s a pretty good indication that said opponent is not worth playing.

    • Muninwing

      “common sense”

      hah.

      it’s not actually common. most people use that to defend their opinion, as if they are infallible.

      the real issue is that this one has no easy solve.

  • Aaron

    I am sure rai its supposed to be able to order anyone

    • Muninwing

      if it is, then every other non-regiment model that could gain this ability would get that same benefit. and that’s huge.

  • Parthis

    The issue isn’t whether he can issue orders or not, the intent is clear. The issue is whether he should have a fixed regiment or not… and he should, like every other character in every other book.

    The mistake is that he’s missing a regiment and nothing more.

    • Muninwing

      “missing a regiment” in the new keyword system is actually a pretty big deal.

      it is clear. he can issue orders — but not to anyone.

      Commissars are not the leaders of armies, except for in dire situations, like when Yarrick rose to the occasion. it’s still outside the chain of command. they are advisors, and enforcers, not commanders.

      issuing orders is a command thing.

      now, with his unique situation, he should be able to issue orders to Steel Legion troops, who would know his legacy and be willing to follow his directives. but there are other reasons why he cannot receive the keyword.

      he needs a rule that grants him the SL keyword for the purposes of giving orders, but nothing more.

  • Chris Hateley

    I think the real Yarrick conundrum is how he actually manages to lift that power claw.

    I can’t imagine orks using lightweight alloys and even assuming his backpack takes the brunt of the weight without somehow crushing his spine, that claw probably weighs more than he does so he still wouldn’t be able to stand in the pose his mini is in without toppling over.

    Sorry for going off on a tangent, but I’ve been wanting to get that off my chest for some time.