Beast wrote:
Nope, not a trick question, just wanted to clarify. A member of a 'Battle Brother unit' (a collective term) is therefore by definition a Battle Brother...

You are making a distinction between "Battle brother", and "Battle brother unit".

The rules for "Battle brothers" are that Battle brothers are units.

So the term Battle brother unit(which has been entirely made up in this debate) is just as redundant as ATM Machine.

A Battle Brother is treated as a friendly unit and you are creating a connection that one cannot exist without another. Nothing tells you to create that connection.

I know that you have already said that in your opinion if something is said to be treated as X then it is X. However that is not the case because a Battle Brother is not created by being treated as a friendly unit or by being a friendly unit. A Battle Brother is created by the Allies Matrix. Nothing removes the Battle Brother status granted by the Allies Matrix.

Since both you and Kel ignored the scenario I posted (and you saying you addressed it already by parroting the same rules fallacy that is the basis of your argument does not count), I am going to ask anyone that agrees with you to address it.

If an allied IC joins a unit and loses Battle Brother status by no longer being a friendly unit, then how does he continue to remain part of the allied unit beyond deployment?

Despite being treated as a member of the unit for all intents and purposes, he remains an IC so must follow the rules for coherency in joining/leaving a unit. If he is no longer a friendly unit and in turn no longer a Battle Brother, he cannot join or remain part of the unit. The ONLY possible way he is allowed to remain part of the unit after deployment is if he retains his Battle Brother status which in turn prohibits him from entering an allied transport.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Since both you and Kel ignored the scenario I posted (and you saying you addressed it already by parroting the same rules fallacy that is the basis of your argument does not count), I am going to ask anyone that agrees with you to address it.

That's a lie. Here, let me quote where I addressed it.

rigeld2 wrote:

Treating them as a friendly unit is only an instruction on how to treat them, period. In fact, being a Battle Brother is what allows you to treat them as a friendly unit. That is not how the rule is written and the other bullet points do not support your stance either.

I laid out a great little scenario for you regarding Space Wolves and Blood Angels to show you that you were wrong about the Battle Brother status. I also asked you to then explain how you do anything beyond deployment if the IC does not remain a Battle Brother to which you unsurprisingly cannot answer without killing your own argument. Besides using an assumption of intent to back your argument, use the rules as written.

Acutally I can answer it - I must've missed the post. My apologies.
The first bullet point is not what allows an IC to join a unit. That'd be the IC rules because he's an independent character and there's no rule denying his permission (page 39 for reference).
So go ahead - revoke the first bullet point. Since he still has permission (per page 39) there's no issue.

There's no rules fallacy at all. It's you making an assumption without basis that's the problem. You've agreed (I even quoted you) that a Battle Brother is a friendly unit.
That means that if you take away the friendly unit, it cannot be a Battle Brother.

A Battle Brother is a friendly unit in as far as how he interacts with your allied force. That is what is expressed by the rule that you are then extending on your own, with zero rules support, to create the scenario needed that with removal of the friendly unit status, so goes the Battle Brother status. This is false as being a friendly unit or being treated as a friendly unit does not establish the Battle Brother status. You would have better luck proving that by joining the allied unit, the IC somehow no longer falls under the Allies Matrix and thus loses being a Battle Brother.

The first bullet point is what allows an IC to join and allied unit otherwise you have zero permission to join an IC from one army to a unit of another. Without the Allies Matrix granting Battle Brother status, you cannot join the wolf priest in the previous scenario to the Death Company. Without Battle Brother status as granted by the Allies Matrix being continuous, the wolf priest cannot remain attached to the Death Company beyond deployment.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
A Battle Brother is a friendly unit in as far as how he interacts with your allied force. That is what is expressed by the rule that you are then extending on your own, with zero rules support, to create the scenario needed that with removal of the friendly unit status, so goes the Battle Brother status. This is false as being a friendly unit or being treated as a friendly unit does not establish the Battle Brother status. You would have better luck proving that by joining the allied unit, the IC somehow no longer falls under the Allies Matrix and thus loses being a Battle Brother.

So according to you, there's another rules source where Battle Brother is applied to a model.
Please cite it.

The first bullet point is what allows an IC to join and allied unit otherwise you have zero permission to join an IC from one army to a unit of another. Without the Allies Matrix granting Battle Brother status, you cannot join the wolf priest in the previous scenario to the Death Company. Without Battle Brother status as granted by the Allies Matrix being continuous, the wolf priest cannot remain attached to the Death Company beyond deployment.

Read the IC rules.
Now find denial of permission to join units.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
A Battle Brother is a friendly unit in as far as how he interacts with your allied force. That is what is expressed by the rule that you are then extending on your own, with zero rules support, to create the scenario needed that with removal of the friendly unit status, so goes the Battle Brother status. This is false as being a friendly unit or being treated as a friendly unit does not establish the Battle Brother status. You would have better luck proving that by joining the allied unit, the IC somehow no longer falls under the Allies Matrix and thus loses being a Battle Brother.

So according to you, there's another rules source where Battle Brother is applied to a model.
Please cite it.

The first bullet point is what allows an IC to join and allied unit otherwise you have zero permission to join an IC from one army to a unit of another. Without the Allies Matrix granting Battle Brother status, you cannot join the wolf priest in the previous scenario to the Death Company. Without Battle Brother status as granted by the Allies Matrix being continuous, the wolf priest cannot remain attached to the Death Company beyond deployment.

Read the IC rules.
Now find denial of permission to join units.

Read the rules for allies.

Show me where the rules are for an IC joins an allied unit.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
A Battle Brother is a friendly unit in as far as how he interacts with your allied force. That is what is expressed by the rule that you are then extending on your own, with zero rules support, to create the scenario needed that with removal of the friendly unit status, so goes the Battle Brother status. This is false as being a friendly unit or being treated as a friendly unit does not establish the Battle Brother status. You would have better luck proving that by joining the allied unit, the IC somehow no longer falls under the Allies Matrix and thus loses being a Battle Brother.

So according to you, there's another rules source where Battle Brother is applied to a model.
Please cite it.

The first bullet point is what allows an IC to join and allied unit otherwise you have zero permission to join an IC from one army to a unit of another. Without the Allies Matrix granting Battle Brother status, you cannot join the wolf priest in the previous scenario to the Death Company. Without Battle Brother status as granted by the Allies Matrix being continuous, the wolf priest cannot remain attached to the Death Company beyond deployment.

Read the IC rules.
Now find denial of permission to join units.

Read the rules for allies.

Show me where the rules are for an IC joins an allied unit.

Hello Tyr,

I would like to try an exercise with you when you have your rulebook handy and are able to post. I don't have mine handy (I'm posting from work) but I can tell you that the rules for IC's are under the universal special rules and the rules for battle brothers can be found close to the allies matrix just before missions.

What I would like to ask you to do is to read allowed the rules to yourself, start with battle brothers for this example, and then go on to the rules for independent characters as listed in the USR section. You will see that the rules clearly define a battle brother as a unit you will then see that when that unit attaches himself to a separate unit from your primary detachment he ceases to be a unit unto himself and is instead a part of the joined unit for all rules purposes.

This can be further expounded upon if you look up what defines a unit in the beginning of the book.

If you read the words and follow them exactly as you've spoken them allowed you will find that, as silly as it is, your battle brother unit of one IC is no longer a unit, he is a model in a unit of your primary detachment for all rules purposes and as such is no longer a battle brother.

You're injecting things you believe that are written nowhere in the rulebook because you believe so strongly that this is not the case. I implore you to try this exercise and maybe you will understand that, as silly as this is, if you follow the strictest reading of the rules what Kel has been saying is absolutely true.

-From

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
A Battle Brother is a friendly unit in as far as how he interacts with your allied force. That is what is expressed by the rule that you are then extending on your own, with zero rules support, to create the scenario needed that with removal of the friendly unit status, so goes the Battle Brother status. This is false as being a friendly unit or being treated as a friendly unit does not establish the Battle Brother status. You would have better luck proving that by joining the allied unit, the IC somehow no longer falls under the Allies Matrix and thus loses being a Battle Brother.

So according to you, there's another rules source where Battle Brother is applied to a model.
Please cite it.

The first bullet point is what allows an IC to join and allied unit otherwise you have zero permission to join an IC from one army to a unit of another. Without the Allies Matrix granting Battle Brother status, you cannot join the wolf priest in the previous scenario to the Death Company. Without Battle Brother status as granted by the Allies Matrix being continuous, the wolf priest cannot remain attached to the Death Company beyond deployment.

Read the IC rules.
Now find denial of permission to join units.

Read the rules for allies.

Show me where the rules are for an IC joins an allied unit.

The very first bullet point.

Page 39 of the BRB permits an IC to join a unit.

Page 112 explains the interactions between allies.

The battle brothers rules on page 112 inform us that battle brothers are friendly units.

The bullet points explain that those friendly units(known as battle brothers) can be joined by Allied independent characters

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Read the rules for allies.

Show me where the rules are for an IC joins an allied unit.

So you don't understand how a permissive rule set works?
That's fine.

When you're granted permission to do something, you have to have something else remove that permission.
The IC rules grant permission for an IC to join a unit.
Find a rule that denies that permission. I can tell you that unless you're an Ally of Convenience unit or Desperate Ally unit, you can join (and be joined) freely.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Read the rules for allies.

Show me where the rules are for an IC joins an allied unit.

So you don't understand how a permissive rule set works?
That's fine.

When you're granted permission to do something, you have to have something else remove that permission.
The IC rules grant permission for an IC to join a unit.
Find a rule that denies that permission. I can tell you that unless you're an Ally of Convenience unit or Desperate Ally unit, you can join (and be joined) freely.

When the thing that is defining you as a battle brother ceases to exist you're no longer a battle brother.

Example.

Allied IC by himself. Is a unit and as such is permitted to be a battle brother as defined by the Battle Brothers rule.

Permission to join other units is given to him by the IC USR. He joins a primary detachment unit. He is no longer a unit from an allied detachment, he is a unit from your primary detachment for all rules purposes the definition of battle brother can no longer be applied to him.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Beast wrote:
Nope, not a trick question, just wanted to clarify. A member of a 'Battle Brother unit' (a collective term) is therefore by definition a Battle Brother...

You are making a distinction between "Battle brother", and "Battle brother unit".

The rules for "Battle brothers" are that Battle brothers are units.

So the term Battle brother unit(which has been entirely made up in this debate) is just as redundant as ATM Machine.

What? That makes about as much sense as the rest of your propositions in this thread... lol... I don't even know where to begin, your logic is so tortured... But whatever, have fun with the games where you actually manage to get people to play your way...

Where is there a distinction then Beast?

Where in any of the rules does being a battle brother mean anything other than a friendly unit?

Please tell me, Cite some text.

LOL

BB(IC)= FU
[BB(IC)FU] Joins Allied FU
[BB(IC)FU] Loses BB
(IC) Loses FU Because No Longer BB
(IC) Must dis-join(aka Leave) Allied Unit because (IC) No Longer FU Because No Longer BB.


Edit: Key:
BB = Battle Brother
IC = Independent Character
FU = Friendly Unit

At first I thought FU meant something else.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
At first I thought FU meant something else.

LOL yeah, I had to edit and add the key to make sure no one got the wrong impression.

40k-noob wrote:
LOL

BB(IC)= FU
[BB(IC)FU] Joins Allied FU
[BB(IC)FU] Loses BB
(IC) Loses FU Because No Longer BB
(IC) Must dis-join(aka Leave) Allied Unit because (IC) No Longer FU Because No Longer BB.


Edit: Key:
BB = Battle Brother
IC = Independent Character
FU = Friendly Unit

Not quite. He's counted as a part of that friendly unit for all rules purposes and as such is a friendly unit. Nice attempt.

From wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
LOL

BB(IC)= FU
[BB(IC)FU] Joins Allied FU
[BB(IC)FU] Loses BB
(IC) Loses FU Because No Longer BB
(IC) Must dis-join(aka Leave) Allied Unit because (IC) No Longer FU Because No Longer BB.


Edit: Key:
BB = Battle Brother
IC = Independent Character
FU = Friendly Unit

Not quite. He's counted as a part of that friendly unit for all rules purposes and as such is a friendly unit. Nice attempt.

sure. Just show me which rules allow a non friendly IC to be a joined to another non friendly unit.

40k-noob wrote:

From wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
LOL

BB(IC)= FU
[BB(IC)FU] Joins Allied FU
[BB(IC)FU] Loses BB
(IC) Loses FU Because No Longer BB
(IC) Must dis-join(aka Leave) Allied Unit because (IC) No Longer FU Because No Longer BB.


Edit: Key:
BB = Battle Brother
IC = Independent Character
FU = Friendly Unit

Not quite. He's counted as a part of that friendly unit for all rules purposes and as such is a friendly unit. Nice attempt.

sure. Just show me which rules allow a non friendly IC to be a joined to another non friendly unit.

Once he's joined to the unit, he's a member of the unit for all rules purposes including finding out if he has to leave the unit!

Do you have permission to involuntarily remove models from units of which they are a part?

 Jimsolo wrote:
For those who are still contributing, or at least following along, please take a moment to make your opinions known here, where I am gathering some numbers just to get the lay of the land.

Thats actually really helpful. Thanks for that.

40k-noob wrote:
LOL

BB(IC)= FU
[BB(IC)FU] Joins Allied FU
[BB(IC)FU] Loses BB
(IC) Loses FU Because No Longer BB
(IC) Must dis-join(aka Leave) Allied Unit because (IC) No Longer FU Because No Longer BB.


Edit: Key:
BB = Battle Brother
IC = Independent Character
FU = Friendly Unit

Yeah, no. I've addressed that exact example twice now.
You're completely wrong. Have a great day. Maybe read the thread.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
LOL

BB(IC)= FU
[BB(IC)FU] Joins Allied FU
[BB(IC)FU] Loses BB
(IC) Loses FU Because No Longer BB
(IC) Must dis-join(aka Leave) Allied Unit because (IC) No Longer FU Because No Longer BB.


Edit: Key:
BB = Battle Brother
IC = Independent Character
FU = Friendly Unit

Yeah, no. I've addressed that exact example twice now.
You're completely wrong. Have a great day. Maybe read the thread.

To all of you who have posted here, do you not think this is getting out of hand? This entire thread has turned into a "IC's can! No they can't! They CAN! They can't you "

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
LOL

BB(IC)= FU
[BB(IC)FU] Joins Allied FU
[BB(IC)FU] Loses BB
(IC) Loses FU Because No Longer BB
(IC) Must dis-join(aka Leave) Allied Unit because (IC) No Longer FU Because No Longer BB.


Edit: Key:
BB = Battle Brother
IC = Independent Character
FU = Friendly Unit

Yeah, no. I've addressed that exact example twice now.
You're completely wrong. Have a great day. Maybe read the thread.

Whoa there cowboy...You are breaking one of the Tenets of YDMC. Tenet 1a to be exact.

40k-noob wrote:
Whoa there cowboy...You are breaking one of the Tenets of YDMC. Tenet 1a to be exact.

Except I've cited rules to support my statement. You ignored them and then posted that.
I'm breaking no tenets. Please read the thread before participating. Thanks.
ps. I'll buy you a beer at Alamo.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Whoa there cowboy...You are breaking one of the Tenets of YDMC. Tenet 1a to be exact.

Except I've cited rules to support my statement. You ignored them and then posted that.
I'm breaking no tenets. Please read the thread before participating. Thanks.
ps. I'll buy you a beer at Alamo.

Woo hoo!! Free Beer. I have officially changed my position. I am now on the Yes they can side!!

This is actually pathetic.. Where are the mods? It's obvious we won't receive anything substantial that hasn't been shown in page one... And I've seen mods close threads that 'We've seen as much as we're going to' many times..

And the thread was dead before you posted.
"Pathetic" indeed.

I always thought that every unit gets every rule/hinderace/benefit... So a tac squad with a terminator armor in still cannot embark on a rhino...


So why would an ic that is an ally and therefore unable to embark on an Allied transport suddenly able to embark when he joins another unit? I think the rules are pretty clear.

Oops, sorry to contribute to the threadnomancy:(.

 mortetvie wrote:
I always thought that every unit gets every rule/hinderace/benefit... So a tac squad with a terminator armor in still cannot embark on a rhino...

Models in Terminator armor are forbidden from embarking in a Rhino - it's not a unit based rule.

So why would an ic that is an ally and therefore unable to embark on an Allied transport suddenly able to embark when he joins another unit? I think the rules are pretty clear.

Because the restriction is tied to a unit. A IC is demonstrably not a separate unit after he's joined.

 mortetvie wrote:
I always thought that every unit gets every rule/hinderace/benefit... So a tac squad with a terminator armor in still cannot embark on a rhino...


So why would an ic that is an ally and therefore unable to embark on an Allied transport suddenly able to embark when he joins another unit? I think the rules are pretty clear.

Oops, sorry to contribute to the threadnomancy:(.

Wasn't actual threadromancy.

Terminator armor disallows models from embarking, models within units are parts of units, therefore a single disallowed model disallows embarkation.

My whole point to this thread is that battle brothers are units per the rules and an Allied IC joined to an Allied Unit via the battle brothers rule may still allow that unit to get into a transport from that unit's codex because there is no "Battle brother" in the unit belonging to the same codex as the transport.

I don't see how an allied battle brother IC in a unit ceases to be an allied battle brother? Because allied models are not allowed to embark on transports from another detachment, an allied IC In a unit prevents that unit from being able to embark...much like the concept of a terminator armored model preventing a tac squad from embarking on a rhino...

I am afraid you are reading into the rules something that simply is not there and is explicitly not allowed:/.

 mortetvie wrote:
I don't see how an allied battle brother IC in a unit ceases to be an allied battle brother? Because allied models are not allowed to embark on transports from another detachment, an allied IC In a unit prevents that unit from being able to embark...much like the concept of a terminator armored model preventing a tac squad from embarking on a rhino...

I am afraid you are reading into the rules something that simply is not there and is explicitly not allowed:/.

Dude, you are in the majority. They have an interpretation that they think is valid. The poll on this showed they are in the minority (about an 80/20 split against them). If you really want to see their reasoning, then read the entire thread. You aren't saying anything here that hasn't been said many many time in the last 11 pages...

On ICs joining units: While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
On Dedicated Transports: The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it).
On Battle Brothers: Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:
• Can be joined by allied Independent Characters.
• Are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers, abilities and so on.
• However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles.

I haven't found a single thing in the BRB that states that an IC loses its "Battle Brother" status just because he joined up with an Allied Friendly Unit. Also the last bullet point is pretty clear. The "Allied Battle Brothers can Embark" side of things can't be right, especially since this rule would be useless then (and I've seen some of the people arguing for that side use the 'useless rule' argument to invalidate someone else's argument before so it makes me wonder what the troll level is here and how many people are serious lol).

I don't buy that "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" is enough to make him also no longer a Battle Brother. You have to have something explicitly remove the Battle Brother status from the model for this to work. Nothing of that nature exists, so the answer has to be "no". An allied IC cannot embark on a BB transport.

"Battle Brothers Status" is a made up term.

"Battle Brothers Unit" is a redundant term.

"Battle Brothers Model" is a made up term.

A Battle brothers is defined as a Friendly unit. This definition is found on page 112 of the BRB.

Battle Brothers designation is decided via the Allies matrix on page 113 per the level pf alliance rules on page 112.

You read the alliance rules to find that you may have an allied detachment using the Allies detachment FOC chart.

You then read the rules on Levels of alliance to find out that the matrix designate how your alliance and you primary detachment relate to eachother.

You find that your allies and Primary detachment are battle brothers to each-other so you read the Battle Brothers rules.

The battle brothers rules define battle brothers as friendly units.

The battle brothers rules then go on to give some examples of what being friendly units mean and give the exception that these particular friendly units cannot embark on transports from the allied codex.

An IC joined to a unit is not a unit in and of itself anymore, it is fully part and parcel to the unit it has joined.

Therefore an IC chosen from a Codex other than the unit he is joining becomes a member of the unit from that codex. The unit as a whole may then enter a transport from their own codex as the permissions are all there and no restrictions exist(There is no Battle brother because there is no unit from the other codex).

I really wish people would stop spinning the windmill for Don Quixote to tilt at... You aren't going to convince him to change his mind despite the hugely overwhelming mass of people who disagree with the tortured interpretation of RAW that he is using.

Edit for politeness...

Ehhhhh... honestly I agree with him. The word "unit" in the definition of Battle Brother is quite obviously there...

...and ICs aren't "units" when they're joined to a unit (lest you have two units in one unit, which is ... silly. And also wrong). So they cannot be a Battle Brother, as being a unit is a prerequisite for being a Battle Brother.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
"Battle Brothers Status" is a made up term.
...

Battle Brothers designation is decided via the Allies matrix on page 113 per the level pf alliance rules on page 112.

That's just pedantry. I gave the word "status" an unnecessary capitalization. My term and your term are synonymous.

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

Quoted is the only text I have found regarding an IC joining a unit and what happens to the IC. I don't see it as explicitly removing the Battle Brothers "designation" (as you prefer it) from the IC.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
An IC joined to a unit is not a unit in and of itself anymore, it is fully part and parcel to the unit it has joined.

Therefore an IC chosen from a Codex other than the unit he is joining becomes a member of the unit from that codex. The unit as a whole may then enter a transport from their own codex as the permissions are all there and no restrictions exist(There is no Battle brother because there is no unit from the other codex).

And several leaps are being made here under a few bad assumptions.

So here's the rub for me: "Friendly Unit". This is not defined anywhere explicitly. Point in fact, the first usage of the phrase in the BRB is in the rules for Independent Characters. Battle Brothers are "friendly units" as opposed to "enemy units" (as with Allies of Convenience and Desperate Allies). Most abilities that affect "friendly units" have been changed in the FAQ/Errata updates to also include "chosen from this Codex" or "in Codex: X" so that they do not affect Battle Brothers.

It seems that ICs can join with Battle Brother units simply because they are all "friendly units" and the rules for IC's allow for them to join any/all "friendly units" in the movement phase.

But then, oddly, you get one restriction. Its listed as an 'example' but must be a rule since no other place in the rules would forbid it from happening: "...not even Battle Brothers can embark in
allied transport vehicles."

Any model or unit taken as part of an "Allied Detachment" is an "Ally". Whether or not its a "friendly unit" depends on the grade of allegiance. Just because your allied detachment counts as "friendly units" does not mean they ever stopped being an "allied detachment". To me this means that any models taken as part of an allied detachment are always Battle Brothers or always Allies of Convenience or always Desperate Allies. They may be treated as "friendly" or "enemy" models as per their "Level of Allegiance" on Page 112, but there is not anything in the game that revokes this status.


Since the rules are written as they are, you'll either see things my way or see them your way. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Only a FAQ/Errata update will be able to fix it, which means you have a 50% chance of it working best case ("most important rule" and all). So if it were me I wouldn't bank on being able to do it in a game when it comes time to make my list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would like to add that the rules for Allies seem to be very much arbitrary and in flux:

Q: Can models from an Allied Detachment that have the ability to repair Hull Points or Immobilised/Weapon Destroyed results from the Vehicle Damage Table use this ability on Allied vehicles? (p112)
A: No.

Q: Do modifiers that apply to such things as Reserve rolls, apply to units from an allied detachment? (p124)
A: No.

With the way the rules are written, there wasn't anything preventing either of these from happening. GW appears to be drawing a line in the sand regarding what exactly Allies can even offer you. They definitely seem to be against the idea that your Primary and Allied Detachment can operate fully as if from a single Codex. So RAI is definitely against the idea, though I understand you are arguing RAW.

Once again, simply because an allied model joins a unit, it does not automatically stop being an allied model and allied models are not allowed to embark on allied transports, pretty cut and dry. Sure an IC counts as being a part of the unit, but its the status of being from an allied detachment that prevents the embarkation, not being a unit in and of itself...the minority ar simply twisting words and grasping at straws.

 mortetvie wrote:
Once again, simply because an allied model joins a unit, it does not automatically stop being an allied model and allied models are not allowed to embark on allied transports, pretty cut and dry. Sure an IC counts as being a part of the unit, but its the status of being from an allied detachment that prevents the embarkation, not being a unit in and of itself...the minority ar simply twisting words and grasping at straws.

I think the crux of their argument is that nowhere in the BRB it defines a "Battle Brother" as a model, only as a unit. If that is the case, the IC rule would allow this since it would be defined as part of the joined unit for all cases and no longer the original unit. However, I think it would need to be redefined in the FAQ as models, because it would probably lead to exploits.

If there is any place in the BRB that refers to a "Battle Brother Model" or defines "Battle Brothers" as a model, should put a nail in the coffin of this. I must clarify though, it can't be a vague connection, but literally read to the extent of "A Battle Brother Model." Anything that could be subjective in that regard can't be used as evidence, as it would only lead to more arguments of interpretation.

Edit: Spelling

Exactly; there's no such thing as "an allied model" as far as the Battle Brothers rating is concerned - it's either a unit or it isn't allied.

First off, we need to define terms.

Allies are set up in 3 basic categories and are anything taken in an allied detachment. These are either (1) battle brother; (2) ally of convenience; (3) desperate ally. All 3 categories are still allies from an allied detachment. (Pg 112 of big rule book).

Therefore, an IC from an allied detachment NEVER stops being a model from an allied detachment nor does it ever cease being an allied model/unit.

The minority are leaping to a conclusion not supported by the rules. For example, they are pointing out that an IC ceases to be a separate unit when it joins another one but fail to consider the implications of it still being an allied model.


Specifically, according to their logic (which is self refuting as will be shown below) a battle brother IC which is a battle brother unit on it's own, ceases to become a battle brother unit when it joins an allied unit, it just becomes a part of that unit. However, if that is the case, then it should also lose its battle brother status at that point and then automatically lose its eligibility to join the unit in the first place! How do you reconcile that line of reasoning?

Ultimately, it breaks down as such:

(1) Allies chosen from the battle brothers category of allies are all allied models (that is as obvious as saying all models from the Eldar codex count as being Eldar models).

(2) Therefore, all allied models chosen from the battle brothers category of allies count as being battle brothers.

(3) allied battle brothers are not allowed to embark on primary detachment transports.

At this point, the minority would like us to believe that an allied IC joining a unit from the primary detachment somehow loses its battle brother status and is suddenly able to overcome the explicit restriction in the BRB and that is not allowed as there is nothing that says this is possible in the rules themselves. The IC rules they refer to contradict the allies rules under their interpretation an that is now allowed.


The logical next step SHOULD be:
(4) an allied IC that joins a unit does not lose its status of being an allied model for purposes of overcoming the embarkation restriction.

(5) any unit from the primary detachment that has an IC from an allied detachment (and visa versa) can never embark on a transport.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A real world example is that an American citizen does not cease being an American citizen simply because they go to Canada to visit, no matter how close the countries are!

Likewise, an IC from an allied detachment does not stop being an ally for the purposes of embarkation rules simply because he joins that unit.

He does not all of a sudden become a member of the primary detachment by joining a unit of that detachment.

That is exactly where you are wrong.

There 4 Levels of alliance, this is determined via the Allies Matrix and are Battle Brothers, Allies of convenience, Desperate Allies, and Come the apocalypse.

The definition for each of those levels of alliance is found under their respective headings, which you actually have to read; BB are friendly units. Allies of Convenience are enemy units with some special rules. Desperate Allies are enemy units with more special rules. Come the apocalypse cannot be fielded together without a good backstory.

Now when you are reading the BB rules you will first see the term defined in the first sentence then see the term again in the second sentence that can only make sense when read as "These friendly units" which then have the three bullet points which also must be read with the definition in mind.

Frankly, the only way to keep harping on the "But it says battle brothers" argument is to either willfully misread the bullet points or to simply fail at reading them.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
That is exactly where you are wrong.

There 4 Levels of alliance, this is determined via the Allies Matrix and are Battle Brothers, Allies of convenience, Desperate Allies, and Come the apocalypse.

The definition for each of those levels of alliance is found under their respective headings, which you actually have to read; BB are friendly units. Allies of Convenience are enemy units with some special rules. Desperate Allies are enemy units with more special rules. Come the apocalypse cannot be fielded together without a good backstory.

Now when you are reading the BB rules you will first see the term defined in the first sentence then see the term again in the second sentence that can only make sense when read as "These friendly units" which then have the three bullet points which also must be read with the definition in mind.

Frankly, the only way to keep harping on the "But it says battle brothers" argument is to either willfully misread the bullet points or to simply fail at reading them.

Pardon me but who are you referring to and what is your position? If you are claiming that I am wrong, how have you demonstrated that I am wrong (or how anyone else is wrong)?

First off, come the apocalypse cannot be taken as allies regardless (BRB says "this kind of alliance cannot occur"), so there are in fact only 3 levels of playable allies as per my previous post.

Second, BRB says "battle brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view" and goes on in a bullet point to say that battle brothers may not embark in allied transport vehicles.

So, how does it make sense that in a situation where Space Marines ally with Imperial Guard, that a Space Marine Captain taken as the HQ for the allied detachment cannot embark on a Chimera by himself but if he joins a IG Vet squad he magically is able to embark? This is a rhetorical question because the answer is it obviously does not make sense!

anything taken as an allied detachment is either (1) a battle brother, (2) an ally of convenience or (3) a desperate ally and they all follow the respective rules regardless of having joined another unit via the IC rule or not. Therefore, the rule that says allied battle brother ICs cannot embark onto transports from the primary detachment does not magically disappear or stop working when an allied IC joins a unit from the primary detachment. That is why the argument that they can embark is baseless and unfounded by sound logic, reasoning and rule reading...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nilok wrote:


I think the crux of their argument is that nowhere in the BRB it defines a "Battle Brother" as a model, only as a unit. If that is the case, the IC rule would allow this since it would be defined as part of the joined unit for all cases and no longer the original unit. However, I think it would need to be redefined in the FAQ as models, because it would probably lead to exploits.

And to address this point, any model in an allied unit is an allied model by definition... its such an obvious and simple point that it doesn't NEED to be addressed or defined. A battle brother IC is both an allied battle brother unit and an allied battle brother model (just as any model in an allied battle brother unit is an allied battle brother model). That is just basic logic and common sense so the nail should be already in the coffin on that regard, its just that some people don't realize it.

The argument that an allied IC can embark on a primary detachment transport is like saying that a psychic power that ONLY affects friendly Eldar units cannot work on an Eldar IC once he joins a non-Eldar unit because he ceases to be an Eldar unit and turns into simply an Eldar model in a non-Eldar unit..That doesn't make sense nor does it comport with sound logic or reasoning.

Just like how Eldrad can still cast Fortune on himself while he is in a Tau Fire Warrior unit (despite not being a separate Eldar unit), an allied IC can never embark on a transport from a primary detachment (because he is still a battle brother)...

Finally, how can they not understand that their argument is self refuting? An IC from an allied detachment joining a unit from a primary detachment does not stop following any of the rules under the battle brother bullet points...If you are going to say the embarkation restriction no longer applies because it stops being a battle brother "unit" (which is a twisted semantics argument), then the rule that allows the IC to join the unit in the first place can also be said to cease working and you are left with a nonsensical interaction of rules. This is because only a battle brother IC can join primary detachment units and if it stops being considered a battle brother unit, it loses the ability to benefit from the battle brother rules all together! The "semantics" argument fails because a battle brother unit that consists of a single model, it by definition is a battle brothers model as is any single model in a battle brothers unit, that is just simple logic and the argument against my position is based on illogical reasoning by people who don't know logic very well (or are choosing not to apply it in this case).

 mortetvie wrote:

First off, we need to define terms.

Allies are set up in 3 basic categories and are anything taken in an allied detachment. These are either (1) battle brother; (2) ally of convenience; (3) desperate ally. All 3 categories are still allies from an allied detachment. (Pg 112 of big rule book).

Therefore, an IC from an allied detachment NEVER stops being a model from an allied detachment nor does it ever cease being an allied model/unit.

Can you quote me the rule that applies this designation to models? You keep asserting that it does, so obviously it's there.

The minority are leaping to a conclusion not supported by the rules. For example, they are pointing out that an IC ceases to be a separate unit when it joins another one but fail to consider the implications of it still being an allied model.

That's because there are no implications to it being an allied model - you've invented that.

Specifically, according to their logic (which is self refuting as will be shown below) a battle brother IC which is a battle brother unit on it's own, ceases to become a battle brother unit when it joins an allied unit, it just becomes a part of that unit. However, if that is the case, then it should also lose its battle brother status at that point and then automatically lose its eligibility to join the unit in the first place! How do you reconcile that line of reasoning?

It's been addressed.
The permission to join a friendly unit is given in the IC rules. The Battle Brother "permission" doesn't mean anything.

(1) Allies chosen from the battle brothers category of allies are all allied models (that is as obvious as saying all models from the Eldar codex count as being Eldar models).

Sure, but irrelevant.

(2) Therefore, all allied models chosen from the battle brothers category of allies count as being battle brothers.

Battle Brothers are defined as friendly units. Applying a unit based rule to individual models is wholly incorrect and any conclusions drawn from that cannot be correct.

At this point, the minority would like us to believe that an allied IC joining a unit from the primary detachment somehow loses its battle brother status and is suddenly able to overcome the explicit restriction in the BRB and that is not allowed as there is nothing that says this is possible in the rules themselves. The IC rules they refer to contradict the allies rules under their interpretation an that is now allowed.

It'd be great if you'd read the thread and understand the argument rather than make assumptions. Thanks.

(4) an allied IC that joins a unit does not lose its status of being an allied model for purposes of overcoming the embarkation restriction.

The restriction that demonstrably applies to unit and not models? Is that the one you're referring to?
Or is there another restriction that I'm missing?

A real world example is that an American citizen does not cease being an American citizen simply because they go to Canada to visit, no matter how close the countries are!

Real world examples are bad ideas, and you'd be incorrect with this one just like you're incorrect with the actual rules.
Premise 1) Only people inside the US are American Citizens. (I know that's not "real world accurate", but I'm trying to make the rules match up with the example)
Premise 2) individuals can travel to Canada freely
Premise 3) American Citizens cannot buy maple syrup.

Question 1) If you travel to Canada are you still an American Citizen?
Question 2) If you travel to Canada can you buy maple syrup?

He does not all of a sudden become a member of the primary detachment by joining a unit of that detachment.

No one has said that he does. He's just no longer a Battle Brother unit.

First of all, my refrence to an allied model or battle brother model does not need a specific rule, it comes from simple logical inferences. All models/units/vehicles taken from an allied army that is considered a battle brother on the allies chart is a battle brother. This is just like pointing out that every model/unit/vehicle in an Eldar codex is an Eldar one...

Specifically, any model in an Allied battle brother unit is by defenition an allied battle brother model... That is like drawing the inference that every model in an Eldar pathfinder unit is an Eldar model, even though there is no rule that explicitly says this. Games workshop does not need a rule in the BRB to say that models from a specific codex count as being models from that codex, that would be a waste of space because its assumed.

Second, the battle brothers rule only says "battle brothers are treated as 'friendly units'" not that they are friendly units. Therefore, a battle brother IC will always be treated as a friendly unit, even if it joins another unit... look at the whole rule:

The first part of the rule says how battle brothers interact with allies in terms of unit interaction and goes on to clarify that this interaction allows the following:
(1) Allied ICs can join each other's units
(2) they are counted as friendly units for targeting of powers/abilities
(3) battle brothers may not embark on allied transports

Now, according to the second bullet, an allied IC (who is a battle brother by virtue of the allies chart) is considered a friendly unit for purposes of powers or abilities...logically this wording still applies if the IC is in an allied unit (otherwise it would not benefit from the powers or abilities). Therefore, the third bullet should still apply because an IC joining an allied unit never stops being counted as a battle brother..

Third, the IC rules and the allies rules are two different set of rules. One talks about how ICs interact with units and the other talks about how units(including models) from different codices interact with each other.

rigeld2
He does not all of a sudden become a member of the primary detachment by joining a unit of that detachment.
No one has said that he does. He's just no longer a Battle Brother unit.

but is he still a battle brother? If not, then how can he be a part of the unit (it is, after all, the battle brother status that allows him to join the unit in the first place), if he is still a battle brother, then logically all of the bonuses and restrictions should still apply...

 mortetvie wrote:
First of all, my refrence to an allied model or battle brother model does not need a specific rule, it comes from simple logical inferences.

Specifically, any model in an Allie battle brother unit is by defenition an allied battle brother model... That us like drawing the inference that every model in an Eldar pathfinder unit is an Eldar model, even though there is no rule that explicitly says this.

Second, the battle brothers rule only says "battle brothers are treated as 'friendly units'" not that they are friendly units. Therefore, a battle brother IC will always be treated as a friendly unit, even if it joins another unit...

The first part of the rule says how battle brothers interact with allies in terms of unit interaction and goes on to clarify that this interaction allows the following:
(1) Allied ICs can join each other's units
(2) they are counted as friendly units for targeting of powers/abilities
(3) battle brothers may not embark on allied transports

Now, according to the second bullet, an allied IC (who is a battle brother by virtue of the allies chart) is considered a friendly unit for purposes of powers or abilities...logically this wording still applies if the IC is in an allied unit (otherwise it would not benefit from the powers or abilities). Therefore, the third bblet should still apply because an IC joining an allied unit never stops being counted as a battle brother..


Third, the IC rules and the allies rules are two different set of rules. One talks about how ICs interact with units and the other talks about how units(including models) from different codeci interact with each other.

rigeld2
He does not all of a sudden become a member of the primary detachment by joining a unit of that detachment.
No one has said that he does. He's just no longer a Battle Brother unit.

but is he still a battle brother? If not, then how can he be a part of the unit (it is, after all, the battle brother status that allows him to join the unit in the first place), if he is still a battle brother, then logically all of the bonuses and restrictions should still apply...

And thus you see the tortured nature of their reasoning... I commend you for your logical outlay of the rules, but all this has been said before- they just refuse to accept it or even bother to (apparently) think about the flaws in their logic... Thus, they refuse to change thier view...

 mortetvie wrote:

Pardon me but who are you referring to and what is your position? If you are claiming that I am wrong, how have you demonstrated that I am wrong (or how anyone else is wrong)?

Your last post, and you are wrong. You even go on to show disjointed logic below, but I will get to that.

First off, come the apocalypse cannot be taken as allies regardless (BRB says "this kind of alliance cannot occur"), so there are in fact only 3 levels of playable allies as per my previous post.

Yes "cannot occur" is a level of alliance, we are talking about the rules for levels of alliance, not playable levels off alliance; we must talk about all 4 because we are talking about which level of alliance we are looking at. Battle brothers is one of the 4 levels of alliance, but that is not its definition; its definition is found under its heading.

Second, BRB says "battle brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view" and goes on in a bullet point to say that battle brothers may not embark in allied transport vehicles.

Welcome to disjointed logic. You quote the rule that defines Battle brothers, you then turn around to say that battle brothers may not embark. If you do not have a battle brother(designated by the Matrix and defined as a unit) attempting to embark the transport, then you may embark onto the transport.

So, how does it make sense that in a situation where Space Marines ally with Imperial Guard, that a Space Marine Captain taken as the HQ for the allied detachment cannot embark on a Chimera by himself but if he joins a IG Vet squad he magically is able to embark? This is a rhetorical question because the answer is it obviously does not make sense!

It makes the same amount of sense that you wouldn't get into your neighbors car without your neighbor. Battle brothers are not exactly "Besties", they are just more than willing to work closely with each other. Think of it more like the Captain doesn't want to get into the chimera without being invited along.

anything taken as an allied detachment is either (1) a battle brother, (2) an ally of convenience or (3) a desperate ally and they all follow the respective rules regardless of having joined another unit via the IC rule or not. Therefore, the rule that says allied battle brother ICs cannot embark onto transports from the primary detachment does not magically disappear or stop working when an allied IC joins a unit from the primary detachment. That is why the argument that they can embark is baseless and unfounded by sound logic, reasoning and rule reading...

First off, welcome back to the unsound argument that every model in both armies are now independent units(friendly or enemy depending on the level of alliance). Second you seem to think that only the allied detachment is the battle brother, so does that mean that my Primary squad can freely enter the battle brothers transport?

You are still firing off the same arguments that were disproved several pages back, and you are showing that you do not understand how to read a paragraph while you are making up rules to apply as you see fit.

Indeed, its like that debate that a drop pod lost a hull point because it started the game immobilized and I told them they were wrong because immobilized result from any rule other than the vehicle damage chart is does not mean a hull point is lost. GW finally confirmed I was right in a recent FAQ so in their faces =).

Kel, you are taking my words and arguments and twisting them or misunderstanding them.

Kel wrote:First off, welcome back to the unsound argument that every model in both armies are now independent units(friendly or enemy depending on the level of alliance). Second you seem to think that only the allied detachment is the battle brother, so does that mean that my Primary squad can freely enter the battle brothers transport?"

For starters, I never said that every model in a battle brother army is an independent unit...only that they count as being a battle brother in the same way every model in an Eldar Pathfinder unit counts as being an Eldar model...this is irrefutable logic so I dunno how you come off denying this? Are you really going to tell me an Eldar Pathfinder is not an Eldar model?

Kel wrote:
You are still firing off the same arguments that were disproved several pages back, and you are showing that you do not understand how to read a paragraph while you are making up rules to apply as you see fit.

I sense a lot of projection here, it seems you are accusing what is true of you as being true of me...but I guess ignorance/delusion is bliss? I mean, you have not, and cannot explicitly or clearly point out what is logical or illogical in my posts...

And what is the definition of a battle brother?

A battle brother is, as I mentioned above, anything taken from an allied army codex that is a battle brother. its pretty obvious and straightforward.

lol... If you keep spinning the windmill, they will keep tilting at it no matter how silly it has become...

Beast wrote:
lol... If you keep spinning the windmill, they will keep tilting at it no matter how silly it has become...

yes but the windmill grinds my morning whole grain bread =). Plus it was a pretty fun scene in the book, no?

 mortetvie wrote:

Beast wrote:
lol... If you keep spinning the windmill, they will keep tilting at it no matter how silly it has become...

yes but the windmill grinds my morning whole grain bread =). Plus it was a pretty fun scene in the book, no?

Well, you have the potential here for a whole bakery of whole grain bread then... Enjoy! Indeed- very fun.

 mortetvie wrote:
A battle brother is, as I mentioned above, anything taken from an allied army codex that is a battle brother. its pretty obvious and straightforward.

And the text for that is?

Because I can quote the Text that says otherwise.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
A battle brother is, as I mentioned above, anything taken from an allied army codex that is a battle brother. its pretty obvious and straightforward.

And the text for that is?

Because I can quote the Text that says otherwise.

Page 113 of the BRB (the allies matrix) says "find the row for the codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix. Then find the column for the codex of your potential allies at the top of the matrix. You'll find the level of alliance at the intersection of the row and the column."

Therefore, the level of alliance between anything from one codex to another that is considered a battle brother is one of battle brother. For example, anything taken in an IG codex is a battle brother to anything taken in a Space Marine codex...This statement is what is LOGICALLY inferred from the above rule and there does not need to be any explicit text that says what I just said...

what rule are you going to quote me? This should be good...

That is the level of alliance, not the definition for that level of alliance. That text tells you nothing; or asserts that all models fall under the definition on page 112 should you choose to misread it that way.

The definition is 1 page back, page 112, first sentence of the second paragraph under battle brothers: "Battle brothers are treated as friendly units from all points of view."

That is the definition, battle brothers are treated as friendly units. So in order to be a battle brother, especially for the rules within that paragraph, you must be(or be treated as) a friendly unit.

So going back to your claim that everything is a battle brother; everything is treated as a friendly unit.

Just out of curiosity. Assume you can embark. What happens if the owning player decides to disembark only the original unit and wants to leave the allied IC on the transport and no longer joined. Seems you have just broken the game in one move as you created a situation that can not exist correct?

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Just out of curiosity. Assume you can embark. What happens if the owning player decides to disembark only the original unit and wants to leave the allied IC on the transport and no longer joined. Seems you have just broken the game in one move as you created a situation that can not exist correct?

By the minority's reasoning it is totally fine... They magically became "not Battle brothers" so they can magically become Battle Brothers again... Of course they just wave their hands and say that "this is not the BB IC you are looking for" as it again magically steps out of the vehicle it could never have been in (by RAW) anyway...

edit spelling

Kommissar Kel, some questions:

1) Would you consider a Hellbrute to be a "Chaos" or "Chaos Space Marine" model?

2) Would you consider a Kroot to be a "Tau Empire" model?

3) If one or both of the above is answered 'yes' can you explain why?

cowmonaut wrote:
Kommissar Kel, some questions:

1) Would you consider a Hellbrute to be a "Chaos" or "Chaos Space Marine" model?

2) Would you consider a Kroot to be a "Tau Empire" model?

3) If one or both of the above is answered 'yes' can you explain why?

Yes to both, because that distinction matters for certain abilities.

The Hellbrute is a Chaos Space Marine Model, and a Chaos space marine unit.

The Kroot is a Tau Empire model, but not a Tau empire unit(unless it is the last one left alive in its unit).

See the distinction?

The definition for battle brothers is a unit, the IC is no longer a unit while attached(P.S. GreenNutz; the IC would immediately have to disembark as well, and end his disembarkation move at least 2" away from the unit that just disembarked), and the rules are refering to battle Brothers as defined within those rules; therefore while joined the IC is not a battle brother(because he is not a friendly unit).

For the people saying "What if this? Because then the game breaks!":

you're not really saying anything. 40k breaks all the time, most glaringly when you try to measure line of sight from a non-vehicle model that has no eyes.

That's is a horrid comparison and does not justify the OP's interpretation. There are few things that sensibly or by RAW break the rules in sixth edition.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
That's is a horrid comparison and does not justify the OP's interpretation. There are few things that sensibly or by RAW break the rules in sixth edition.

What happens when a squad has to take a leadership check inside of a transport from overheating plasma weapons? What happens when a non-vehicle model without eyes needs to draw line of sight?

Just two examples off the top of my head.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
That's is a horrid comparison and does not justify the OP's interpretation. There are few things that sensibly or by RAW break the rules in sixth edition.

What happens when a squad has to take a leadership check inside of a transport from overheating plasma weapons?

Nothing, as the rules tell us that units in transports are fearless therefore no game breakage. (This was not the case in 5th as they did not clarify what happened).

What happens when a non-vehicle model without eyes needs to draw line of sight?

Strict RAW non-vehicle models without eyes can not shoot or assault. No one plays it this way though.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Yes to both, because that distinction matters for certain abilities.

You've argued in this thread (and others) that you can't pick and choose how to apply rules based on circumstances. So again, why?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The Hellbrute is a Chaos Space Marine Model, and a Chaos space marine unit.

The Kroot is a Tau Empire model, but not a Tau empire unit(unless it is the last one left alive in its unit).

See the distinction?

We'll get to the distinction argument later. First, what makes a Kroot model/unit a Tau Empire model/unit? What makes the Hellbrute a Chaos Space Marine model/unit? Since you apparently don't have the answer, its on Page 3 of each of the respective Codexes. Left hand column, in a handy box.

"This codex allows you to turn your collection of Tau Empire models into a Hunter Cadre ready to do battle for the Greater Good." is the only text in the entirety of Codex: Tau Empire that comes close to explicitly defining a "Tau Empire model". The notion that all the models in Codex: Tau Empire are Tau Empire models is reinforced with the rules for Failure Is Not An Option found on Page 35. There, the rules state that "All friendly models from this codex..." are affected. When you get to the Reference section that turns into "All friendly Tau Empire models...".

Codex: Chaos Space Marines doesn't even have that much really. It doesn't come anywhere near as explicit to describing the models from that Codex as "Chaos Space Marine models". In fact, that phrase never appears as far as I can tell. There are plenty of phrases such as "Nurgle models" though. A term that is never defined but logically within the context of the Codex must mean any model with the Mark of Nurgle.

There is nothing in the game that appears to remove designations from a unit or model. Units from Codex: Tau Empire are always Tau Empire units, and the models that make them up are always Tau Empire models.

The point in highlighting all this is that the rules are not always going to explicitly say something, and that some things are permanent. You are going to have to make a few logical and contextual leaps in order for the game to work and some things, such as anything that describes a model/unit in the context of the game (stats, type, etc.) cannot change without a clear exception being spelled out.

Page 109 tells us that for every Primary Detachment we may take a single Allied Detachment. We are then told that the Allied Detachment must be made up of forces chosen entirely from a single Codex, and that that Codex must be different than the one used by the Primary Detachment. How these Allies interact with our Primary Detachment is of course described on Page 112. We have 3 levels of (playable) Allies with many rules and restrictions for each.

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units'" is the only definition we are given for "Battle Brothers". What is a "Friendly Unit"? It is never defined explicitly. Not once in the BRB is it defined. How about "Friendly Models"? Likewise, that is never defined. We're left having to determine what those terms mean based on the context of the rules. Are models that are part of a "Friendly Unit" also "Friendly Models"?

If that is true, why are things being applied differently just because that "friendly unit" happens to be a Battle Brother grade Allied unit? If being a part of a "Friendly Unit" makes you a "Friendly Model", then being a part of a unit that is a "Battle Brother" makes you a "Battle Brother" as well. There is nothing RAW, and definitely nothing RAI IMO, that explicitly states you lose your "Battle Brother" status ever. Just like there is nothing that makes you lose your "Friendly Unit" status.

These things are apples and apples, not apples and oranges.

Page 39 gives us "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters." Obviously, with the rules for Independent Characters there are exceptions to the part where it says "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes". He can leave coherency for one. He counts as a separate Victory Point for two.

Similarly, Page 112 gives us "[i]Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. . . . However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." We are given a clear exception to the case of how these Battle Brothers can interact.

So your IC joins a unit who happens to be Allied Battle Brothers. Both units on their own are considered "Friendly Units". Together they form a "Friendly Unit". One model in the unit is a "Battle Brother". It is from the Allied Detachment. It is not allowed to join a transport from the Primary Detachment.

The disconnect it takes to make the leap that your "Levels of Alliance" can somehow be lost I just don't get. Apparently most others don't get either. History shows that the majority does not equal right, but at some point you have to step back and honestly re-examine what you worked out previously. The context of the rules is fairly clear to me, and others. I might wish Games Workshop had stated that "all units from an Allied Detachment have the Battle Brother special rule" was what happened if your Level of Alliance was Battle Brother, but somehow I think you'd be trying to argue about this anyways. I hope I'm wrong, since that one is more of an open and shut case than this, but I have to wonder at this point.

"Levels of alliance" are rules; those rules are found on page 112. Those rules contain the rules for Battle Brothers, allies of convenience, Desperate Allies, and Come the apocalypse. You should read that page before posting here.

I am not even going to bother picking apart your citation of the definition and then stating once again that the definition does not apply.

Do you really need the rulebook to tell you what a friendly or and enemy unit is? The book assumes you can figure that out on your own. It does tell you on page 3 what a unit is though, and units and models are different terms to denote how "zoomed in" an effect is.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
That is the level of alliance, not the definition for that level of alliance. That text tells you nothing; or asserts that all models fall under the definition on page 112 should you choose to misread it that way.

The definition is 1 page back, page 112, first sentence of the second paragraph under battle brothers: "Battle brothers are treated as friendly units from all points of view."

That is the definition, battle brothers are treated as friendly units. So in order to be a battle brother, especially for the rules within that paragraph, you must be(or be treated as) a friendly unit.

So going back to your claim that everything is a battle brother; everything is treated as a friendly unit.

I was pointing out what is obviously implied or extrapolated by the logic of the allies matrix and the battle brothers rule (you know, that thing you said later about the rulebook assuming you can figure things out?)..So you have still not addressed nor refuted my previous statement nor are you capable because it seems that anything logical goes over your head and you just disregard anything that other people say that makes your argument inconsistent...

Your line of reasoning violates rules of logic (the rule of non-contradiction): "Something cannot be both true and false in the same way and sense at the same time"... Your interpretation is assuming something can both be a battle brother unit and not be a battle brother unit in that it is the battle brother rules that allow an IC to join an allied unit and also the battle brother rules that prevent it from embarking on an allied transport...You are saying "the IC stops being a battle brother unit the moment it joins an allied unit" and if that were the case, the embarkation rule stops affecting it...But then SO DOES THE RULE THAT ALLOWS IT TO JOIN AN ALLIED UNIT IN THE FIRST PLACE... Consequently you are left with a logical fallacy and you refuse to acknowledge what the basic laws of logic tell you. You can't have it both ways, you can't benefit from the battle brothers rules by joining an allied IC to a unit but then say "its not a battle brother unit anymore" and then not have to deal with the restrictions of that same rule that allowed you to join the IC in the first place, that is a double standard...

The moment a model stops being a battle brother unit, it stops being affected by all battle brother related rules and it is the battle brother rules that allow the model to join in the first place, so according to your reasoning, an IC can NEVER join an allied unit because it stops being a battle brother (which is the only way it could join in the first place) the moment it tries to join the unit in the first place...

But anyway, you will try to refute this argument by plugging your ears to logic and going "na-uh" because you are essentially rejecting the basic laws of logic and therefore your arguments make no sense and are simply wrong.

Anyway, I bet you probably think something can be both true and false at the same time or that there are no absolutes in life, eh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
"Levels of alliance" are rules; those rules are found on page 112. Those rules contain the rules for Battle Brothers, allies of convenience, Desperate Allies, and Come the apocalypse. You should read that page before posting here.

I am not even going to bother picking apart your citation of the definition and then stating once again that the definition does not apply.

Do you really need the rulebook to tell you what a friendly or and enemy unit is? The book assumes you can figure that out on your own. It does tell you on page 3 what a unit is though, and units and models are different terms to denote how "zoomed in" an effect is.

First, come the apocalypse is not a level of alliance between two armies that can be fielded together, no army can ever be taken as an ally with that level and so you'll never have any interaction as allies between them and therefore this discussion doesn't need to address them.

Second, I agree when you say the book assumes you can figure things out on your own yet you apparently are not able to, or willfully choose not to, accept what is logically inferred from the rules.

Your interpretation basically leads to this scenario:

Allied IC: Hey guys, I am a battle brother unit, can I join you guys?
Allied unit: sure, battle brother units can join us!
Allied IC: Sweet, now that I joined you I am no longer an allied battle brother unit, therefore, I can also embark with you guys, cool huh?
Allied unit: wait, you are no longer an allied battle brother unit? Get out of our unit you cannot join us!

So, the moment an IC stops being an allied battle brother unit, it stops being able to be a part of an allied unit because only allied battle brother units can join allied units...Therefore, an IC in an allied unit is still considered a battle brother unit from all points of view. Notice how the battle brothers rule says for "all points of view?" It is asking you to draw some abstractions here because even though an IC in a unit is not a separate unit, it is still a unit for rules purposes and how it is affected by abilities/powers and so on-INCLUDING the battle brother unit rules.

oh well, there really is no point in going on, my windmill has given me all the grains I can stand!

 mortetvie wrote:
Second, Note that the Battle Brothers rules says they are treated as 'friendly units,' not that they ARE friendly units...two different things that you ignore.!

Except from a rules standpoint they must mean the same thing.

 Happyjew wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
Second, Note that the Battle Brothers rules says they are treated as 'friendly units,' not that they ARE friendly units...two different things that you ignore.!

Except from a rules standpoint they must mean the same thing.

Ok, since that line of reasoning doesn't really change anything, I deleted it from my post...Now how about you actually deal with the logical fallacy of Kel's claim rather than picking a weak and unimportant part of my post?

The problem is your claiming that the moment an IC joins a unit it is no longer eligible to join the unit.

 Happyjew wrote:
The problem is your claiming that the moment an IC joins a unit it is no longer eligible to join the unit.

Its not what I am claiming, I am pointing out that that is the logical import of what Kel is saying. Kels position is saying that the moment a battle brother IC joins an eligible allied unit, the IC stops being a battle brother unit and if that is the case, the eligibility to join the unit in the first place expires as well and you are left with a logical contradiction. Therefore, any proposition that contradicts itself is false and Kel's position is false.

I'll ignore your rude attempt to tell me to go away. If that comment wasn't meant for me then I suggest you be more careful in your writing.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I am not even going to bother picking apart your citation of the definition and then stating once again that the definition does not apply.

Do you really need the rulebook to tell you what a friendly or and enemy unit is? The book assumes you can figure that out on your own. It does tell you on page 3 what a unit is though, and units and models are different terms to denote how "zoomed in" an effect is.

Apparently we do! Otherwise arguments like this wouldn't happen.

The rules on Page 3 simply tell us that your army is made up of 'models' and that your 'models' have to be grouped up into 'units' and that all 'models' in a 'unit' have to stay in coherency. That's it. The rest of the text in that section is just about the stat line.

You apparently didn't grasp what I was getting at. I'm skeptical you read the post as it was largely boring. I'll repeat myself more clearly:

What makes a model a "Friendly" model? "Friendly" is not defined anywhere. Same with "Friendly" units. If a model is part of a "friendly" unit it must be a "friendly" model, no? According to the rules, this must be the case or else things start to fall apart rather quickly.

So we have Allied Detachments. They can be Battle Brothers, Allies of Convenience, or Desperate Allies. Arguing about "Come the Apocalypse" is pointless pedantry so stop it. It is irrelevant to the discussion.

So we have a unit from the Allied Detachment. The chart says the unit and the rest of the Army are to be considered "Battle Brothers". All well and good.

My point starts here. We have a model that is part of that Allied unit. Because that model is part of the "Allied" unit, it is an "Allied" model. Exactly like a model part of a "friendly" unit is a "friendly" model. If the model is an "Allied" model, it is also a Battle Brother.

The part you seem hung up on is the IC rules that state "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."

You seem to think that because the IC moves, shoots, and assaults as part of the unit he joins that this can somehow remove the fact it is an "Allied" model. I'm saying this is a logical fallacy. The IC will always be an "Allied" model, simply because he exists in the "Allied" detachment of your Army FOC and, more importantly, belongs to a different Codex than your 'Primary' detachment.

This is important. Under your interpretation of the rules, you are saying that if you have a Tau IC join a Space Marine Tactical squad he is no longer a "Battle Brother", is no longer an "Allied" model, and is no longer a "Tau Empire" model. If you say otherwise, you are being inconsistent. What happens if that Tau IC is no longer a "Tau Empire" model? Well, special rules such as Failure Is Not An Option would no longer have any effect on the model. There are examples in every Codex of abilities that would cease to function for any IC that joined an Allied unit.

Your argument causes more problems than you realize.

Indeed, Cowmonaut, his argument is self-contradictory and you seem to be going down the same path I did lol...He won't listen but its fun to see what silly idea he comes up with to justify his position.

Ultimately, the laws of logic say he is wrong and that is that, we've just been trying to enlighten him to that fact.

Its like one of those guys loaded on PCP and are running from the police...They are shot up and jump out of windows and break both legs but still run their little hearts out until they succumb to their wounds. In essence, they don't know they are already dead and keep running until their bodies can't sustain them anymore.

Well, Kel and friends are running from the logic police and don't realize they are wrong but are going to keep running with their idea until they die, a TO calls them on it or GW officially points out they are wrong...But there is still no guarantee then that they will change their minds =).

 mortetvie wrote:
Indeed, Cowmonaut, his argument is self-contradictory and you seem to be going down the same path I did lol...He won't listen but its fun to see what silly idea he comes up with to justify his position.

Ultimately, the laws of logic say he is wrong and that is that, we've just been trying to enlighten him to that fact.

Its like one of those guys loaded on PCP and are running from the police...They are shot up and jump out of windows and break both legs but still run their little hearts out until they succumb to their wounds. In essence, they don't know they are already dead and keep running until their bodies can't sustain them anymore.

Well, Kel and friends are running from the logic police and don't realize they are wrong but are going to keep running with their idea until they die, a TO calls them on it or GW officially points out they are wrong...But there is still no guarantee then that they will change their minds =).

Why would a TO tell us we are wrong? Of the three people (I know of) arguing for, one plays Tyranid, and so will not be affected; and one has claimed while he believes this is what the rules says he doesn't play it like that. I have no idea how KK pays it.

 mortetvie wrote:

Your interpretation basically leads to this scenario:

Allied IC: Hey guys, I am a battle brother unit, can I join you guys?
Allied unit: sure, battle brother units can join us!
Allied IC: Sweet, now that I joined you I am no longer an allied battle brother unit, therefore, I can also embark with you guys, cool huh?
Allied unit: wait, you are no longer an allied battle brother unit? Get out of our unit you cannot join us!

So, the moment an IC stops being an allied battle brother unit, it stops being able to be a part of an allied unit because only allied battle brother units can join allied units...Therefore, an IC in an allied unit is still considered a battle brother unit from all points of view. Notice how the battle brothers rule says for "all points of view?" It is asking you to draw some abstractions here because even though an IC in a unit is not a separate unit, it is still a unit for rules purposes and how it is affected by abilities/powers and so on-INCLUDING the battle brother unit rules.

oh well, there really is no point in going on, my windmill has given me all the grains I can stand!

So do you have me on ignore? I've explained at least twice why you're absolutely wrong with this entire situation and that you're inventing a conflict where there is none.

And no, an IC is not a unit for any rules purposes after it's attached - reference Dark Eldar models benefitting from Fortune.

Rigeld, I don't have you on ignore, you just really have not explained anything...I don't think you realize that what you've been posting is not an explanation at all but simply your own opinion not based on appropriate authority.

I, on the other hand, have been pointing out that the basic laws of logic demonstrate the argument is wrong. Plain and simple, you can't really argue against that...

Basically, you keep neglecting the fact that the IC rules don't change the fact that the allied IC is still a battle brother subject to the battle brother rules even when it joins an allied unit and if that were not the case, then it's eligibility to join the unit vanishes the moment it attempts to join the unit and therefore the position contradicts itself...

Again, an allied IC joining an allied unit does not cease to follow the battle brother rules. If it did, the same rules that allowed it to join and be a member of the unit cease to function as well and you are left with a rules violation (because only allied ICs that are battle brothers can join allied units and if it ceases to be an allied battle brother IC, it loses the eligibility to join the unit).

Does the book explicitly state somewhere that Independent Characters stop being their own units once they join another unit?

Page 3 of the BRB brings up this quote... "A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together. but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine, or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right."

I'm trying to find further in the book where an IC that joins another unit also stops being a unit in its own right. In the description for ICs joining units, they do not explicitly state that joining a unit nulls the IC being a unit in its own right. So while he is a part of a unit, an IC is still also treated as a unit in its own right.

 mortetvie wrote:
Rigeld, I don't have you on ignore, you just really have not explained anything...I don't think you realize that what you've been posting is not an explanation at all but simply your own opinion not based on appropriate authority.

I've explained why the example I quoted is not how the rules actually work - you're inventing that.

I, on the other hand, have been pointing out that the basic laws of logic demonstrate the argument is wrong. Plain and simple, you can't really argue against that...

No, you haven't.

Basically, you keep neglecting the fact that the IC rules don't change the fact that the allied IC is still a battle brother subject to the battle brother rules even when it joins an allied unit and if that were not the case, then it's eligibility to join the unit vanishes the moment it attempts to join the unit and therefore the position contradicts itself...

That's a lie.
An IC does not get permission solely from the definition of a Battle Brother - as I've explained and you've ignored.
It helps you make your point to pretend I'm foolish for "overlooking" this contradiction, and so you continue saying its true when I've demonstrated multiple times it is not. Please stop pretending it is.

Again, an allied IC joining an allied unit does not cease to follow the battle brother rules. If it did, the same rules that allowed it to join and be a member of the unit cease to function as well and you are left with a rules violation (because only allied ICs that are battle brothers can join allied units and if it ceases to be an allied battle brother IC, it loses the eligibility to join the unit).

No, false, wrong, incorrect - do I need to use another language perhaps?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarOne wrote:
Does the book explicitly state somewhere that Independent Characters stop being their own units once they join another unit?

Page 3 of the BRB brings up this quote... "A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together. but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine, or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right."

I'm trying to find further in the book where an IC that joins another unit also stops being a unit in its own right. In the description for ICs joining units, they do not explicitly state that joining a unit nulls the IC being a unit in its own right. So while he is a part of a unit, an IC is still also treated as a unit in its own right.

So you can shoot an IC that is attached to a unit?

rigeld2 wrote:

So you can shoot an IC that is attached to a unit?

If it gets subsumed into a unit and counts as being a part of that unit for all intents and purposes (page 39 BRB), does it lose his ability to be a unit all on its own while attached to said unit?

It is moot because you have are forced to count the IC as being a part of that unit for all rules purposes. So you still wouldn't be able to target it except through rules (characters, ect.).

Except you could if it was its own unit...

Regardless, the fact that its part of the parent unit for all rules purposes means its not its own unit - parent units can't have child units.

rigeld2 wrote:
Except you could if it was its own unit...

Regardless, the fact that its part of the parent unit for all rules purposes means its not its own unit - parent units can't have child units.

But how do we know for sure? Do the rules don't explicitly state the end of one unit when an IC joins another unit?

Rigeld, saying that my argument is not based on logic does not make it so...

The rule of non-contradiction shows how you guys are wrong so simply going "no you are wrong" doesn't cut it,

You are failing to regard how battle brothers and IC rules interact between units from different armies...Simply saying what I say is a lie without proving it is just a baseless accusation.

You said

"That's a lie.
An IC does not get permission solely from the definition of a Battle Brother - as I've explained and you've ignored.
It helps you make your point to pretend I'm foolish for "overlooking" this contradiction, and so you continue saying its true when I've demonstrated multiple times it is not. Please stop pretending it is. "

An IC can join a friendly unit as per the IC rules. Allied ICs are considered friendly units for this purpose as long as they are battle brothers. The moment they stop being battle brothers is the moment they are no longer allowed to join the said unit because they cease being treated as friendly units...You are looking at the IC rules and neglecting how the combination of IC and battle brother rules are what allow allied ICs to join units.

Consider this simple flow chart:

(1) Is an allied IC in an allied detachment a battle brother?

If no, then it is unable to join a unit from the primary detachment.

If yes, then it is allowed to join a unit from the primary detachment

(2) Once the IC joins the unit in question, do the battle brother rules stop applying to it?

If yes, it must leave the unit because only ICs benefiting from the battle brother rules can join allied units and if it is no longer a battle brother IC, it is no longer a friendly unit "from all points of view" and is therefore an unfriendly unit..,and you are left with a logical contradiction which means you are wrong.

If no, then it cannot also embark onto a transport and the majority is right.

 mortetvie wrote:
The rule of non-contradiction shows how you guys are wrong so simply going "no you are wrong" doesn't cut it,

Correct. Fortunately for me I've proven, using rules, why there's no contradiction.

You are failing to regard how battle brothers and IC rules interact between units from different armies...Simply saying what I say is a lie without proving it is just a baseless accusation.

I have proven it. You've ignored that proof.

An IC can join a friendly unit as per the IC rules. Allied ICs are considered friendly units for this purpose as long as they are battle brothers. The moment they stop being battle brothers is the moment they are no longer allowed to join the said unit because they cease being treated as friendly units...You are looking at the IC rules and neglecting how the combination of IC and battle brother rules are what allow allied ICs to join units.

Citation needed for them not being friendly units. You've never cited that, only assumed it. The ally rules certainly don't support that statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Except you could if it was its own unit...

Regardless, the fact that its part of the parent unit for all rules purposes means its not its own unit - parent units can't have child units.

But how do we know for sure? Do the rules don't explicitly state the end of one unit when an IC joins another unit?

Because a unit is a collection of models.
A unit is not a collection of units, or a mix of models and units.

rigeld2 wrote:Citation needed for them not being friendly units. You've never cited that, only assumed it. The ally rules certainly don't support that statement.

I was using the language of the battle brother rules and then using something called logic to point out how your position results in a contradiction.. looking at a logical contradiction and saying it isn't ones doesn't make you right, which is all you've done...

If the battle brother rules stop applying to an allied IC when it joins a unit, then it loses its eligibility to be a part of that unit because it is the battle brother rules that allow that IC to join the unit in the first place. You cannot point to the IC rules in and of themselves to aid you because those are not the rules that allow said IC to join in the first place. You need to look at the battle brother rules.

So you don't have a rule supporting your assertion and you're making an argument based on intent?

That's fair. I don't care about intent in this instance.

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Except you could if it was its own unit...

Regardless, the fact that its part of the parent unit for all rules purposes means its not its own unit - parent units can't have child units.

But how do we know for sure? Do the rules don't explicitly state the end of one unit when an IC joins another unit?

Because a unit is a collection of models.
A unit is not a collection of units, or a mix of models and units.

Unit definition gives leeway to the concept of usually being several models that have banded together and also powerful singular individuals that also consist of one model.

However, the problem still remains that we still do not know if the concept of an IC being a unit unto itself ends with it joining another unit. It joins the unit and shares being a unit with it, but it is still an IC and still a unit in its own right.

No, because there's no permission for a unit to be a member of another unit.
You're chasing for something that isn't there.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, because there's no permission for a unit to be a member of another unit.
You're chasing for something that isn't there.

But it goes back to the argument for Battle Brother definitions to cease being active while joining an allied unit.

If a Battle Brother IC loses his Battle Brother alliance level, doesn't he also lose his allied status as well when joining an allied unit? Even if he counts as being a part of that unit, the clause that allows him to join that unit in the first place would cease to exist.

rigeld2 wrote:
So you don't have a rule supporting your assertion and you're making an argument based on intent?

That's fair. I don't care about intent in this instance.

What? The logical inferences of rules have nothing to do with intent...A logical inference drawn from a rule is just as good as the rule itself so I don't understand how you don't understand.

Either an allied IC joining an allied unit is a battle brother or it isn't... That is like saying either a Space Marine is a Space Marine or it isn't. This is the logical law of identity.

If an IC is a battle brother, it benefits from all of the battle brother rules. If it is not a battle brother, it benefits from none of them, you can't have it somewhere in-between. This is the logical law of excluded middle.

If an IC benefits from the battle brothers rule to be able to join an allied unit but then some of the battle brother rules stop applying to it once it joins the said unit, you immediately have a logical contradiction and this is what you are ignoring, not me.

Logic says you are wrong, its that simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, because there's no permission for a unit to be a member of another unit.
You're chasing for something that isn't there.

But it goes back to the argument for Battle Brother definitions to cease being active while joining an allied unit.

If a Battle Brother IC loses his Battle Brother alliance level, doesn't he also lose his allied status as well when joining an allied unit? Even if he counts as being a part of that unit, the clause that allows him to join that unit in the first place would cease to exist.

Exactly!

 WarOne wrote:
If a Battle Brother IC loses his Battle Brother alliance level, doesn't he also lose his allied status as well when joining an allied unit? Even if he counts as being a part of that unit, the clause that allows him to join that unit in the first place would cease to exist.

Exactly the point I was trying to make. If you lose "Battle Brother" status by joining a unit as an IC, then you lose other things as well in ways that severely disrupt/break the game. And that is ignoring the paradox you create (an IC can only join an Allied unit if he is a Battle Brother level ally to that unit, so if he is not a Battle Brother he can no longer be part of that unit, which makes him a Battle Brother to the unit since he is by himself, loop till your head explodes). Too many other rules, usually Codex specific or even unit specific, break if you allow this.

Which is why the argument is flawed unfortunately. I'd love to see 4 of my SW HQs in a Deathstar load out in an allied Stormraven by joining a Blood Angel unit.

Even better, using the same logic it could possibly mean that they'd benefit from FNP from the Sanguinary Priests.

The point does boil down to poor wording from GW on its own rules. While addressing the Alliance system, the way the Battle Brother alliance level plays with models and units is inexcusably and irreversibly written poorly pending any sort of direct FAQ fixing.

Models that could technically lose their Battle Brother alliance status when joining an allied unit suffer from a lack of identity in this case, forced to rely upon the rule making ICs count as being a part of the unit they have joined. But the IC then cannot be with that unit because in and of itself it belongs with a different detachment. You cannot change that. In order for it to exist with another detachment, it must be allied and must be a Battle Brother, otherwise you enter a paradoxical relationship because you must follow all rules (page 39). Losing Battle Brother alliance level means that the allied IC ceases being an allied IC, so how could it maintain being in a unit that now does not consider it an ally?

In short, calling Battle Brothers units but not addressing models opens up a Pandora's Box of various interpretations and rule conflicts when situations arise when the definition of Battle Brother interacts with other rules.

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, because there's no permission for a unit to be a member of another unit.
You're chasing for something that isn't there.

But it goes back to the argument for Battle Brother definitions to cease being active while joining an allied unit.

If a Battle Brother IC loses his Battle Brother alliance level, doesn't he also lose his allied status as well when joining an allied unit? Even if he counts as being a part of that unit, the clause that allows him to join that unit in the first place would cease to exist.

You mean the permission in the IC rules that allows him to join a friendly unit?

Could you do me a favor and cite the rule that says allied units are not friendly units?
No one else has been able to yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mortetvie wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you don't have a rule supporting your assertion and you're making an argument based on intent?

That's fair. I don't care about intent in this instance.

What? The logical inferences of rules have nothing to do with intent...A logical inference drawn from a rule is just as good as the rule itself so I don't understand how you don't understand.

Either an allied IC joining an allied unit is a battle brother or it isn't... That is like saying either a Space Marine is a Space Marine or it isn't. This is the logical law of identity.

If an IC is a battle brother, it benefits from all of the battle brother rules. If it is not a battle brother, it benefits from none of them, you can't have it somewhere in-between. This is the logical law of excluded middle.

If an IC benefits from the battle brothers rule to be able to join an allied unit but then some of the battle brother rules stop applying to it once it joins the said unit, you immediately have a logical contradiction and this is what you are ignoring, not me.

Logic says you are wrong, its that simple.

So... Still nothing that says an allied unit is not a friendly unit aside from your assumption?

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, because there's no permission for a unit to be a member of another unit.
You're chasing for something that isn't there.

But it goes back to the argument for Battle Brother definitions to cease being active while joining an allied unit.

If a Battle Brother IC loses his Battle Brother alliance level, doesn't he also lose his allied status as well when joining an allied unit? Even if he counts as being a part of that unit, the clause that allows him to join that unit in the first place would cease to exist.

You mean the permission in the IC rules that allows him to join a friendly unit?

Could you do me a favor and cite the rule that says allied units are not friendly units?
No one else has been able to yet.

And like in the case of Battle Brothers again, there is nothing stating that an IC ceases to be a unit unto itself (page 3) when joining another unit consisting of several models.

I need a citation of a rule explicitly stating ICs lose their unit status when joining another unit to be convinced that it ceases being a unit in its own right. I have to assume that because the rules do not go out there and explain to me the loss of unit status when an IC unit joins another unit.

I've explained that. A unit is defined as a collection of models.
Does a collection of models include a unit?

The answer is demonstrably no.

rigeld2 wrote:
I've explained that. A unit is defined as a collection of models.
Does a collection of models include a unit?

The answer is demonstrably no.

It has not been demonstrated by a rule explicitly stating this. We are assuming this based on interpretation of a loose definition of units and what comprises a unit from page 3.

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I've explained that. A unit is defined as a collection of models.
Does a collection of models include a unit?

The answer is demonstrably no.

It has not been demonstrated by a rule explicitly stating this. We are assuming this based on interpretation of a loose definition of units and what comprises a unit from page 3.

It's not a "loose definition".
A unit is composed of one or more models. That's a fact based on the rules on page 3.
Trying to insert other things into a unit that doesn't fit that definition just doesn't work.

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I've explained that. A unit is defined as a collection of models.
Does a collection of models include a unit?

The answer is demonstrably no.

It has not been demonstrated by a rule explicitly stating this. We are assuming this based on interpretation of a loose definition of units and what comprises a unit from page 3.

It's not a "loose definition".
A unit is composed of one or more models. That's a fact based on the rules on page 3.
Trying to insert other things into a unit that doesn't fit that definition just doesn't work.

But yet they do not state what happens to an IC's status as a unit when it joins another unit. The rules for units opens itself up to interpretation by stating "a unit usually consists of several models..."

And on top of it, if it didn't have that usually there and used a more ironclad word for meaning what a unit is, I'd agree with you. But the interpretation itself is left open by leaving the definition hanging in the air.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, because there's no permission for a unit to be a member of another unit.
You're chasing for something that isn't there.

But it goes back to the argument for Battle Brother definitions to cease being active while joining an allied unit.

If a Battle Brother IC loses his Battle Brother alliance level, doesn't he also lose his allied status as well when joining an allied unit? Even if he counts as being a part of that unit, the clause that allows him to join that unit in the first place would cease to exist.

You mean the permission in the IC rules that allows him to join a friendly unit?

Could you do me a favor and cite the rule that says allied units are not friendly units?
No one else has been able to yet.

If Battle Brother alliance level confers treatment of units as 'friendly units' (page 112) then the following...

It allows units that are Battle Brothers to have an allied IC join them.

ICs are treated as a part of the unit for all rules purposes (page 39).

However, if an allied IC loses his Battle Brother alliance level, then that means he is not a Battle Brother anymore and therefore where does the book allow permission for non-Battle Brother ICs that are allied to remain joined to a unit?

Is it assumed then that simply being allied allows an IC to remain joined to an allied unit from a different detachment? Such as it is, the alliance levels of Allies of Convenience and Desperate Allies all state that units cannot be joined by allied ICs.

So it has to be that Battle Brothers confers a special permission to allow allied ICs to joined allied units. So somewhere in the book there has to be a rule somewhere that forbids ICs (no matter who they are) to join another unit outside their detachment because why would the alliance system go out of its way to explicitly describe what an Alliance level does for interaction of allied ICs and units that belong to different detachments?

So GW has to go out of their way to describe that the alliance level of Battle Brothers confers the ability for allied ICs and units to be able to join together while on the other hand Allies of Convenience and Allies of Desperation get explicit mention that allied ICs and units cannot be joined to each other.

Losing the alliance level of Battle Brother somewhere means something somewhere because if the unit is still a Battle Brother but the IC is not, what happens in this case? Where do we have a rule that states what happens next?

Such as it is, GW comps out by stating that being a Battle Brother means being a "friendly unit(s)" and then providing examples of interactions of how that rule can be used.

So in the case of ICs joining an allied unit, it provides merely one example of what happens in this event. They give no other examples, leaving the interpretation subject to change based on perception because what is an example other than a

A thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule.

So in this context, GW still needs to clarify its rules in this case with more stringent testing of their wording as the example lacks clarity in many situations.

So your assertion is that GW never writes redundant rules and therefore if a rule exists then its opposite exists in an unwritten state?

And that's a RAW argument that you feel is tenable?

rigeld2 wrote:
So your assertion is that GW never writes redundant rules and therefore if a rule exists then its opposite exists in an unwritten state?

And that's a RAW argument that you feel is tenable?

It also is unwritten what happens when an allied IC joins an allied unit while losing Battle Brother alliance level and is assumed because the model ceases to be a unit unto itself because it is assumed it loses its unit status because Battle Brothers only exist under unit definitions and not model definitions.

RAW, losing Battle Brother status would leave an ambiguous definition of how a non-Battle Brother allied IC can interact with an allied unit.

EDIT: Hunting down mentions of friendly unit (such as ICs joining friendly units on page 39). There is no dispute that ICs that are friendly can join ICs and that Battle Brothers tell you that your friendly units when applying rules. So what happens when an IC loses Battle Brother alliance level status joining an allied unit? Does he still remain friendly?

Only if you assume that allied units are automatically not friendly units.
Which has no basis in rules, unlike everything I've said.

Edit: You're looking for the wrong thing. You need a definition of friendly unit that excludes allies for your assumptions to be correct.
There isn't one.

rigeld2 wrote:
Only if you assume that allied units are automatically not friendly units.
Which has no basis in rules, unlike everything I've said.

But we need the Battle Brothers rule to claim allies are considered friendly. Do we have a situation clarified by rules when Battle Brothers alliance level is lost?

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Only if you assume that allied units are automatically not friendly units.
Which has no basis in rules, unlike everything I've said.

But we need the Battle Brothers rule to claim allies are considered friendly. Do we have a situation clarified by rules when Battle Brothers alliance level is lost?

No, you do not "need" that. It exists but is redundant.

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Only if you assume that allied units are automatically not friendly units.
Which has no basis in rules, unlike everything I've said.

But we need the Battle Brothers rule to claim allies are considered friendly. Do we have a situation clarified by rules when Battle Brothers alliance level is lost?

No, you do not "need" that. It exists but is redundant.

So simply being allied allows units to be friendly?

Friendly unit is not defined anywhere in the BRB.
Since its not defined, the only thing that makes sense is "any unit in your army list, including units that spawn from special rules" unless you're told otherwise.

Limiting it to FOCs doesn't make sense - plenty of units exist outside the FOC.

Since Primary Detachment is just a subsection of FOCs, it doesn't make sense to limit at that level either.

rigeld2 wrote:
Friendly unit is not defined anywhere in the BRB.
Since its not defined, the only thing that makes sense is "any unit in your army list, including units that spawn from special rules" unless you're told otherwise.

Limiting it to FOCs doesn't make sense - plenty of units exist outside the FOC.

Since Primary Detachment is just a subsection of FOCs, it doesn't make sense to limit at that level either.

So what would be the point of introducing the Battle Brother alliance level as the other three levels of Alliance seem to be the only ones that actually do things to prohibit specific unit interactions?

Is this a failure of RAI versus what is actually RAW?

EDIT: Sleep time!

I don't know nor care what the RAI is.

I could see them introducing the Battle Brother level to clarify that these dudes are the same as your normal army - the blue dudes just can't ride in the red tanks. But when a blue IC joins a red unit, he's not a blue dude anymore (as far as the rules are concerned). He's a red dude with spiffy rules.

Yeah, I should go to sleep soon.

rigeld2 wrote:
So... Still nothing that says an allied unit is not a friendly unit aside from your assumption?

An assumption is something taken for granted or something assumed.

A logical Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true. In this case, the premises are KNOWN to be true therefore my conclusions ARE true.

If the laws of logic are what they are, then you have violated them with your point of view (which violates the law of identity and excluded middle) and its sad that you can't see it for yourself. You don't need a rule in a rulebook to say that a model in an Eldar unit is an Eldar model, that is a logical inference and that is what people are trying to point out to you.

Likewise, you don't need a rule to say that a battle brother is a battle brother. You don't need a rule to say that an allied independent character that is a battle brother as per the allies chart must follow the rules for battle brothers. You also don't need a rule to say that a model in a battle brother unit is a battle brother model. All of these things are logically pulled out from the plain and existing battle brother/allies rules.

As I pointed out earlier and you have not addressed, if an allied IC that is a battle brother joins an allied unit, is it still a battle brother? If it is, then it must abide by all of the battle brother rules including not being able to embark. If it is no longer a battle brother, then it does not have any basis for joining that said unit because only a battle brother allied IC can join friendly units. It is not the fact that it is an IC that it can join the unit but the fact that it is a battle brother IC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
I don't know nor care what the RAI is.

I could see them introducing the Battle Brother level to clarify that these dudes are the same as your normal army - the blue dudes just can't ride in the red tanks. But when a blue IC joins a red unit, he's not a blue dude anymore (as far as the rules are concerned). He's a red dude with spiffy rules.

Yeah, I should go to sleep soon.

And this is an assumption on your part that is NOT supported by the rules, only a twisting of them because the rules do not say that Eldrad stops being an Eldar model when he joins a Tau Fire Warrior unit. However, according to your interpretation of the rules, Eldrad would become a Tau model when he joins a Tau unit.

So, by that rationale, Eldrad is in the Tau codex?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
So, by that rationale, Eldrad is in the Tau codex?

who and what is this referring to?

Eldrad is from the Eldar codex but because Eldar and Tau are battle brothers, Eldrad can join Tau units. According to Rigeld2's logic, Eldrad becomes a Tau unit/model when he joins a Tau unit which makes no sense. basically, he is saying that a model from an allied detachment stops being a model from an allied detachment once it joins a unit from the primary detachment. This is against basic logic and is self-refuting logic which means that he is wrong but he can't see it or accept it.

 mortetvie wrote:
Likewise, you don't need a rule to say that a battle brother is a battle brother. You don't need a rule to say that an allied independent character that is a battle brother as per the allies chart must follow the rules for battle brothers. You also don't need a rule to say that a model in a battle brother unit is a battle brother model. All of these things are logically pulled out from the plain and existing battle brother/allies rules.

Please quote the rules that define a Battle Brother. Doing so will force you to read (and hopefully understand instead of ignore) the basis of my argument. You have a rule defining restrictions on Battle Brother units. If something is not a Battle Brother unit, the restriction cannot be applied.

If you'd read the thread you'd also see where I pointed out I'm not making any kind of excluded middle logical failures - but if it makes you feel better to use big words then feel free.

As I pointed out earlier and you have not addressed, if an allied IC that is a battle brother joins an allied unit, is it still a battle brother? If it is, then it must abide by all of the battle brother rules including not being able to embark. If it is no longer a battle brother, then it does not have any basis for joining that said unit because only a battle brother allied IC can join friendly units. It is not the fact that it is an IC that it can join the unit but the fact that it is a battle brother IC.

I have addressed it multiple times - please stop lying. The IC rules permit you being able to join friendly units. This means that you must prove that allied units are by definition not friendly.
You've refused to cite a rule saying that allied units are not friendly units. You've made logical leaps to do so, but those are not rules - they're assumptions.

And this is an assumption on your part that is NOT supported by the rules, only a twisting of them because the rules do not say that Eldrad stops being an Eldar model when he joins a Tau Fire Warrior unit. However, according to your interpretation of the rules, Eldrad would become a Tau model when he joins a Tau unit.

Since he's a member of the unit for all rules purposes then as far as the actual rules are concerned, yes he's a Tau model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mortetvie wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
So, by that rationale, Eldrad is in the Tau codex?

who and what is this referring to?

Eldrad is from the Eldar codex but because Eldar and Tau are battle brothers, Eldrad can join Tau units. According to Rigeld2's logic, Eldrad becomes a Tau unit/model when he joins a Tau unit which makes no sense. basically, he is saying that a model from an allied detachment stops being a model from an allied detachment once it joins a unit from the primary detachment. This is against basic logic and is self-refuting logic which means that he is wrong but he can't see it or accept it.

It's not, but its cute that you think so.
As far as actual rules and not "mortetvie40k" is concerned, Eldrad would be a member of the primary detachment "for all rules purposes."
It's almost like it says that in the rules or something.

I think after 14 pages we've covered all the relevant ground.