# Give an order to two adjacent units

8 replies to this topic

### #1 Tarus

Tarus

Member

• Members
• 24 posts

Posted 31 July 2011 - 04:32 AM

Hi, I have a doubt about what is considered an "adjacent unit". As far as I see there are two possibilities:

1) I can give an order to two units that must be adjacent to the commander unit. That means that the commander can not be one of the units that receive the order and that both units must be "touching" the commander unit, but not touching one another.

2) The order goes to two units that must be adjacent to one another, not to the commander. That means that the commander can be one of these units and that both units must be touching one another.

Which one is right?

Thank you.

### #2 skolo

skolo

Member

• Members
• 418 posts

Posted 31 July 2011 - 05:39 AM

is that an order issued by the commander?

if yes - adjucent units are those 2 touching commander, and not himself.

what order exactly are you talking about?

### #3 Tarus

Tarus

Member

• Members
• 24 posts

Posted 31 July 2011 - 05:58 AM

Yes, I'm talking about several cards of Addam Marbrand (so they have to be played on a commander). The problem is that command cards must be played on a commander and can affect any unit in his control zone, so I don't know if that means that the commander gives the order to two units that must be touching him (which means that he is not affected by the card), or if the order can be given to any two units touching one another in his control zone.

### #4 skolo

skolo

Member

• Members
• 418 posts

Posted 31 July 2011 - 08:59 AM

Whenever a player uses a Leadership card, he chooses a single
commander. All units that are ordered by the card must be in the
chosen commander’s zone of control at the time the card is played
(see “Zone-of-control (ZOC) and Controlling Units” on page 16
for more details). Therefore, if a card’s command reads “Order all
units,” it only allows the active player to order all units under his
chosen commander’s control.

you have LL19 Marbrand command car which refers to "2 units"

or

LL17 that is "order to 2 adjucent units"

all of them needs to be in Zone of Control

### #5 Tarus

Tarus

Member

• Members
• 24 posts

Posted 31 July 2011 - 09:49 AM

Yes, I understand that both units must be in the Zone of Control.

My question, however, is still the same: the card LL 17 ("Order to two adjacent units") can be used with ANY unit in the ZOC and another one adjacent to it, or the units that receive the order must be adjacent to the commander?

I'm sorry if I'm not explaining very well (English is not my native tongue).

Member

• Members
• 124 posts

Posted 31 July 2011 - 09:02 PM

The two ordered units must be adjacent to each other, not necessarily to the commander.

### #7 Tarus

Tarus

Member

• Members
• 24 posts

Posted 31 July 2011 - 09:42 PM

Thank you very much!

I think we were using it wrong.

### #8 fulgeru99

fulgeru99

Member

• Members
• 8 posts

Posted 11 October 2011 - 10:43 AM

The two ordered units must be adjacent to each other, not necessarily to the commander.

I also think this the right way to read it

### #9 Piranhatron

Piranhatron

Member

• Members
• 1 posts

Posted 03 April 2012 - 12:47 PM

I have been arguing with my buddy over this ambiguous set of cards to no result.  I can see some validity in both methods, but I prefer the definition of "adjacent" as being next to the commanding unit.

Since a commander must be chosen to give an order from any card, I imagine then shouting out orders over the din of battle.

I can understand that "adjacent" is poorly defined here, and it may indeed try to imply that any unit with a friendly neighbor is eligible.

I refuse the idea that a commander can be adjacent to himself, though.  Let's even assume for the moment that "adjacent" can be any set of friendly units withing the zone of command.  It's still the commander issuing the order, right?  He cannot be adjacent to himself.  That would assume that his neighbor is issuing an order back (ridiculous).

Turning now to Kevan Lannister's ability to defer damage received to "an adjacent unit" we should assume that the word "adjacent" means the same thing as on other cards, right?  Well, if we assume that "adjacent" means "next to any friendly unit", then Kevan Lannister can defer damage to ANY OTHER FRIENDLY UNIT that has adjacency to ANY OTHER FRIENDLY UNIT.

Why on earth would a unit two hexes away absorb Kevan Lannister's wounds?  They wouldn't.

So we have two choices left.  Either admit that "adjacent unit" implies "next to commander" or we need multiple definitions for the same word.  In the end, I think it works better when the word "adjacent" means one thing every time it is seen.

© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.