I feel it is best for me to just start a discussion on this instead of derailing other threads.

You need to read within the rules of English(many if not all rules in the BRB are written with them), wherein the 1st sentence of a paragraph establishes the subject of the paragraph, all further sentences must be written in regards to this subject; or a new paragraph must be started.

The subject in the first sentence is "Battle brothers", and that same sentence defines that subject as "Friendly units".

Further, one must understand that the bullet points are part of the sentence that contains the colon immediately prior to their listing: "This means, for example, that battle brothers:".

Now, since the bullet points are all further expansions of what Battle brothers mean, and "Battle Brothers" in this paragraph are already defined as "Friendly units" then we can apply those 2 cases: The third bullet point says that even allied friendly units cannot embark in their allies transports.

Now as far as the refutes that an IC joined to a unit somehow changes that unit to no longer be what it is; I point you to Page 39 of the BRB, ICs, First Column, last paragraph: "While an Independent character is part of a unit, he counts as part of that unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters." So The IC does not change the unit at all he becomes a part of that unit wholly(this is why Fortune can be cast on a unit of guardians with an attached Archon or Ethereal) and for this reason the Attached Battle brother even ceases to be a battle brother while attached(he is, for example, a Fire Warrior).

You will find that you use the structure of writing when you read most rules in the BRB, Some quick and random examples:
- Measuring Distances, BRB, page 4; Where what is the case?
- Armor saves(BRB Page 16) does it with bullet points; Both discussing the d6 result in comparison to the Armour save stat as established by the preceding first sentence.
- Moving Chargers after the Initial charger also does it with bullet points and the Colon, all referencing back to the subject of Chargers after the first, and that those bullet points are a list of conditions that must be met by those chargers.
- every rule of every unit type is read with paragraph structure in mind or you will have no idea what the individual sentences are talking about.

I see this as wishlisting. I don't have the BRB within front of my, but you can't share transports. BB cannot ride in their allies transports. You're IC, regardless if attached to a unit, is still a BB. He's not getting in that sweet ride.

Or more simply put, if you have to pick the grammar apart, you're probably going to far. I see 40k as a permissive rules set. Unless it says you can, assume you cannot.

 TheKbob wrote:
I see this as wishlisting. I don't have the BRB within front of my, but you can't share transports. BB cannot ride in their allies transports. You're IC, regardless if attached to a unit, is still a BB. He's not getting in that sweet ride.

Or more simply put, if you have to pick the grammar apart, you're probably going to far. I see 40k as a permissive rules set. Unless it says you can, assume you cannot.

I had to explain the grammar, not pick it apart; my initial reading was that only Battle brother units could not embark.

I think Battle Brothers must more comprehensively be read to include all models in the allied detachment, not just when they're in their own units, although that's the predominant case.

If GW meant for that prohibition just to apply to units of Battle Brothers, they could certainly have used the phrasing "units of Battle Brothers", or otherwise employed the word units, as they did in the preceding bullet point, and in one of the bullet points under AoC.

Yet by the same token if they meant to change the subject of the paragraph they could have simply stated "not even battle brothers models..."

That would be completely unambiguous.

I will not gnash and rail should GW address this in an FAQ in favor of the Battle brothers models; but until then this is up for debate.

Do a poll. No one who is honest and understands the rules will agree with you.

I am honest and understand the rules.

Also I do not want a poll; I want a discussion.

Your using 'grammar' as an explanation, when we all know that GW can't write a clear rule to save their lives?

A poll will show exactly how few agree with you. There is nothing here to discuss.

 Ghaz wrote:
Your using 'grammar' as an explanation, when we all know that GW can't write a clear rule to save their lives?

No, I think he's using context. Which is not a bad argument, although I disagree with it. As I said before, I can agree that there's some ambiguity here. But I personally think the intent is for the prohibition to apply to all Battle Brothers, not just ones in their own units, and I jut think in ambiguous cases we have to err on the side of caution and take the less-powerful interpretation.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
A poll will show exactly how few agree with you. There is nothing here to discuss.

You may be surprised. If there was a poll I would like to see "RAW" and "HYWPI". I agree with Kommissar Kel, not bsed on his argument but the fact that an IC is treated as a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes. While I think the rules are on my side, as I've stated before, I don't play it that way.

The IC is always a Battle Brother. The wording is explicit and there's no getting around it.

I don't see how an attached IC prevents a unit from getting into their own transport if attached.

LandRaider Pilot ---," Sorry Kantor you can't bring our own stinking allies into our land raider esp. not accompanied by our own troops. GET OUT DIRTY ALLY LOVER. I hate when Chapter Masters try and pull that crap."

Somethings may not be in the rules but for the sheer common sense of it I would allow even if it went against me.

Since there is a question here at all I would allow it. I can't see an attached IC changing the unit to just a friendly unit.

The attached IC doesn't change the unit at all. He is simply something that is not allowed in the transport, due to being a battle brother. It's not really any different in that respect to not being allowed on board because the IC is wearing terminator armour.


Meanwhile, I disagree with Kel's grammar assessment. There is nothing in that section of the rules that suggests that every time they use the term 'battle brother' they mean 'battle brother unit'.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I feel it is best for me to just start a discussion on this instead of derailing other threads.

Now as far as the refutes that an IC joined to a unit somehow changes that unit to no longer be what it is; I point you to Page 39 of the BRB, ICs, First Column, last paragraph: "While an Independent character is part of a unit, he counts as part of that unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters." So The IC does not change the unit at all he becomes a part of that unit wholly(this is why Fortune can be cast on a unit of guardians with an attached Archon or Ethereal) and for this reason the Attached Battle brother even ceases to be a battle brother while attached(he is, for example, a Fire Warrior).

Even on this subject, "Archon joining an Eldar Unit and reaping the benefits of fortune", many if not most of the Tournament rule sets and communities have ruled out that it can Only affect the "Eldar part of the unit", meaning if a Dark Eldar IC joins an Eldar unit, the unit can be targeted as normal with fortune but the IC cannot benefit from it.

As far as your main point, "Battle Brother" definition for the most part of the community means: BB Allied IC, BB Allied units and in general any and all BB Models count as Battle Brothers. And that distinguishable feature doesn't change their unit type nor their distinct ratial nature (which is explained in the specific chosen ally codex).

Moreover, the acclamation that BB's are Friendly Units is wrong, they are not Friendly units, BUT they ARE TREATED AS friendly units for the bulletpoints that follow that distinction plus in any other case that the definition "FRIENDLY UNITS" is refered to in the BRB.
This cases are two:
1) In the objectives section in the brb. which explains what counts as scoring and denial, by indirectly including them with the rule: ALL units from the troops organisation (it doesn't say primary, secondary or allied it means any and all) chart count as scoring etc.. and ALL units (including troops) are denial etc. and
2)In the section for the Warlord traits, which introduces the wording "Friendly Units" and means all units that are yours to command and not your opponents.

Hope this clears it for you.
Just my 2cent.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So The IC does not change the unit at all he becomes a part of that unit wholly(this is why Fortune can be cast on a unit of guardians with an attached Archon or Ethereal) and for this reason the Attached Battle brother even ceases to be a battle brother while attached (he is, for example, a Fire Warrior).

This is where you have taken an incorrect logical leap.

Just because an IC counts as being a member of a unit does not mean any other rules/abilities/etc that this model has are jettisoned. Even if the model is joined a unit, he is STILL an allied battle brother model within that unit.

And given that IC battle brothers are never allowed to embark on their allies transports, this is always disallowed, no matter what.

If you are claiming that the independent character is no longer a"battle brother" because he is now part of a unit that itself is not a battle brother then, in your opinion, what happens if say a space marine IC joins an IG unit, is he still a space marine for the purpose of preferred enemy etc? Or are you trying to say that he now counts as a guardsmen?

Personally I think you are trying to create holes in GWs rules (granted its not hard to do) and thier intention was that no alliescan be transported at all..... that being said I oove the thought process and you do have a valid argument

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I feel it is best for me to just start a discussion on this instead of derailing other threads.

You need to read within the rules of English(many if not all rules in the BRB are written with them), wherein the 1st sentence of a paragraph establishes the subject of the paragraph, all further sentences must be written in regards to this subject; or a new paragraph must be started.

The subject in the first sentence is "Battle brothers", and that same sentence defines that subject as "Friendly units".

Further, one must understand that the bullet points are part of the sentence that contains the colon immediately prior to their listing: "This means, for example, that battle brothers:".

Now, since the bullet points are all further expansions of what Battle brothers mean, and "Battle Brothers" in this paragraph are already defined as "Friendly units" then we can apply those 2 cases: The third bullet point says that even allied friendly units cannot embark in their allies transports.

Now as far as the refutes that an IC joined to a unit somehow changes that unit to no longer be what it is; I point you to Page 39 of the BRB, ICs, First Column, last paragraph: "While an Independent character is part of a unit, he counts as part of that unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters." So The IC does not change the unit at all he becomes a part of that unit wholly(this is why Fortune can be cast on a unit of guardians with an attached Archon or Ethereal) and for this reason the Attached Battle brother even ceases to be a battle brother while attached(he is, for example, a Fire Warrior).

You will find that you use the structure of writing when you read most rules in the BRB, Some quick and random examples:
- Measuring Distances, BRB, page 4; Where what is the case?
- Armor saves(BRB Page 16) does it with bullet points; Both discussing the d6 result in comparison to the Armour save stat as established by the preceding first sentence.
- Moving Chargers after the Initial charger also does it with bullet points and the Colon, all referencing back to the subject of Chargers after the first, and that those bullet points are a list of conditions that must be met by those chargers.
- every rule of every unit type is read with paragraph structure in mind or you will have no idea what the individual sentences are talking about.

Kel, I have a few questions for you. I don't play Eldar so I will use an IG/Ultramarine example since i am familiar with them.

Since these two armies are BB, if Tigurius (IC, Librarian) joins an IG Platoon, what are the Characteristic stats for Tigurius since he is now a guardsman?
What wargear does he have, since he is no longer a Space Marine?
Is he still a Librarian? If yes then what level is he?

Keep in mind, that according to the IC rules, only Special Rules are kept by the IC, not wargear, not Stats not even Unit type.

40k-noob wrote:


Kel, I have a few questions for you. I don't play Eldar so I will use an IG/Ultramarine example since i am familiar with them.

Since these two armies are BB, if Tigurius (IC, Librarian) joins an IG Platoon, what are the Characteristic stats for Tigurius since he is now a guardsman?
What wargear does he have, since he is no longer a Space Marine?
Is he still a Librarian? If yes then what level is he?

Keep in mind, that according to the IC rules, only Special Rules are kept by the IC, not wargear, not Stats not even Unit type.

I am now imagining Tigurius seeing a 50 man strong platoon, a glint comes to his eyes, he pushes the release latches on his power armor, and softly, on the sweet winds of the battlefield, says...

"It's naked time!"

40k-noob wrote:
Kel, I have a few questions for you. I don't play Eldar so I will use an IG/Ultramarine example since i am familiar with them.

Since these two armies are BB, if Tigurius (IC, Librarian) joins an IG Platoon, what are the Characteristic stats for Tigurius since he is now a guardsman?
What wargear does he have, since he is no longer a Space Marine?
Is he still a Librarian? If yes then what level is he?

Keep in mind, that according to the IC rules, only Special Rules are kept by the IC, not wargear, not Stats not even Unit type.

Whilst I don't agree with the OP (I believe that the rule was intended to be BB models, not BB units - my opinion is irrelevant in any case), nothing says that being part of a unit means it has to have the statline of the majority. After all, in a unit of Orks (for example) you can have models with different saves, wounds, strength etc. Ditto for wargear and 'being a Librarian'.

Quanar wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Kel, I have a few questions for you. I don't play Eldar so I will use an IG/Ultramarine example since i am familiar with them.

Since these two armies are BB, if Tigurius (IC, Librarian) joins an IG Platoon, what are the Characteristic stats for Tigurius since he is now a guardsman?
What wargear does he have, since he is no longer a Space Marine?
Is he still a Librarian? If yes then what level is he?

Keep in mind, that according to the IC rules, only Special Rules are kept by the IC, not wargear, not Stats not even Unit type.

Whilst I don't agree with the OP (I believe that the rule was intended to be BB models, not BB units - my opinion is irrelevant in any case), nothing says that being part of a unit means it has to have the statline of the majority. After all, in a unit of Orks (for example) you can have models with different saves, wounds, strength etc. Ditto for wargear and 'being a Librarian'.

Units or models it doesn't matter. IC's are units themselves as well.

Kel would have us believe that the IC rules magically transform a Space Marine into a Guardsman. That the SM is no longer a unit of his Army(thus no longer a Battle Brother). Something which is not allowed by any rules in the BRB nor any Codex.

I have another question.

what happens if an IG Commissar and a SM Captain join up? What are they( the new Unit of two)? Guardsmen or Space Marines?

You make a compelling argument Kel. I would love to see some further clarification on this issue from GW.

That being said, standard accepted practice seems to be against you. THAT being said, if I played you, I would totally let you do it.

40k-noob wrote:

Quanar wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Kel, I have a few questions for you. I don't play Eldar so I will use an IG/Ultramarine example since i am familiar with them.

Since these two armies are BB, if Tigurius (IC, Librarian) joins an IG Platoon, what are the Characteristic stats for Tigurius since he is now a guardsman?
What wargear does he have, since he is no longer a Space Marine?
Is he still a Librarian? If yes then what level is he?

Keep in mind, that according to the IC rules, only Special Rules are kept by the IC, not wargear, not Stats not even Unit type.

Whilst I don't agree with the OP (I believe that the rule was intended to be BB models, not BB units - my opinion is irrelevant in any case), nothing says that being part of a unit means it has to have the statline of the majority. After all, in a unit of Orks (for example) you can have models with different saves, wounds, strength etc. Ditto for wargear and 'being a Librarian'.

Units or models it doesn't matter. IC's are units themselves as well.

Kel would have us believe that the IC rules magically transform a Space Marine into a Guardsman. That the SM is no longer a unit of his Army(thus no longer a Battle Brother). Something which is not allowed by any rules in the BRB nor any Codex.

I have another question.

what happens if an IG Commissar and a SM Captain join up? What are they( the new Unit of two)? Guardsmen or Space Marines?

I didn't say Tigerius becomes a guardsman; I said he becomes a member of the Platoon Infantry Squad; he retains his statline just like the Heavy Weapons Team has its own statline, The commissar has his own statline, and the Sgt has his own statline. Also several of those have their own weapons and/or Special rules.

To make the Absurdity; "Oh so they become the same model", is no where near "They become a full member of the unit", which the rules clearly state they do. A model in a unit is a model in the unit and uses that models statline, Wargear, and special rules(otherwise you have no sgt, commissar, Special nor heavy in any unit, they would all be whatever the majority is with the base majority's wargear stats and rules).


Yakface: The IC rules clearly state that The IC "Counts as a part of the unit joined for all rules purposes" Being a Battle brother is not a Special Rule possessed by the model, it is a state of being. When the IC joins a unit(let's continue the SM IC with a unit of Guardsmen) he becomes a member of the Unit jopined. Can a guardsman unit embark on a Chimera: yes, yes it can.

Also if we really pay attention to the first sentence it is define ":Battle Brothers" outside of the Matrix as an Allied Friendly unit, if you do not have an allied unit, you do not have a "Battle Brother" to be thus forbidden. So either way you look at it, you have no Battle Brother to be forbidden within the unit; the unit is legal to embark.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:


I didn't say Tigerius becomes a guardsman; I said he becomes a member of the Platoon Infantry Squad; he retains his statline just like the Heavy Weapons Team has its own statline, The commissar has his own statline, and the Sgt has his own statline. Also several of those have their own weapons and/or Special rules.

To make the Absurdity; "Oh so they become the same model", is no where near "They become a full member of the unit", which the rules clearly state they do. A model in a unit is a model in the unit and uses that models statline, Wargear, and special rules(otherwise you have no sgt, commissar, Special nor heavy in any unit, they would all be whatever the majority is with the base majority's wargear stats and rules).


Yakface: The IC rules clearly state that The IC "Counts as a part of the unit joined for all rules purposes" Being a Battle brother is not a Special Rule possessed by the model, it is a state of being. When the IC joins a unit(let's continue the SM IC with a unit of Guardsmen) he becomes a member of the Unit jopined. Can a guardsman unit embark on a Chimera: yes, yes it can.

Also if we really pay attention to the first sentence it is define ":Battle Brothers" outside of the Matrix as an Allied Friendly unit, if you do not have an allied unit, you do not have a "Battle Brother" to be thus forbidden. So either way you look at it, you have no Battle Brother to be forbidden within the unit; the unit is legal to embark.

Ahh...but you did say that.

You said, "..for this reason the Attached Battle brother even ceases to be a battle brother while attached(he is, for example, a Fire Warrior)."
Substitute Tigurius and Guardsman for the DE/Eldar example you used and you said this, "...for this reason the Attached Battle brother(Tigurius) even ceases to be a battle brother(Space Marine) while attached(he is, for example, a Guardsman)."

Also you can't cite the Heavy weapons team or a Sgt in a squad as examples, HWT and Sgt's are not IC's, they cannot leave or join other squads, so lets try to stick to the subject at hand.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:


Yakface: The IC rules clearly state that The IC "Counts as a part of the unit joined for all rules purposes" Being a Battle brother is not a Special Rule possessed by the model, it is a state of being. When the IC joins a unit(let's continue the SM IC with a unit of Guardsmen) he becomes a member of the Unit jopined. Can a guardsman unit embark on a Chimera: yes, yes it can.

Except if we went with your reasoning here, the IC would have to give up all his own special rules when he joins a BB unit since you are saying "counts as a part of the unit for ALL rules purposes". The IC's special rules are still 'rules' and your interpretation would necessitate him giving them up when joining the allied unit so that he could fulfill this requirement you are placing on him (erroneously IMO)... Doing this (if we follow your reasoning) is cherry-picking which rules you want to use and which not...

Edit- clarity, spelling

40k-noob wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:


I didn't say Tigerius becomes a guardsman; I said he becomes a member of the Platoon Infantry Squad; he retains his statline just like the Heavy Weapons Team has its own statline, The commissar has his own statline, and the Sgt has his own statline. Also several of those have their own weapons and/or Special rules.

To make the Absurdity; "Oh so they become the same model", is no where near "They become a full member of the unit", which the rules clearly state they do. A model in a unit is a model in the unit and uses that models statline, Wargear, and special rules(otherwise you have no sgt, commissar, Special nor heavy in any unit, they would all be whatever the majority is with the base majority's wargear stats and rules).


Yakface: The IC rules clearly state that The IC "Counts as a part of the unit joined for all rules purposes" Being a Battle brother is not a Special Rule possessed by the model, it is a state of being. When the IC joins a unit(let's continue the SM IC with a unit of Guardsmen) he becomes a member of the Unit jopined. Can a guardsman unit embark on a Chimera: yes, yes it can.

Also if we really pay attention to the first sentence it is define ":Battle Brothers" outside of the Matrix as an Allied Friendly unit, if you do not have an allied unit, you do not have a "Battle Brother" to be thus forbidden. So either way you look at it, you have no Battle Brother to be forbidden within the unit; the unit is legal to embark.

Ahh...but you did say that.

You said, "..for this reason the Attached Battle brother even ceases to be a battle brother while attached(he is, for example, a Fire Warrior)."
Substitute Tigurius and Guardsman for the DE/Eldar example you used and you said this, "...for this reason the Attached Battle brother(Tigurius) even ceases to be a battle brother(Space Marine) while attached(he is, for example, a Guardsman)."

Also you can't cite the Heavy weapons team or a Sgt in a squad as examples, HWT and Sgt's are not IC's, they cannot leave or join other squads, so lets try to stick to the subject at hand.

Yes, and Fire warrior is the name of the Unit.

He is of the unit Fire warrior, sorry if you misunderstood me(purposefully of otherwise); I should have said he was part of the "Fire warrior Team"

But then, If you fail at the context of my example, I can understand how you fail to comprehend the context of the rules we are talking about.

So 40k noob shows that you did in fact post that the BB ceases to be a BB and becomes (in your example) a fire warrior, and your response is to insult?

Your really proving your case...

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:


I didn't say Tigerius becomes a guardsman; I said he becomes a member of the Platoon Infantry Squad; he retains his statline just like the Heavy Weapons Team has its own statline, The commissar has his own statline, and the Sgt has his own statline. Also several of those have their own weapons and/or Special rules.

To make the Absurdity; "Oh so they become the same model", is no where near "They become a full member of the unit", which the rules clearly state they do. A model in a unit is a model in the unit and uses that models statline, Wargear, and special rules(otherwise you have no sgt, commissar, Special nor heavy in any unit, they would all be whatever the majority is with the base majority's wargear stats and rules).


Yakface: The IC rules clearly state that The IC "Counts as a part of the unit joined for all rules purposes" Being a Battle brother is not a Special Rule possessed by the model, it is a state of being. When the IC joins a unit(let's continue the SM IC with a unit of Guardsmen) he becomes a member of the Unit jopined. Can a guardsman unit embark on a Chimera: yes, yes it can.

Also if we really pay attention to the first sentence it is define ":Battle Brothers" outside of the Matrix as an Allied Friendly unit, if you do not have an allied unit, you do not have a "Battle Brother" to be thus forbidden. So either way you look at it, you have no Battle Brother to be forbidden within the unit; the unit is legal to embark.

Ahh...but you did say that.

You said, "..for this reason the Attached Battle brother even ceases to be a battle brother while attached(he is, for example, a Fire Warrior)."
Substitute Tigurius and Guardsman for the DE/Eldar example you used and you said this, "...for this reason the Attached Battle brother(Tigurius) even ceases to be a battle brother(Space Marine) while attached(he is, for example, a Guardsman)."

Also you can't cite the Heavy weapons team or a Sgt in a squad as examples, HWT and Sgt's are not IC's, they cannot leave or join other squads, so lets try to stick to the subject at hand.

Yes, and Fire warrior is the name of the Unit.

He is of the unit Fire warrior, sorry if you misunderstood me(purposefully of otherwise); I should have said he was part of the "Fire warrior Team"

But then, If you fail at the context of my example, I can understand how you fail to comprehend the context of the rules we are talking about.

So then that begs the question, is Tigurius, while joined to the IG unit, still a Space Marine as defined by his army list entry in the SM Codex?

edit: spelling

He has all of his special rules, stats, wargear, and unit type, but is for all rules purposes a member of the Guard Platoon infantry squad.

This is the same as a Lord Commissar joined to a Platoon Infantry Squad; he retains his Special rules, Unit Type, Stats, and Wargear , but is for all rules purposes a member of the Platoon Infantry Squad

Barbobot; I pointed out that the context of a statement is important and if you were to take the statement out of context you either prove you are making a nonsense argument(if you did it on purpose), or you cannot understand the concept to begin with(if you , in fact did not understand the statement, especially when the whole statement is about context)

And still a battle brother, therefore can not embark.

Unless you are saying he is no longer a battle brother, but there needs to be some rules that say that, there have not been any thus far.

 DeathReaper wrote:
And still a battle brother, therefore can not embark.

Unless you are saying he is no longer a battle brother, but there needs to be some rules that say that, there have not been any thus far.

What is a "Battle Brother"?

A Friendly Unit chosen from the Ally Matrix.

Does the(continuing Tigerius and PIS unit example) PIS unit contain a Friendly Unit chosen from the Ally Matrix?

No, because ICs joined to a Unit are not units themselves; they count as part of that unit for all rules purposes, though they still follows the rules for characters.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
He has all of his special rules, stats, wargear, and unit type, but is for all rules purposes a member of the Guard Platoon infantry squad.

This is the same as a Lord Commissar joined to a Platoon Infantry Squad; he retains his Special rules, Unit Type, Stats, and Wargear , but is for all rules purposes a member of the Platoon Infantry Squad

Is that a Yes or No, it seems as if you are purposely trying to answer but not answer the question?
I am not asking about his rules/stats or membership status in the unit he joined.

I am asking, is Tigurius still a Space Marine?

Yes.

But he is no longer a "battle Brother".

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

No, because ICs joined to a Unit are not units themselves; they count as part of that unit for all rules purposes, though they still follows the rules for characters.

Where in the BRB is this defined?
The IC rules do not say that the IC is no longer a unit itself.
Second part of your statement is in the IC rules "..they count as part of that unit for all rules purposes, though they still follows the rules for characters" but they do not state the first part.
Where does it say that unit(IC) is no longer a unit, when it joins another unit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Yes.

But he is no longer a "battle Brother".

If he is Still a Space Marine, by definition, he is a Battle Brother.

I will pull a Nos on you(though it pains me to do so)

State the rules, page and para, in the BRB that state you loose BB status "or concede".

LOL (Fyi- not serious about the concede part)

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
And still a battle brother, therefore can not embark.

Unless you are saying he is no longer a battle brother, but there needs to be some rules that say that, there have not been any thus far.

What is a "Battle Brother"?

A Friendly Unit chosen from the Ally Matrix.

Does the(continuing Tigerius and PIS unit example) PIS unit contain a Friendly Unit chosen from the Ally Matrix?

No, because ICs joined to a Unit are not units themselves; they count as part of that unit for all rules purposes, though they still follows the rules for characters.

The rules on page 112 state:

"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...However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles."

So they can join allied units, but "not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles."

This is the restriction. There needs to be a specific rule that over rides this specific restriction.

Page and Graph please.

And "Battle Brothers" as defined by the First sentence in this paragraph(the subject of this sentence) is a "Friendly Unit" right?

So the restriction is on a Battle Brother, Which is chosen from The Allied Matrix(defining the relations between Codices)on page 113, and then defined as a "Friendly Unit", First sentence under second paragraph of "Battle Brothers" on page 112.

So the Allied choice of a friendly unit cannot get in each others transports.

When you have an IC that joins a unit that ic "Counts as"(Which means "Considered", which means "Is{ for defined purposes"}) a member of the unit joined for all rules purposes.

Therefore a/an (IC from army A) is a (member of the joined unit B) for all rules purposes, and therefore is never a "Battle Brother(as defined as a friendly unit from an allied army as per the Matrix on page 113 of the BRB)

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
And "Battle Brothers" as defined by the First sentence in this paragraph(the subject of this sentence) is a "Friendly Unit" right?

So the restriction is on a Battle Brother, Which is chosen from The Allied Matrix(defining the relations between Codices)on page 113, and then defined as a "Friendly Unit", First sentence under second paragraph of "Battle Brothers" on page 112.

So the Allied choice of a friendly unit cannot get in each others transports.

When you have an IC that joins a unit that ic "Counts as"(Which means "Considered", which means "Is{ for defined purposes"}) a member of the unit joined for all rules purposes.

Therefore a/an (IC from army A) is a (member of the joined unit B) for all rules purposes, and therefore is never a "Battle Brother(as defined as a friendly unit from an allied army as per the Matrix on page 113 of the BRB)

At this point I would just say go for it dude. Have fun in your friendly games and good luck in your tournaments but don't be too surprised when the TOs rule against you.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
And "Battle Brothers" as defined by the First sentence in this paragraph(the subject of this sentence) is a "Friendly Unit" right?

So the restriction is on a Battle Brother, Which is chosen from The Allied Matrix(defining the relations between Codices)on page 113, and then defined as a "Friendly Unit", First sentence under second paragraph of "Battle Brothers" on page 112.

So the Allied choice of a friendly unit cannot get in each others transports.

When you have an IC that joins a unit that ic "Counts as"(Which means "Considered", which means "Is{ for defined purposes"}) a member of the unit joined for all rules purposes.

Therefore a/an (IC from army A) is a (member of the joined unit B) for all rules purposes, and therefore is never a "Battle Brother(as defined as a friendly unit from an allied army as per the Matrix on page 113 of the BRB)

Except that it is not "for all rules purposes" as you have correctly pointed out. You noted that the IC keeps his stats line, his war gear etc.
If it were for " for all rules purposes" the by rule, Tigurius would have to use the Guardman stats, war gear and so on while keeping his Special Rules. Because if you read the Codex, by Rule a member of a Guardsman platoon has to use the wargear, stats and so on detailed the Guardsman Army List entry. See Army List Entries, sections of Unit Profile, Unit Type, Wargear on page 89 of the IG Codex.

Either that or we have all been playing IC's wrong, all this time.

Edit: Spelling

Yeah 40k-noob, I pointed that out last page, but either he missed it or didn't bother to address this rather large hole in his logic...

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So the Allied choice of a friendly unit cannot get in each others transports.

And an allied IC is always a battle brother as nothing takes away the battle brother status.

There needs to be a specific rule that over rides the specific restriction.

There is no such rule that specifies that allied IC's can ride in each others transports, therefore they can not.

40k-noob wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
And "Battle Brothers" as defined by the First sentence in this paragraph(the subject of this sentence) is a "Friendly Unit" right?

So the restriction is on a Battle Brother, Which is chosen from The Allied Matrix(defining the relations between Codices)on page 113, and then defined as a "Friendly Unit", First sentence under second paragraph of "Battle Brothers" on page 112.

So the Allied choice of a friendly unit cannot get in each others transports.

When you have an IC that joins a unit that ic "Counts as"(Which means "Considered", which means "Is{ for defined purposes"}) a member of the unit joined for all rules purposes.

Therefore a/an (IC from army A) is a (member of the joined unit B) for all rules purposes, and therefore is never a "Battle Brother(as defined as a friendly unit from an allied army as per the Matrix on page 113 of the BRB)

Except that it is not "for all rules purposes" as you have correctly pointed out. You noted that the IC keeps his stats line, his war gear etc.
If it were for " for all rules purposes" the by rule, Tigurius would have to use the Guardman stats, war gear and so on while keeping his Special Rules. Because if you read the Codex, by Rule a member of a Guardsman platoon has to use the wargear, stats and so on detailed the Guardsman Army List entry. See Army List Entries, sections of Unit Profile, Unit Type, Wargear on page 89 of the IG Codex.

Either that or we have all been playing IC's wrong, all this time.

Edit: Spelling

Either "by Rule" you are saying that the Sgt, Heavy and Special Weapon(or equivalent) in every army is a waste of points, as they are the basic troopers of their unit and therefore have the basic troopers statline, wargear, and Special rules. This goes the same for all IC that join those units?

Because I said nothing of the sort, a model is a model; A model within a unit is a model within a unit no matter where that model started at the beginning of the game. The model still has the rules, stats, and wargear that the model had before joining the unit, but is for all rules purposes a part of that unit while attached(per the IC rules). This means that an Archon is a member of the Guardian Unit joined, just the same as a Farseer is a Member of the guardian unit joined. In both cases you have a guardian unit joined by an IC and remains a Guardian Unit and can be effected or affected in the same manner as a Guardian unit without the attached IC.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So the Allied choice of a friendly unit cannot get in each others transports.

And an allied IC is always a battle brother as nothing takes away the battle brother status.

There needs to be a specific rule that over rides the specific restriction.

There is no such rule that specifies that allied IC's can ride in each others transports, therefore they can not.

No an Allied IC is only a "battle Brother" when he meets the definition of "battle brother" which is a "frienldy unit" chosen under the grander entry of "Allies".

Is an IC(allied or not) a "Friendly Unit"?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

And an allied IC is always a battle brother as nothing takes away the battle brother status.

There needs to be a specific rule that over rides the specific restriction.

There is no such rule that specifies that allied IC's can ride in each others transports, therefore they can not.

No an Allied IC is only a "battle Brother" when he meets the definition of "battle brother" which is a "frienldy unit" chosen under the grander entry of "Allies".

Is an IC(allied or not) a "Friendly Unit"?

No, Battle brothers are described on the chart.

an Allied IC from a BB force is always a Battle Brother.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
And "Battle Brothers" as defined by the First sentence in this paragraph(the subject of this sentence) is a "Friendly Unit" right?

So the restriction is on a Battle Brother, Which is chosen from The Allied Matrix(defining the relations between Codices)on page 113, and then defined as a "Friendly Unit", First sentence under second paragraph of "Battle Brothers" on page 112.

So the Allied choice of a friendly unit cannot get in each others transports.

When you have an IC that joins a unit that ic "Counts as"(Which means "Considered", which means "Is{ for defined purposes"}) a member of the unit joined for all rules purposes.

Therefore a/an (IC from army A) is a (member of the joined unit B) for all rules purposes, and therefore is never a "Battle Brother(as defined as a friendly unit from an allied army as per the Matrix on page 113 of the BRB)

Except that it is not "for all rules purposes" as you have correctly pointed out. You noted that the IC keeps his stats line, his war gear etc.
If it were for " for all rules purposes" the by rule, Tigurius would have to use the Guardman stats, war gear and so on while keeping his Special Rules. Because if you read the Codex, by Rule a member of a Guardsman platoon has to use the wargear, stats and so on detailed the Guardsman Army List entry. See Army List Entries, sections of Unit Profile, Unit Type, Wargear on page 89 of the IG Codex.

Either that or we have all been playing IC's wrong, all this time.

Edit: Spelling

Either "by Rule" you are saying that the Sgt, Heavy and Special Weapon(or equivalent) in every army is a waste of points, as they are the basic troopers of their unit and therefore have the basic troopers statline, wargear, and Special rules. This goes the same for all IC that join those units?

Because I said nothing of the sort, a model is a model; A model within a unit is a model within a unit no matter where that model started at the beginning of the game. The model still has the rules, stats, and wargear that the model had before joining the unit, but is for all rules purposes a part of that unit while attached(per the IC rules). This means that an Archon is a member of the Guardian Unit joined, just the same as a Farseer is a Member of the guardian unit joined. In both cases you have a guardian unit joined by an IC and remains a Guardian Unit and can be effected or affected in the same manner as a Guardian unit without the attached IC.

You are contradicting yourself Kel.

The rules for a Platoon Squad state that its members use XYZ stats and ABC wargear, does an IC that joins this squad have to follow the rules for this squad?
To put it another way, is an IC a member of that squad "for all rules purposes" or not?

Also please stop trying to deflect the debate to non IC units/models, they have no bearing on the subject of this thread, which by the way you started. If you want to discuss unit upgrades, start a new thread.

A platoon squad has different rules for each model in the squad, or does the Heavy Weapons team in the PIS only have the Lasgun, Flak armour, CCW, and and Frag Grenade that the rest of the unit has? What about the Special weapon, does he exchange his lasgun like the unit entry says or does he get the weapon he paid for?

Members of a unit retain their Unit type, Special rules, Stats , and Wargear.

Unit types simply add their own abilities and special rules to the base Infantry Rules(The most basic rules per BRB Page 44).

If you want to claim otherwise, then all ICs attaching to an infantry unit can only move, shoot and assault in the exact same manner as the Infantry unit they have joined(Excepting that all those rules are based on Model unit type, as is Drones in FW squads and Etc)

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
A platoon squad has different rules for each model in the squad, or does the Heavy Weapons team in the PIS only have the Lasgun, Flak armour, CCW, and and Frag Grenade that the rest of the unit has? What about the Special weapon, does he exchange his lasgun like the unit entry says or does he get the weapon he paid for?

Members of a unit retain their Unit type, Special rules, Stats , and Wargear.

Unit types simply add their own abilities and special rules to the base Infantry Rules(The most basic rules per BRB Page 44).

Again, you are attempting to deflect the debate outside of the topic you started.

This is not about unit upgrades, rules for which are included in the codex entries.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
. Can a guardsman unit embark on a Chimera: yes, yes it can.

More precisely: A guardsman unit comprised entirely of models from Codex: Imperial Guard can embark on a Chimera from Codex: Imperial Guard.

Those Guardsmen could not embark on a Chimera from Codex: Grey Knights. Nor can they embark if the unit includes Battle Brothers, since Battle Brothers may not embark in allied transports.

 insaniak wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
. Can a guardsman unit embark on a Chimera: yes, yes it can.

More precisely: A guardsman unit comprised entirely of models from Codex: Imperial Guard can embark on a Chimera from Codex: Imperial Guard.

As I have shown, that is not at all what the rules say.

In no way is an IC attached to a Unit a unit in and of itself, and Battle brothers is defined as a "Friendly Unit" and is a rule attached to a unit taken as or in relation to Allies

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
In no way is an IC attached to a Unit a unit in and of itself

Except in some situations where it is (such as PfP, secondary objectives...).

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

In no way is an IC attached to a Unit a unit in and of itself

An exactly where are you getting that from? What rule or rule say that?

 Happyjew wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
In no way is an IC attached to a Unit a unit in and of itself

Except in some situations where it is (such as PfP, secondary objectives...).

Which are specifically noted in the FAQ for those rules or within the rules themselves.

A Techmarine purchased as crew for the Thunderfire cannon is the same PfP token as the cannon unless the cannon is destroyed in an entirely different phase/ Shooting attack as the Tech marine. This is a portion of the PfP special rules as clarified by the FAQ, not a part of the IC nor basic Rules.

A clarification or addition to a primary rule does not change the primary rule in all circumstances, only those that are defined within the parameters of that secondary rule(And/or its FAQs). Slaying of the warlord is the destruction of an individual model(defined under "warlord), First blood only cares that a Unit has been removed, should an IC(Same Faction or BB) be the only model left after attacks on a particular unit, that unit is destroyed(the IC is no longer attached to the unit and therefore is a unit of himself+ once again), and Finally under Linebacker you must have at least 1 model from the scoring unit("Unit" from the Troops selection of either army in BBs) within the enemy deployment Zone for the additional VP, if the Troops unit is dead with only an IC left he reverts back to a unit as purchased(most likely HQ, but could be any other) this is clear in the IC rules; If the Scoring unit is still allive and the IC is attached and only the IC is within the enemy DZ then the extra VP still goes for Linebreaker(A member of a scoring unit is in the DZ).

40k Noob, Page 3 of the BRB, and common sense; or can I shoot at your Farseer in a Guardian unit?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
In no way is an IC attached to a Unit a unit in and of itself

Except in some situations where it is (such as PfP, secondary objectives...).

40k Noob, Page 3 of the BRB, and common sense; or can I shoot at your Farseer in a Guardian unit?

You can actually with Precision Shot but that is not the point.

Page 3 you say? Do you mean this?

BRB page 3 - Units wrote:
Warriors tend to band together to fight in squads, teams, sections or similarly named groups - individuals do not normally go wandering off on their own for obvious reasons !
In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units. 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."

That doesn't say what you claim it says. If anything it emphasizes that IC's are units themselves.

Also common sense isn't a rulebook, so lets leave that out.

If all ICs are units in and of themselves when attached to another Unit, then the ICs can be targeted individually(by targeting the IC unit) in shooting.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
I see this as wishlisting. I don't have the BRB within front of my, but you can't share transports. BB cannot ride in their allies transports. You're IC, regardless if attached to a unit, is still a BB. He's not getting in that sweet ride.

Or more simply put, if you have to pick the grammar apart, you're probably going to far. I see 40k as a permissive rules set. Unless it says you can, assume you cannot.

I had to explain the grammar, not pick it apart; my initial reading was that only Battle brother units could not embark.

But logically speaking, from a model's perspective,if you are a guardsman and can't be in a vehicle with a space marine, then why would you allow eldar/CSM/necrons into your chimera? If you can't even trust battle-brothers that much, then why would you trust any other race into your vehicles? From a ruleset, it would be incredibly OP if your stormraven had Sammael and some of his buddies deep strike out of it, or something like that (bikes are Very Bulky, doesn't state in the Stormraven's rules that you can't put bikes inside.)

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
If all ICs are units in and of themselves when attached to another Unit, then the ICs can be targeted individually(by targeting the IC unit) in shooting.

Not necessarily. There is evidence to show that they both are and aren't for certain purposes. Hence the Deathmark ruling.

 Timmy149 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
I see this as wishlisting. I don't have the BRB within front of my, but you can't share transports. BB cannot ride in their allies transports. You're IC, regardless if attached to a unit, is still a BB. He's not getting in that sweet ride.

Or more simply put, if you have to pick the grammar apart, you're probably going to far. I see 40k as a permissive rules set. Unless it says you can, assume you cannot.

I had to explain the grammar, not pick it apart; my initial reading was that only Battle brother units could not embark.

But logically speaking, from a model's perspective,if you are a guardsman and can't be in a vehicle with a space marine, then why would you allow eldar/CSM/necrons into your chimera? If you can't even trust battle-brothers that much, then why would you trust any other race into your vehicles? From a ruleset, it would be incredibly OP if your stormraven had Sammael and some of his buddies deep strike out of it, or something like that (bikes are Very Bulky, doesn't state in the Stormraven's rules that you can't put bikes inside.)

Transport rules state only infantry(and not jump nor jet pack infantry) may embark in transports, and then the stormraven specifically allow jump infantry(and dreads); so no you could never have samael drop from a stormraven because there is never any permission for him to be embarked.

Mannahnin; that is a specific allowance within an FAQ for a specific ability this does not set a precedence for the IC being a nit within a unit(because if it did it would allow shooting attacks to also be directed only on ic unit as well, which is what the extension of this FAQ would mean "If he is a separate unit that can be targeted for HFHS then he is a separate unit for shooting as well")

I think the Deathmark FAQ is indicative that ICs are not always and for all rule purposes treated as the same as the unit they're attached to. As a general rule they are, but there are functions for which they do not. For example, if an IC with a Jump Pack or Bike is attached to an Infantry unit, they won't be able to embark on a Rhino. He doesn't take on ALL of their properties. IMO, in the same way that he remains his own unit type, he also remains a Battle Brother. Because the rules for allies do not explicitly say that he stops counting as one when attached to an allied unit.

Again, at BEST it's ambiguous, and I really think that if YOU think it's at all ambiguous, good sportsmanship and best practices in rules interpretation should incline you to err on the side of caution here.

Unit type is a part of the model(not the state of the unit as a whole)

This is further presented in the tau empire codex where you have jet pack infantry model that can be attached to standard infantry model units.

And once again I never said the IC takes on all, nor even any of the units properties, only that the IC becomes a member of the unit for all rules purposes.

He doesn't take on their properties or their rules. He retains his own rules. One of which may be being Unit Type: Bike. Another is being a Space Marine (for example, if he gets into a challenge with an enemy model who has Preferred Enemy: Space Marines). A third is that he is a Battle Brother. A trusted ally of the units in the allied detachment. I disagree with you that the context leads necessarily to the conclusion that Battle Brothers only refers to units. I maintain that it refers to everything you selected in the allied detachment.

Which ignores the definition in the BRB.

Which is like saying that a Bastion is not a building(as it is defined).



Edited to change fortification to building

Not at all. You are making an interpretation based on an inference. I'm making a different, more restrictive, interpretation, both because I believe it's the intent, and because I don't want to risk claiming an unintended advantage.

How is: "Battle brothers are treated as 'Friendly units' from all points of view." an inference, or anything other than a stated definition of what a "Battle Brother" is?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
If all ICs are units in and of themselves when attached to another Unit, then the ICs can be targeted individually(by targeting the IC unit) in shooting.

No, because the unit (IC) is "attached" to the other unit, and there are rules for such cases.

There is nothing in the rules that state what you claimed, that a IC unit stops being a unit in and of itself when it joins another unit.

That said, the IC unit is still a unit of its Army and thus will always be a Battle Brother.

I have contacted the FAQ teams based on whether or not this is permitted. I hope for a reply.

40k-noob wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
If all ICs are units in and of themselves when attached to another Unit, then the ICs can be targeted individually(by targeting the IC unit) in shooting.

No, because the unit (IC) is "attached" to the other unit, and there are rules for such cases.

There is nothing in the rules that state what you claimed, that a IC unit stops being a unit in and of itself when it joins another unit.

That said, the IC unit is still a unit of its Army and thus will always be a Battle Brother.

Oh, What are the rules that state an IC attached to a Unit cannot be targeted as his own individual unit?

Because I am pretty sure the shooting rules tell you that your unit can target any other unit that they have LOS to; so If I have LOS to your Ic within your Unit, and your IC is still a separate unit within the unit; then I can target the IC specifically as there is an allowance and absolutely no restriction against it.

The only rule that comes close is the rule that tells you the IC counts as a member of the unit for all rules purposes and the Unit definition on page 3 the defines units as groups of models that have banded together. And when it mentions characters it states that the exception are "Lone Characters" not Independent characters.

So you have an IC(which is not necessarily a single model unit to begin with), which uses the IC rules to join another unit, in joining that unit the IC bands together with those models(and the IC rules state he counts as a member of the unit for all rules purposes) making the 1 unit.

So Again: Either the IC becomes a member of the unit, and ceases being a unit on its own; or the IC can be targeted separately with shooting attacks.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
If all ICs are units in and of themselves when attached to another Unit, then the ICs can be targeted individually(by targeting the IC unit) in shooting.

No, because the unit (IC) is "attached" to the other unit, and there are rules for such cases.

There is nothing in the rules that state what you claimed, that a IC unit stops being a unit in and of itself when it joins another unit.

That said, the IC unit is still a unit of its Army and thus will always be a Battle Brother.

Oh, What are the rules that state an IC attached to a Unit cannot be targeted as his own individual unit?

Because I am pretty sure the shooting rules tell you that your unit can target any other unit that they have LOS to; so If I have LOS to your Ic within your Unit, and your IC is still a separate unit within the unit; then I can target the IC specifically as there is an allowance and absolutely no restriction against it.

The only rule that comes close is the rule that tells you the IC counts as a member of the unit for all rules purposes and the Unit definition on page 3 the defines units as groups of models that have banded together. And when it mentions characters it states that the exception are "Lone Characters" not Independent characters.

So you have an IC(which is not necessarily a single model unit to begin with), which uses the IC rules to join another unit, in joining that unit the IC bands together with those models(and the IC rules state he counts as a member of the unit for all rules purposes) making the 1 unit.

So Again: Either the IC becomes a member of the unit, and ceases being a unit on its own; or the IC can be targeted separately with shooting attacks.

Why you have pointed those rules out quite clearly. The IC rules state that the attached IC counts as a member of the unit he joined. Since he is a member of that unit you have to target his unit (joined).

However you have failed to point out any rules that state a unit that joins another unit is no longer a unit itself. The "Units" Say no such thing, they emphasize that a unit can be many models or a single model. That section also states that a unit "usually" consists of many models so it leaves the option of a unit being made up of something other than just "models" say for example multiple "units" banding together ala the IC rules.

And if the IC remains a unit in and of himself then he is targetable by targeting the IC unit.

It goes like this:

You have a SM Tac squad and join a chaplain to it.

Either the chaplain ceases being a unit on his own, or my Guardsman squad can choose to shoot the Chaplain unit within the Tac squad

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
And if the IC remains a unit in and of himself then he is targetable by targeting the IC unit.

It goes like this:

You have a SM Tac squad and join a chaplain to it.

Either the chaplain ceases being a unit on his own, or my Guardsman squad can choose to shoot the Chaplain unit within the Tac squad

While the answer to this isn't clearly defined in the book, this argument, in my opinion, is logical. The targetting rules allow you to target any unit in LoS. If the IC is still considered a unit in it's own right, no need to target the unit that he joined in order to target the IC.

This, of course, isn't the case because it says an IC joining a unit becomes a member of that unit for all rules purposes, but it does support the position that an allied IC joining a battlebrother unit should then be able to embark on said unit's dedicated transport. (I AM biased towards this interpretation anyhow, as I personally think it's completely rediculous that battle brothers are willing to fight and die for one another, but won't give a brotha a ride in their dune buggy)

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
And if the IC remains a unit in and of himself then he is targetable by targeting the IC unit.

It goes like this:

You have a SM Tac squad and join a chaplain to it.

Either the chaplain ceases being a unit on his own, or my Guardsman squad can choose to shoot the Chaplain unit within the Tac squad

So now you are arguing that the IC rules do not do what they say they do. What you yourself have said they do!!

Wonderful!!

What is that old saying again? Oh yeah, if it is not in the rule book, you cant do it.
You have no rule that says a unit (IC) stops being a unit, when it joins another unit. So guess what?

40k-noob wrote:
What is that old saying again? Oh yeah, if it is not in the rule book, you cant do it.
You have no rule that says a unit (IC) stops being a unit, when it joins another unit. So guess what?

So what stops the IC unit from being targeted?
It's your assertion that it never stop existing and that there are no issues that could possibly arise from the IC unit still existing and the IC being treated as a member of the parent unit.

I'm not targeting the IC model (the model that is a member of the parent unit). I'm targeting the IC unit as I'm given permission to by the targeting rules.
Deny the permission.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
What is that old saying again? Oh yeah, if it is not in the rule book, you cant do it.
You have no rule that says a unit (IC) stops being a unit, when it joins another unit. So guess what?

So what stops the IC unit from being targeted?
It's your assertion that it never stop existing and that there are no issues that could possibly arise from the IC unit still existing and the IC being treated as a member of the parent unit.

I'm not targeting the IC model (the model that is a member of the parent unit). I'm targeting the IC unit as I'm given permission to by the targeting rules.
Deny the permission.

It's so rare that I agree with you, this made me smile.

40k-noob wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
And if the IC remains a unit in and of himself then he is targetable by targeting the IC unit.

It goes like this:

You have a SM Tac squad and join a chaplain to it.

Either the chaplain ceases being a unit on his own, or my Guardsman squad can choose to shoot the Chaplain unit within the Tac squad

So now you are arguing that the IC rules do not do what they say they do. What you yourself have said they do!!

Wonderful!!

What is that old saying again? Oh yeah, if it is not in the rule book, you cant do it.
You have no rule that says a unit (IC) stops being a unit, when it joins another unit. So guess what?

You are the one that are arguing the IC rules do not do what they say they do(Make the IC part of the unit and therefore not his own unit).

What I did was illustrate your fallacy; The rulebook says the firing unit targets another unit. If the IC within the unit is still a unit itself then it is a valid target. That is what is in the rulebook.

What is not in the rulebook is any statement that the IC "Unit" cannot be targeted, you would be making that up all by yourself.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
And if the IC remains a unit in and of himself then he is targetable by targeting the IC unit.

It goes like this:

You have a SM Tac squad and join a chaplain to it.

Either the chaplain ceases being a unit on his own, or my Guardsman squad can choose to shoot the Chaplain unit within the Tac squad

So now you are arguing that the IC rules do not do what they say they do. What you yourself have said they do!!

Wonderful!!

What is that old saying again? Oh yeah, if it is not in the rule book, you cant do it.
You have no rule that says a unit (IC) stops being a unit, when it joins another unit. So guess what?

You are the one that are arguing the IC rules do not do what they say they do(Make the IC part of the unit and therefore not his own unit).

What I did was illustrate your fallacy; The rulebook says the firing unit targets another unit. If the IC within the unit is still a unit itself then it is a valid target. That is what is in the rulebook.

What is not in the rulebook is any statement that the IC "Unit" cannot be targeted, you would be making that up all by yourself.

You have illustrated nothing.

That is the problem with your assertion. You have been the one to claim something that is not in the Rule Book.

"...what they say they do(Make the IC part of the unit and therefore not his own unit)." This is no where in the rules!!!!!!

You have not shown any where in a Codex nor the BRB where this is stated.

I can point you to any codex, and show you any IC entry and it will show that IC as a unit. Show us the rule that states, "a unit that joins another unit, is no longer a unit itself."
You can't can you? Otherwise you would have done so by now.

You are once again "reading between the lines" as you stated in that other thread.
You are making an inference about a rule and in doing so, you are making up a rule that does not exist.

And I have explained that if "Counting a member of the joined unit for all rules purposes" does not stop the IC from being his own unit, then the IC can be targeted separately.

So to have it your way the IC can always be targeted individually.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
What is that old saying again? Oh yeah, if it is not in the rule book, you cant do it.
You have no rule that says a unit (IC) stops being a unit, when it joins another unit. So guess what?

So what stops the IC unit from being targeted?
It's your assertion that it never stop existing and that there are no issues that could possibly arise from the IC unit still existing and the IC being treated as a member of the parent unit.

I'm not targeting the IC model (the model that is a member of the parent unit). I'm targeting the IC unit as I'm given permission to by the targeting rules.
Deny the permission.

There is no point in addressing this. Kel has been trying to deflect/derail the debate since he can't prove his assertion.

Shooting attacks, heavy weapons team, Sgt in a squad are all attempts by Kel to deflect/derail the debate.

This debate is about IC's, Units, Battle Brother and Transports and their respective rules.

You are the one that has been trying to derail the debate, but instead you have been helping me prove my point(thank you).

And the Sgt, and HWT was illustrating that being a member of a unit does not change the model as you tried to claim I was saying.

So now I ask you 2 simple questions:

Can I target the Chaplain unit attached to the Tactical squad?

If not, Why not?

40k-noob wrote:

This debate is about IC's, Units, Battle Brother and Transports and their respective rules.

But the context of a particular ruling, and what effects it would have on the rest of the rules is relevant. You can't posit that an IC is a unit in it's own right at all times, except when it's inconvenient to your position(unless of course, a rule clearly says that).


EDIT: grammar

A part of me feels this may be the most epic troll of the month.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

This debate is about IC's, Units, Battle Brother and Transports and their respective rules.

But the context of a particular ruling, and what effects it would have on the rest of the rules is relevant. You can't posit that an IC is a unit in it's own right at all times, except when it's inconvenient to your position(unless of course, a rule clearly says that).


EDIT: grammar

I have and continue to "posit" that an IC is a unit.
That the IC has a special rule that allows it to join other units. (a unit within a unit)
That the IC is and will always be a unit of its Army and thus always a Battle Brother and can never board and Allied transport.
I have and continue to say that there is nor rule in the BRB or in any codex that states "a unit that joins another unit, is no longer a unit itself."

Which is exactly my point that the "IC unit" can be separately targeted.

That, or you read the rule that has the IC model(that is a Model with the IC special rule) count as part of the Unit he joins for all rules purposes and realize that one of those purposes is to make the IC model and Unit joined only 1 unit.

You cannot have a Unit within a unit without both units being individually targetable by any rules that allow the targeting of "Units".

So again: Can I target your Chaplin attached to the Tactical squad or not?

And: If I cannot target the Chaplain, where are the rules that say I cannot; because the shooting rules say that I can.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

That, or you read the rule that has the IC model(that is a Model with the IC special rule) count as part of the Unit he joins for all rules purposes and realize that one of those purposes is to make the IC model and Unit joined only 1 unit.

You cannot have a Unit within a unit without both units being individually targetable by any rules that allow the targeting of "Units".

Again this is you "reading between the lines" and making up rules.

The IC rules do not "model" they say "Independent Character."

"Independent Character" is a special rule possessed by a "Model".

Independent Character is not a Unit, it is a Special rule.

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
What is that old saying again? Oh yeah, if it is not in the rule book, you cant do it.
You have no rule that says a unit (IC) stops being a unit, when it joins another unit. So guess what?

So what stops the IC unit from being targeted?
It's your assertion that it never stop existing and that there are no issues that could possibly arise from the IC unit still existing and the IC being treated as a member of the parent unit.

I'm not targeting the IC model (the model that is a member of the parent unit). I'm targeting the IC unit as I'm given permission to by the targeting rules.
Deny the permission.

There is no point in addressing this. Kel has been trying to deflect/derail the debate since he can't prove his assertion.

Shooting attacks, heavy weapons team, Sgt in a squad are all attempts by Kel to deflect/derail the debate.

This debate is about IC's, Units, Battle Brother and Transports and their respective rules.

This tangent is relevant to the debate. Your refusal to address it doesn't make it any less relevant.

The way I see it, Kel is trying to prove his point in the face of other people telling him otherwise.

 Timmy149 wrote:
The way I see it, Kel is trying to prove his point in the face of other people telling him otherwise.

Which is what a debate is.

I give my opinion, a dissenter disagrees with my opinion and cites an explanation, it is then my job(or the job of others that agree with me) to refute that explanation or admit that I was incorrect. If a situation described by a dissenter can be refuted by comparing the situation to another situation associated, then we open a case where the final answer on the described situation will change some aspect of how we play the game.

In this case we have the definition of Battle brothers as a Friendly unit(one that is an Ally in relation to another unit, and is described on the Allies matrix as a "Battle Brother"), then we have my assertion that an IC unit ceases to be a unit in its own right when the model with the IC rule is joined to another unit, and counts as a member of that unit for all rules purposes until it leaves the unit. 40k Noob tried to claim that the IC model remains a unit while joined to the other unit, which I then explained would allow the "IC Unit" to be individually targeted by shooting attacks.

It states that Battle Brothers cannot embark upon allied transport vehicles. This includes ICs

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
And if the IC remains a unit in and of himself then he is targetable by targeting the IC unit.

It goes like this:

You have a SM Tac squad and join a chaplain to it.

Either the chaplain ceases being a unit on his own, or my Guardsman squad can choose to shoot the Chaplain unit within the Tac squad

Can't you individually target independent characters in assault assuming they are not engaged in a challenge?

Yes, you can.

So then they are still a separate unit. In the shooting phase independent characters can issue Look Out Sir and you pull the closest models. They cannot be individually targeted by shooting attacks when joined to another unit except for things like precision shots or say a Vindicare assassin.

 Timmy149 wrote:
It states that Battle Brothers cannot embark upon allied transport vehicles. This includes ICs

And As demonstrated: "Battle Brothers" is defined as a friendly unit. An IC within a unit is not a unit in and of itself.
Therefore an IC in an allied unit is not a "Battle Brother".

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Can't you individually target independent characters in assault assuming they are not engaged in a challenge?

Not if they are joined to a unit. 6th edition removed the rules treating ICs as separate units in assault.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
It states that Battle Brothers cannot embark upon allied transport vehicles. This includes ICs

And As demonstrated: "Battle Brothers" is defined as a friendly unit. An IC within a unit is not a unit in and of itself.
Therefore an IC in an allied unit is not a "Battle Brother".

An IC is a single model unit with the "Independent Character" Special Rule. Thus, as a full unit, albeit one that can join other units, he can join Battle Brother units, but, as a battle brother, he cannot embark on allied transport vehicles. He does not cease to be a unit when he joins a unit. Like Wolf Guard, except that Wolf Guard cannot leave their unit of choice. The IC is "assimilated" into the unit until he chooses to leave, at which point he becomes another unit again. Thus, as a unit that can become part of other units, you cannot embark upon allied transport vehicles.

 Timmy149 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
It states that Battle Brothers cannot embark upon allied transport vehicles. This includes ICs

And As demonstrated: "Battle Brothers" is defined as a friendly unit. An IC within a unit is not a unit in and of itself.
Therefore an IC in an allied unit is not a "Battle Brother".

An IC is a single model unit with the "Independent Character" Special Rule. Thus, as a full unit, albeit one that can join other units, he can join Battle Brother units, but, as a battle brother, he cannot embark on allied transport vehicles. He does not cease to be a unit when he joins a unit. Like Wolf Guard, except that Wolf Guard cannot leave their unit of choice. The IC is "assimilated" into the unit until he chooses to leave, at which point he becomes another unit again. Thus, as a unit that can become part of other units, you cannot embark upon allied transport vehicles.

No it is not.

A SW Wolf lord with Fenrisian Wolves is a model with the IC special rule in a unit of 3 models, that has special rules allowing it to Join and leave units under certain circumstances.

A More up to date version is almost any Tau IC; they can be joined by Drones of various sorts making them multi model units where the Commander/ethereal has the IC rules, and there are special rules/allowances for the drones to come with him.

The second example there is really the more important one because the drones are absolutely not wargear and are even still a unit on their own(but now without the IC rules) if the IC were to die before they do(and they are stuck in the unit if the IC dies while attached).

If this argument was not so absurd it would be amusing...but alas it is not.
Okay lets look at the page about Characters. It specifically states that some units have characters (like a squad sgt) and they have a seperate profile, they do not have a seperate entry and are considered just another member of the unit. However some characters are so mighty like Mephiston yada yada yada they fight as units on their own, have a serperate entry and regardless of potentcy follow all the rules for characters.

Under "Characters"
IC- some models have this rule and it allows them to join other units (rule that allows them to join units - again the word other, identifying the IC as a unit of one on his own)
Now lets go to the page they tell us to look at for IC (pg 39 in mini book), read read read lots of talk here about how to declare the IC becomes "joined to the unit", and Kels favorite line "While an IC is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes," wait wait wait <-------- thats a comma, oh wait theres more "though he still follows the rules for characters". nowhere does say he becomes one of the unit (no IC can do that, it would require him to lose his IC rule, and if he lost that he would no longer be able to JOIN an unit anyway) Okay back to characters we go....
Characters section says IC allows them to JOIN another unit....
so lets look at shooting, you pick a target unit (IC is now part of the unit for all rules purposes)....
you roll to hit and to wound and then go to wound allocation, to be allocated to the closest model to the firing unit.
then you look at look out sir and it addresses when a wound is allocated to a character in the unit blah blah blah we all know how look out sir works.

Nowhere in all that does it state that the IC ever loses the IC rule, in fact it specifically states that he still follows the rules for characters under which IC is a type. Each IC has his own entry in his own codex (let say Coteaz), nowhere does it say that he loses his entry under Codex:Grey Knights and becomes part of Codex: Eldar. So the only way to include him in your battle is as an ally. Okay so off we go..okay Kels getting excited again. "Battle brothers are treated as friendly units from all points of view".

Can be joined by allied IC (okay good so far he gets all the benefits of a IC JOINED to a friendly unit - see above)
Are considered friendly for psychic blah blahwho cares
However, not even Battle brothers may embark upon allied transports ......okay so back up two lines, is he still an IC when he JOINS the unit? yep, nothing gets rid of that, he is joined but stll has the rule. Is he (lets say coteaz, I know they arent BB on the chart, I dont care) a battle brother? looking through the eldar codex....nope no entry for Coteaz, so he must be in my ALLIES codex Grey Knights....yep there he is...
So an allied battle brother joined to my eldar squad is still an allied IC and as such there it is written in the book "cannot embark upon allied transports". What you are asking people to infer permissions that are not written versus actual rules that are written.

In closing all I can say is thank god I dont actually have to deal with anyone like this in my gaming group.....

Just to throw in the obvious-- IC are counted as the unit but still follow the rules for that character... That includes the rules for BB... As I said pretty obvious.. No grammar/ discussion needed..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TBH, it's pretty sad this convo went for as long as it did.. I don't think we're going to talk sense into the OP guys.. As they say continuing to argue against a fool makes you a fool

Quickfuze and Spazamataz, there is absolutely no reason to be so rude. This is a forum for the purpose of DEBATING rules as they are present in the rules. Your comments are also in violation of one of Dakka's tennants; under no reason are you to question another users intentions or playstyle. It speaks negatively of your character, and casts any authority you may or may not have into question.
Also, both of your posts need citations. Its not enought to talk rules, you must prove rules.

 Spazamataz wrote:
Just to throw in the obvious-- IC are counted as the unit but still follow the rules for that character... That includes the rules for BB... As I said pretty obvious.. No grammar/ discussion needed..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TBH, it's pretty sad this convo went for as long as it did.. I don't think we're going to talk sense into the OP guys.. As they say continuing to argue against a fool makes you a fool

That is pretty much what I said... but then again, he does have a slight point, as many times as that has been disproved.

 quickfuze wrote:
If this argument was not so absurd it would be amusing...but alas it is not.

You are correct, your argument here is absurd.

Okay lets look at the page about Characters. It specifically states that some units have characters (like a squad sgt) and they have a seperate profile, they do not have a seperate entry and are considered just another member of the unit. However some characters are so mighty like Mephiston yada yada yada they fight as units on their own, have a serperate entry and regardless of potentcy follow all the rules for characters.

Yes, this is exactly what the first paragraph of Caracters, the subsection of "Character types" says.

Under "Characters"
IC- some models have this rule and it allows them to join other units (rule that allows them to join units - again the word other, identifying the IC as a unit of one on his own)

Yes, while the IC is a unit himself he can join another unit

Now lets go to the page they tell us to look at for IC (pg 39 in mini book), read read read lots of talk here about how to declare the IC becomes "joined to the unit", and Kels favorite line "While an IC is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes," wait wait wait <-------- thats a comma, oh wait theres more "though he still follows the rules for characters". nowhere does say he becomes one of the unit (no IC can do that, it would require him to lose his IC rule, and if he lost that he would no longer be able to JOIN an unit anyway)

See this is where you lose all traction. You first quote the rule that says the IC becomes part of the unit and then you say nowhere does it say he becomes part of the unit. Think about that for just a minute.

Now that that has set in we can go to the second part which I myself have quoted several times, that the IC as part of the unit still follows the rules for characters. Those rules would be pages 63 through 65 of the BRB. The IC still falls under the definition of character while joined to the unit as both having a unit type"(character)", and being now a another member of the unit. He also follows the Characters as leaders rule, the Characters moving Rules, The Characters shooting(including precision strikes) rules, the Characters and assaults(again, including precision strikes) rules, and all of the challenges rules.

Okay back to characters we go....
Characters section says IC allows them to JOIN another unit....
so lets look at shooting, you pick a target unit (IC is now part of the unit for all rules purposes)....
you roll to hit and to wound and then go to wound allocation, to be allocated to the closest model to the firing unit.
then you look at look out sir and it addresses when a wound is allocated to a character in the unit blah blah blah we all know how look out sir works.

Nowhere in all that does it state that the IC ever loses the IC rule, in fact it specifically states that he still follows the rules for characters under which IC is a type. Each IC has his own entry in his own codex (let say Coteaz), nowhere does it say that he loses his entry under Codex:Grey Knights and becomes part of Codex: Eldar. So the only way to include him in your battle is as an ally. Okay so off we go..okay Kels getting excited again. "Battle brothers are treated as friendly units from all points of view".

First; Independent charachter is not a rule in characters, nor a type of character, Independent Character has its own heading after Character Types. Even there it states that an independent character is a character with the IC rule(a special rule).

Second; I have never said ICs joined to the unit loses the IC rule, you are purely making that up, I explained on the first page to 40k noob that the model will retain his stats, wargear, and special rules. IC is a special rule, stop making things up.

An IC joins a unit. A Chaplain joining a Platoon infantry squad becomes a member of the platoon infantry squad. This is exactly what the rules say. The Platoon infantry squad is an Imperial guard unit, with or without the IC joined. The same can be done in codex with Eldar: Can I join Asuraman to a unit of Striking scorpions with a farseer joined? The same can be done from the opposite end in the Tau codex: can darkstrider join a unit of firewarriors with an ethereal attached? Whith the eldar, no Asuraman cannot because the unit is a Striking scorpions unit. For Darkstrider, yes he can because the unit is still a Firewarrior unit.

Can be joined by allied IC (okay good so far he gets all the benefits of a IC JOINED to a friendly unit - see above)
Are considered friendly for psychic blah blahwho cares
However, not even Battle brothers may embark upon allied transports ......okay so back up two lines, is he still an IC when he JOINS the unit? yep, nothing gets rid of that, he is joined but stll has the rule. Is he (lets say coteaz, I know they arent BB on the chart, I dont care) a battle brother? looking through the eldar codex....nope no entry for Coteaz, so he must be in my ALLIES codex Grey Knights....yep there he is...
So an allied battle brother joined to my eldar squad is still an allied IC and as such there it is written in the book "cannot embark upon allied transports". What you are asking people to infer permissions that are not written versus actual rules that are written.

So we are now ignoring the definition of a term when you wanted to jump all over my case with the definition of a character, totally not an absurd argument.

In closing all I can say is thank god I dont actually have to deal with anyone like this in my gaming group.....

Me too, I like playing by the rules with players who can read and follow logic.

Nowhere does it state that the rule of 'Battle Brother' is removed. So I, along with everybody I know (thank the Emperor), would rule that just because of a 'non-specific' rule saying "all rules purposes" doesn't deny the 'more-specific' rule saying "battle brothers CANNOT".

Specific RAW seems to override non-specific RAW as a general rule...right?

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:

Specific RAW seems to override non-specific RAW as a general rule...right?

No, there is no such rule. There is only "General vs. Advanced", and the general rules are specified to be a very small set of rules cove3ring about 20 pages of the BRB. All other rules in the BRB are advanced.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:

Specific RAW seems to override non-specific RAW as a general rule...right?

No, there is no such rule. There is only "General vs. Advanced", and the general rules are specified to be a very small set of rules cove3ring about 20 pages of the BRB. All other rules in the BRB are advanced.

You're failing at a basic understanding of a permissive rule system - and that is that a specific rule "overrides" a more general one.

Using your assertion, Terminators coming out of a Land Raider that came from Reserves could assault the turn they come on.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
It states that Battle Brothers cannot embark upon allied transport vehicles. This includes ICs

And As demonstrated: "Battle Brothers" is defined as a friendly unit. An IC within a unit is not a unit in and of itself.
Therefore an IC in an allied unit is not a "Battle Brother".

So, if it's not a battle brother when joined to a unit then how is it in your army at that point? You are only allowed Primary and Allied detachments on the field and those allies must be one of the three levels allowed. Battle brothers being the only one that allows IC's to join ally units, if that IC stops being a battle brother when it joins the unit then can you show me where in your primary codex does it list that model? If you can't, and he's not a battle brother, he must be removed as an invalid model on the field.

You can not ever "stop being" a battle brother no more than you can "stop being" jump infantry when joined with jetbikes.

 Kevin949 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
It states that Battle Brothers cannot embark upon allied transport vehicles. This includes ICs

And As demonstrated: "Battle Brothers" is defined as a friendly unit. An IC within a unit is not a unit in and of itself.
Therefore an IC in an allied unit is not a "Battle Brother".

So, if it's not a battle brother when joined to a unit then how is it in your army at that point? You are only allowed Primary and Allied detachments on the field and those allies must be one of the three levels allowed. Battle brothers being the only one that allows IC's to join ally units, if that IC stops being a battle brother when it joins the unit then can you show me where in your primary codex does it list that model? If you can't, and he's not a battle brother, he must be removed as an invalid model on the field.

You can not ever "stop being" a battle brother no more than you can "stop being" jump infantry when joined with jetbikes.

Where did you read this? Page numbers and and quotations please, because as far as i understand, jump infantry is a unit type. If dante joins a unit of bikes, the unit of bikes are still bikes, dante didn't change that.

Neronoxx wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
It states that Battle Brothers cannot embark upon allied transport vehicles. This includes ICs

And As demonstrated: "Battle Brothers" is defined as a friendly unit. An IC within a unit is not a unit in and of itself.
Therefore an IC in an allied unit is not a "Battle Brother".

So, if it's not a battle brother when joined to a unit then how is it in your army at that point? You are only allowed Primary and Allied detachments on the field and those allies must be one of the three levels allowed. Battle brothers being the only one that allows IC's to join ally units, if that IC stops being a battle brother when it joins the unit then can you show me where in your primary codex does it list that model? If you can't, and he's not a battle brother, he must be removed as an invalid model on the field.

You can not ever "stop being" a battle brother no more than you can "stop being" jump infantry when joined with jetbikes.

Where did you read this? Page numbers and and quotations please, because as far as i understand, jump infantry is a unit type. If dante joins a unit of bikes, the unit of bikes are still bikes, dante didn't change that.

That's what he said. He means that Dante does not become a bike if he joins a unit of bikes, as an analogy.

 Timmy149 wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
It states that Battle Brothers cannot embark upon allied transport vehicles. This includes ICs

And As demonstrated: "Battle Brothers" is defined as a friendly unit. An IC within a unit is not a unit in and of itself.
Therefore an IC in an allied unit is not a "Battle Brother".

So, if it's not a battle brother when joined to a unit then how is it in your army at that point? You are only allowed Primary and Allied detachments on the field and those allies must be one of the three levels allowed. Battle brothers being the only one that allows IC's to join ally units, if that IC stops being a battle brother when it joins the unit then can you show me where in your primary codex does it list that model? If you can't, and he's not a battle brother, he must be removed as an invalid model on the field.

You can not ever "stop being" a battle brother no more than you can "stop being" jump infantry when joined with jetbikes.

Where did you read this? Page numbers and and quotations please, because as far as i understand, jump infantry is a unit type. If dante joins a unit of bikes, the unit of bikes are still bikes, dante didn't change that.

That's what he said. He means that Dante does not become a bike if he joins a unit of bikes, as an analogy.

Correct, Dante's unit type is still JI. however, the unit is a Bikes unit.

Yes timmy, happyjew is correct. Dante does not stop being a jump infantry, but the unit stays as it was, and dante now counts as a member of the unit "for all purposes."

Neronoxx wrote:
Yes timmy, happyjew is correct. Dante does not stop being a jump infantry, but the unit stays as it was, and dante now counts as a member of the unit "for all purposes."

A "member of the unit" yes, but he is still not from the codex of that unit.

This has got to be a 'no' from me. The IC for the purpose of deployment is treated as its own unit. This is shown when counting units you can keep in reserve, you always count the IC as his own unit even if he has joined another. Fallowing that logic for determining context the IC would still be a BB unit and thus cannot embark an allied transport.

It seems to me like the term Battle Brother is one that is defined solely as a relationship. It isn't a USR that is always on.

Kel's argument seems to be that when an Allied IC joins the unit, his relationship with that unit is no longer Battle Brother, Ally of Convenience, or Desperate Ally, but rather, part of the unit. And that argument makes complete sense to me. Those terms are dependent on a relationship between two separate units. Once those units join one another (such as an IC joining another unit) then they stop having an external relationship, because the rules tell us that they are considered to be a single unit.

I only mention this because there seems to be a couple of posters that don't seem to have understood the basic premise of the argument, which is understandable because it's a little complicated. I thought a little reframing might help to bring a little clarity to the discussion. I understand that it's a very weird way to look at the rules in the way we have conventionally accepted them, but I think that with the rules as they are currently written, his argument is sound.

That being said, if you want to argue the way the rules were intended to work, I can honestly see this working either way. Allowing an IC to join a unit (and get in their transport) is a much smaller step than allowing whole units of guys to ride around in the transports of their allies.

I do not think the intent of the rule is clear at all, and would love some further clarification on the issue. If Games Workshop were to add this to the FAQs, I would not be surprised no matter which way they ruled on it, which to my mind means it's exactly the sort of thing which needs to be added. Hopefully we can get some kind of clarity from GW in the future.

 Jimsolo wrote:
It seems to me like the term Battle Brother is one that is defined solely as a relationship. It isn't a USR that is always on.

Kel's argument seems to be that when an Allied IC joins the unit, his relationship with that unit is no longer Battle Brother, Ally of Convenience, or Desperate Ally, but rather, part of the unit. And that argument makes complete sense to me. Those terms are dependent on a relationship between two separate units. Once those units join one another (such as an IC joining another unit) then they stop having an external relationship, because the rules tell us that they are considered to be a single unit.

I only mention this because there seems to be a couple of posters that don't seem to have understood the basic premise of the argument, which is understandable because it's a little complicated. I thought a little reframing might help to bring a little clarity to the discussion. I understand that it's a very weird way to look at the rules in the way we have conventionally accepted them, but I think that with the rules as they are currently written, his argument is sound.

That being said, if you want to argue the way the rules were intended to work, I can honestly see this working either way. Allowing an IC to join a unit (and get in their transport) is a much smaller step than allowing whole units of guys to ride around in the transports of their allies.

I do not think the intent of the rule is clear at all, and would love some further clarification on the issue. If Games Workshop were to add this to the FAQs, I would not be surprised no matter which way they ruled on it, which to my mind means it's exactly the sort of thing which needs to be added. Hopefully we can get some kind of clarity from GW in the future.

So...if we're friends and then put on the same basketball team that means we're not friends anymore? I'm not using a real life scenario here but a more understandable analogy for some.

Nothing makes them stop being battle brothers when an IC is joined. Their relationship may have changed but it was only compounded on, not replaced by.

Epic troll thread in progress. Amazing.

 Kevin949 wrote:

So...if we're friends and then put on the same basketball team that means we're not friends anymore? I'm not using a real life scenario here but a more understandable analogy for some.

Nothing makes them stop being battle brothers when an IC is joined. Their relationship may have changed but it was only compounded on, not replaced by.

Your analogy is flawed, it is not a relationship of friends joining together.

It is more of a marriage.

Or in sci-fi fair an intermingling of 2 separate entities.

You have the definition of Battle brothers as a friendly unit.

You have an IC as that Battle brother.

The IC joins the unit and the unit remains the same, but the IC is no longer a separate unit, and therefore is not a battle Brother as defined(he is no longer a friendly unit separate from the joined unit).

Battle brothers as defined only matters for:
The purposes of an IC joining the unit(the unit is battle brother to the IC, per the rule)
The effects of Psychic powers and special abilities.
Embarking on a transport.

These are the only times the Battle brothers rule comes up and the only way it effects any units.

As far as How the IC is in your army; that was done at List creation. A Wolf guard squad is purchased at list creation, and then Parceled out, if you send every Wolfguard member to a different unit pre game you have not suddenly "Gained back" the Elites choice they took up. Same concept here.

I get what your trying to argue I really do, but lets just put it this way....you and your gaming club play it that way. Great for you, you have used one of the basic principles of the game to begin with in that its a permissive rule set designed so you and you friends can have "cinematic" engagements on the table top and have fun. That being said, I promise you that if you show up at any major tournament (i.e. Adepticon style events) your going to get your dreams crushed. The T.O.'s will rule against you I promise. Until a FAQ or actual Errata is released by GW that rules this in your favor (or even the INAT FAQ for that matter) (which btw I would be willing to bet doesnt happen in your favor), its never going to fly in a tournament setting. Still, keep rolling dice....after all thats what its all about.

Edited for violating rules #1 and #3. Do not circumvent the language filter.
MT11

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Epic troll thread in progress. Amazing.

Are you referring to OP or someone else here?

 Azrell wrote:
This entire discussion is "pants on head" re tarded.

So because somebody reads the rules one way, others disagree and both sides have a civil discussion regarding the topic (extremely rare on YMDC, I know), the discussion is slowed? If people were to discuss different readings of say shooting through the gap of another unit would you claim that is "pants on head" re tarded?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

So...if we're friends and then put on the same basketball team that means we're not friends anymore? I'm not using a real life scenario here but a more understandable analogy for some.

Nothing makes them stop being battle brothers when an IC is joined. Their relationship may have changed but it was only compounded on, not replaced by.

Your analogy is flawed, it is not a relationship of friends joining together.

It is more of a marriage.

Or in sci-fi fair an intermingling of 2 separate entities.

You have the definition of Battle brothers as a friendly unit.

You have an IC as that Battle brother.

The IC joins the unit and the unit remains the same, but the IC is no longer a separate unit, and therefore is not a battle Brother as defined(he is no longer a friendly unit separate from the joined unit).

Battle brothers as defined only matters for:
The purposes of an IC joining the unit(the unit is battle brother to the IC, per the rule)
The effects of Psychic powers and special abilities.
Embarking on a transport.

These are the only times the Battle brothers rule comes up and the only way it effects any units.

As far as How the IC is in your army; that was done at List creation. A Wolf guard squad is purchased at list creation, and then Parceled out, if you send every Wolfguard member to a different unit pre game you have not suddenly "Gained back" the Elites choice they took up. Same concept here.

Being a unit on it's own or not has nothing to do with being battle brothers. You're looking at it too granular when it is supposed to be a high level view. The alliance is between codex armies, as a whole. The units themselves treat the other units as friendly units. But an IC joining a unit is STILL an IC from that other codex.

There is no relationship on a unit level beyond them being "friendly". The codex army as a whole has the battle brother alliance.

 Kevin949 wrote:
So...if we're friends and then put on the same basketball team that means we're not friends anymore? I'm not using a real life scenario here but a more understandable analogy for some.

Nothing makes them stop being battle brothers when an IC is joined. Their relationship may have changed but it was only compounded on, not replaced by.

No, but when Autumn Winters married Jim Solo, she ceased to be a Winters and became a Solo. I understand where you disagree, Kevin. I can totally see your side of the discussion. Personally, I disagree with your assessment, but I think the issue is murky enough that some official clarification might be nice.

 Azrell wrote:
This entire discussion is "pants on head" re tarded.

This is entirely unacceptable. I'f you've forgotten Dakka's code of conduct, then here's a link to it. There is absolutely no excuse for insults.

 Kevin949 wrote:

Being a unit on it's own or not has nothing to do with being battle brothers. You're looking at it too granular when it is supposed to be a high level view. The alliance is between codex armies, as a whole. The units themselves treat the other units as friendly units. But an IC joining a unit is STILL an IC from that other codex.

There is no relationship on a unit level beyond them being "friendly". The codex army as a whole has the battle brother alliance.

The Alliance follows the rules for Allies, which then contains the rules regarding those Allies that are in Grey in the Allies Matrix(called at this point "Battle Brothers"), you then go down to the battle brothers rules to find out what this means. We find out in the battle brothers rules that this means that "Battle Brothers" are Friendly units; and then goes on to tell you what the friendly units can(and in 1 case cannot) do.

When your IC joins a unit(any unit, allies rules are unnecessary for this portion) you IC stops being a unit of 1 model(with the IC rule), and becomes a full member of the unit he joins(retaining his unit type X(Character)).

Going back to the Allies rules, and the allowances of a "Battle Brother"; Said "Battle brother" can be joined by an allied IC, when the allied IC joins the Battle brother the IC stops being a Unit himself. The IC within the unit can freely get into the Unit he has joined transport because he is not a separate unit, and therefore no longer under the definition of "Battle Brother"

Still being an IC from the allied codex does not matter, what matters is that the IC is no longer a battle brother by definition(a Friendly unit).

As to the assertion that there are no relationships other than friendly; the Allies of convenience and Desperate allies have something different to say(both are enemy units with extra special rules)

 Kevin949 wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
It seems to me like the term Battle Brother is one that is defined solely as a relationship. It isn't a USR that is always on.

Kel's argument seems to be that when an Allied IC joins the unit, his relationship with that unit is no longer Battle Brother, Ally of Convenience, or Desperate Ally, but rather, part of the unit. And that argument makes complete sense to me. Those terms are dependent on a relationship between two separate units. Once those units join one another (such as an IC joining another unit) then they stop having an external relationship, because the rules tell us that they are considered to be a single unit.

I only mention this because there seems to be a couple of posters that don't seem to have understood the basic premise of the argument, which is understandable because it's a little complicated. I thought a little reframing might help to bring a little clarity to the discussion. I understand that it's a very weird way to look at the rules in the way we have conventionally accepted them, but I think that with the rules as they are currently written, his argument is sound.

That being said, if you want to argue the way the rules were intended to work, I can honestly see this working either way. Allowing an IC to join a unit (and get in their transport) is a much smaller step than allowing whole units of guys to ride around in the transports of their allies.

I do not think the intent of the rule is clear at all, and would love some further clarification on the issue. If Games Workshop were to add this to the FAQs, I would not be surprised no matter which way they ruled on it, which to my mind means it's exactly the sort of thing which needs to be added. Hopefully we can get some kind of clarity from GW in the future.

So...if we're friends and then put on the same basketball team that means we're not friends anymore? I'm not using a real life scenario here but a more understandable analogy for some.

Nothing makes them stop being battle brothers when an IC is joined. Their relationship may have changed but it was only compounded on, not replaced by.

Thus a character joining a unit does not make his unit part of a primary detachment/allied detachment and vice versa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Being a unit on it's own or not has nothing to do with being battle brothers. You're looking at it too granular when it is supposed to be a high level view. The alliance is between codex armies, as a whole. The units themselves treat the other units as friendly units. But an IC joining a unit is STILL an IC from that other codex.

There is no relationship on a unit level beyond them being "friendly". The codex army as a whole has the battle brother alliance.

The Alliance follows the rules for Allies, which then contains the rules regarding those Allies that are in Grey in the Allies Matrix(called at this point "Battle Brothers"), you then go down to the battle brothers rules to find out what this means. We find out in the battle brothers rules that this means that "Battle Brothers" are Friendly units; and then goes on to tell you what the friendly units can(and in 1 case cannot) do.

When your IC joins a unit(any unit, allies rules are unnecessary for this portion) you IC stops being a unit of 1 model(with the IC rule), and becomes a full member of the unit he joins(retaining his unit type X(Character)).

Going back to the Allies rules, and the allowances of a "Battle Brother"; Said "Battle brother" can be joined by an allied IC, when the allied IC joins the Battle brother the IC stops being a Unit himself. The IC within the unit can freely get into the Unit he has joined transport because he is not a separate unit, and therefore no longer under the definition of "Battle Brother"

Still being an IC from the allied codex does not matter, what matters is that the IC is no longer a battle brother by definition(a Friendly unit).

As to the assertion that there are no relationships other than friendly; the Allies of convenience and Desperate allies have something different to say(both are enemy units with extra special rules)

The said IC does not lose the properties that make him a battle brother, thus meaning he cannot embark upon an allied transport when joined to an allied unit. You do not lose the properties of being a battle brother when when you join an allied unit. The basketball team analogy is exactly that. In the same way, a character in TEQ armour does not count as being a bike if he is deployed with a unit of bikes. The properties that he has are still retained, so you cannot have a captain in Terminator Armour moving as if he had a bike. It's the same deal.

Also just to point out (and feel free to keep debating this topic), but NOVA and ADEPTICON already ruled against this very argument. Again as the game is meant to be fun, play it how you want to, but from a competitive viewpoint, its not going to happen.

rigeld2 wrote:

Using your assertion, Terminators coming out of a Land Raider that came from Reserves could assault the turn they come on.

No, because the rules specifically tell us that's not the case. I don't recall if this was cleared up in a FAQ or in the book itself, and don't have time to look it up now, but it specifically references that situation. If a rule says "Space Marines move like regular infantry, except when classified as jump infantry," then that is specifically spelling out an exception. The general assertion that people have that "Specific overrides general" is, however, a fallacy. It would not apply if the rules were stated as follows: "Space marines always move as if they were infantry." "A unit with a jump pack always moves as if it were jump infantry."

If the rule were stated as the latter, unless it was addressed by the codex vs brb, or some other override rule, even though one specifically refers to space marines, while the other generally refers to all units with a jump pack, clarification would be required, as no rule in the English language, or within the written rules of 40k would tell us which one of those statements is correct.

 quickfuze wrote:
Also just to point out (and feel free to keep debating this topic), but NOVA and ADEPTICON already ruled against this very argument. Again as the game is meant to be fun, play it how you want to, but from a competitive viewpoint, its not going to happen.

Depends really on who you play against. Tourneys wouldn't let you, but some people at your FLGS may, but from a rules perspective, I rule it as not being legit.

Lock the thread.

 quickfuze wrote:
Also just to point out (and feel free to keep debating this topic), but NOVA and ADEPTICON already ruled against this very argument. Again as the game is meant to be fun, play it how you want to, but from a competitive viewpoint, its not going to happen.

Just to point out, that Adepticon and Nova are free to make rules for their own tournaments. Such as this little gem from NOVA:

Round fractions down for purposes of “Where is it?” when attempting to shoot at the Deathleaper.

And of course both NOVA and Adepticon ruled differently on RFP v RFPaaC.

Timmy; My whole point is that an IC joined to a unit ceases to be a unit himself.

If the IC ceases to be a unit then he loses the property that makes him a battle brother.

You cannot argue that an IC remains a separate unit while attached to a unit because that would make the IC separately targetable.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Timmy; My whole point is that an IC joined to a unit ceases to be a unit himself.

If the IC ceases to be a unit then he loses the property that makes him a battle brother.

You cannot argue that an IC remains a separate unit while attached to a unit because that would make the IC separately targetable.

I never said that the IC is still a seperate unit when he is joined to another unit. He still has the property that makes him a battle brother, in the same way hellfire rounds do not cease to fire standard bolter round (albeit ones that have poisoned 2+). You cannot lose said properties.

 Timmy149 wrote:

I never said that the IC is still a seperate unit when he is joined to another unit. He still has the property that makes him a battle brother, in the same way hellfire rounds do not cease to fire standard bolter round (albeit ones that have poisoned 2+). You cannot lose said properties.

A battle brother is defined as an allied unit, not an allied model. That's where this argument originated.

KK, just out of curiosity, do you and your group play that an attached allied IC can embark? This hasn't come up yet with my group, but I'm sure most would at least play that they cannot.

 Happyjew wrote:
KK, just out of curiosity, do you and your group play that an attached allied IC can embark? This hasn't come up yet with my group, but I'm sure most would at least play that they cannot.

Hasn't really come up yet. I'll probably bring it up next time we play and see what people's thoughts are. I'm for it, really. Primarily because I think battle-brothers not being able to use each other's vehicles is ridiculous to begin with, not so much because GW writes rules poorly. Although, they really are bad at it.

My interpretation of the ruling is that he is still a Battle Brother, and cannot ride in the transport. Else if you joined your Warlord to a unit, would he stop being a Warlord then? Since he is no longer a unit in and of himself, and HIS unit gives Warlord...

An IC retains itself as a unit when it joins another. I rule this way because we also rule that if you kill an IC, you get a Killpoint and Warlord traits still work when joined to a non-Warlord unit.

 Happyjew wrote:
KK, just out of curiosity, do you and your group play that an attached allied IC can embark? This hasn't come up yet with my group, but I'm sure most would at least play that they cannot.

It honestly has not come up yet.

I also have not found any serious reason for it to be done now that Storm Ravens are also in the basic Space Marine army(Shrike out of a Storm raven would be nice).

I would absolutely let my opponent do this, but I generally run a guard list with no ICs, and when I do add Allies the HQ is usually purchased with joining one of the other squads in mind(JP Captain with an assault squad, MotF with a Las/Plas squad, or similar).

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
My interpretation of the ruling is that he is still a Battle Brother, and cannot ride in the transport. Else if you joined your Warlord to a unit, would he stop being a Warlord then? Since he is no longer a unit in and of himself, and HIS unit gives Warlord...

An IC retains itself as a unit when it joins another. I rule this way because we also rule that if you kill an IC, you get a Killpoint and Warlord traits still work when joined to a non-Warlord unit.

I have already explained several times that your models do not lose their special rules, the lose the status of being an individual unit(and thus battle brothers); your Warlord is the model with the highest LD from your HQ choices. My Company Commander is my warlord, but he is just a member of the Company command squad, Never a unit himself, never an IC.

Warlord is decided pregame, nothing changes that, it is a rule applied to the model.

ICs giving kill points is part of the Kill point rules; again if he is a separate unit are you saying I can shoot at his single model unit?

As many people have said, many dozens of times, you cannot cease to be a battle brother. You join an allied unit, but you do not lose the BB properties. Lock The Thread.

+1 to lock the thread now. Pretty please with sugar on top.

 Timmy149 wrote:
As many people have said, many dozens of times, you cannot cease to be a battle brother. You join an allied unit, but you do not lose the BB properties. Lock The Thread.

saying without any proof, or even explaining why you think this really doesn't add anything to the discussions.

It has been said dozens of times, and dozens of times I have explained why that assertion is wrong.

Dozerblades: think you could post something useful in this thread or are you just enjoying your +1 postcount?

Timmy, Let me ask you; What is a battle brother(Page and quotes would be nice)?

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
So...if we're friends and then put on the same basketball team that means we're not friends anymore? I'm not using a real life scenario here but a more understandable analogy for some.

Nothing makes them stop being battle brothers when an IC is joined. Their relationship may have changed but it was only compounded on, not replaced by.

No, but when Autumn Winters married Jim Solo, she ceased to be a Winters and became a Solo. I understand where you disagree, Kevin. I can totally see your side of the discussion. Personally, I disagree with your assessment, but I think the issue is murky enough that some official clarification might be nice.

 Azrell wrote:
This entire discussion is "pants on head" re tarded.

This is entirely unacceptable. I'f you've forgotten Dakka's code of conduct, then here's a link to it. There is absolutely no excuse for insults.

Funny, my wife became a denny-gillum, a hybrid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:

I never said that the IC is still a seperate unit when he is joined to another unit. He still has the property that makes him a battle brother, in the same way hellfire rounds do not cease to fire standard bolter round (albeit ones that have poisoned 2+). You cannot lose said properties.

A battle brother is defined as an allied unit, not an allied model. That's where this argument originated.

Is it really?

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units'"

That statement right there tells me that being friendly units and battle brothers are separate things.

"Battle brothers" are allied ARMIES, not units and not models.

"To represent this, we have several categories of alliances,
each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies
Matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army."

This category covers the strongest of alliances, two or more
armies striving for a common goal.

So I'm sorry, but no, there is zero definition that a battle brother is an allied unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
As many people have said, many dozens of times, you cannot cease to be a battle brother. You join an allied unit, but you do not lose the BB properties. Lock The Thread.

saying without any proof, or even explaining why you think this really doesn't add anything to the discussions.

It has been said dozens of times, and dozens of times I have explained why that assertion is wrong.

Dozerblades: think you could post something useful in this thread or are you just enjoying your +1 postcount?

Timmy, Let me ask you; What is a battle brother(Page and quotes would be nice)?

Kel - Not wanting to see the proof and having no proof are not the same thing, and I'm sorry bud but you're just not seeing the proof. It's there though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Being a unit on it's own or not has nothing to do with being battle brothers. You're looking at it too granular when it is supposed to be a high level view. The alliance is between codex armies, as a whole. The units themselves treat the other units as friendly units. But an IC joining a unit is STILL an IC from that other codex.

There is no relationship on a unit level beyond them being "friendly". The codex army as a whole has the battle brother alliance.

The Alliance follows the rules for Allies, which then contains the rules regarding those Allies that are in Grey in the Allies Matrix(called at this point "Battle Brothers"), you then go down to the battle brothers rules to find out what this means. We find out in the battle brothers rules that this means that "Battle Brothers" are Friendly units; and then goes on to tell you what the friendly units can(and in 1 case cannot) do.

When your IC joins a unit(any unit, allies rules are unnecessary for this portion) you IC stops being a unit of 1 model(with the IC rule), and becomes a full member of the unit he joins(retaining his unit type X(Character)).

Going back to the Allies rules, and the allowances of a "Battle Brother"; Said "Battle brother" can be joined by an allied IC, when the allied IC joins the Battle brother the IC stops being a Unit himself. The IC within the unit can freely get into the Unit he has joined transport because he is not a separate unit, and therefore no longer under the definition of "Battle Brother"

Still being an IC from the allied codex does not matter, what matters is that the IC is no longer a battle brother by definition(a Friendly unit).

As to the assertion that there are no relationships other than friendly; the Allies of convenience and Desperate allies have something different to say(both are enemy units with extra special rules)

That is your key mistake, you are missing the words "are treated as friendly units". As I said in my earlier post, the statement makes Battle Brothers and Friendly Units two separate things. There's also much evidence in the precluding rules that Allies are formed from Army to Army, not unit to unit or model to model.

So I asked the only two guys who know the rules as well as I do. I explained my position as well as the counter-arguments. Surprisingly, one agreed with me.

Nothing in the phrasing of Battle Brothers explicitly limits it to only units of Battle Brothers. Everything from your allied detachment is an ally, and thus either a Battle Brother, an Ally of Convenience, or a Desperate Ally. No rule states that only homogenous units of allies are treated as allies.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Nothing in the phrasing of Battle Brothers explicitly limits it to only units of Battle Brothers. Everything from your allied detachment is an ally, and thus either a Battle Brother, an Ally of Convenience, or a Desperate Ally. No rule states that only homogenous units of allies are treated as allies.

100% this.

There are no rules that take away the BB status.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Nothing in the phrasing of Battle Brothers explicitly limits it to only units of Battle Brothers. Everything from your allied detachment is an ally, and thus either a Battle Brother, an Ally of Convenience, or a Desperate Ally. No rule states that only homogenous units of allies are treated as allies.

100% this.

There are no rules that take away the BB status.

Exactly. Like I have said, many times previously, you DO NOT CEASE TO BE A BATTLE BROTHER BECAUSE YOU JOIN A UNIT!

@ OP, The burden of proof is on you to find something that makes an IC lose Battle Brother status, rather than others to find something that says he remains as such. Nothing you've posted so far has shown this.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Nothing in the phrasing of Battle Brothers explicitly limits it to only units of Battle Brothers. Everything from your allied detachment is an ally, and thus either a Battle Brother, an Ally of Convenience, or a Desperate Ally. No rule states that only homogenous units of allies are treated as allies.

So you are saying the First sentence in the paragraph "Battle brothers are treated as 'Friendly units' from all points of view." is not the definition of the term?

So we will go by your definition here; Only units chosen from the allied detachment are battle brothers. So according to this, I can Attach an IC from my main army to a battle brother unit and have them get into a battle brother Transport right? After all you do not have any "Battle Brothers" getting in "Allied Transports" do you?

Edit: After thinking about it further I am loving this Concept of "All models(either in the allied detachment, or in the whole army) are Battle Brothers" Because of that oft stated Rule I have above. Now every single Battle brother model is treated as a "friendly unit"; now Tau have no need for target locks when taken with(or as, depending on whose making up the definition of battle brother), each "Friendly unit" model can individually target any enemy unit they want(because that is how the shooting rules work, Units shoot at units); you also no longer have unit coherency to worry about because every model is a unit; of course now you cannot have ICs join those units unless they also have the IC rule, so this whole argument becomes moot.

So how much longer does this have to continue? I see nothing constructive.

Kel has actually posted a lot of good points, counterpoints, and valid debates. The only reason this thread seems non-productive is because lots of people seem to not have read the entire thread, or simply ignore the fact that whatever disproves or at least provides contention to their point has already been stated.

That's not true at all.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
That's not true at all.

He's had to repost the same points several times in response to people who posted things that were brought into question by those points to begin with. Either people are ignoring the points, not reading them, don't understand them, or...I think those are the only options. The logic is there to be seen.

Now, RAI, it would be a different story. But RAI isn't the foundation of this thread, so far as I understand.

I'm still not seeing anything that tells us that an IC would lose Battle Brother status when he joins an allied unit, and unless he does, he's explicitly barred from embarking on an allied transport.

 grrrfranky wrote:
I'm still not seeing anything that tells us that an IC would lose Battle Brother status when he joins an allied unit, and unless he does, he's explicitly barred from embarking on an allied transport.

The issue is that "Battle Brother status" is unit based, and the IC's unit disappears when he joins a unit.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
Kel has actually posted a lot of good points, counterpoints, and valid debates. .

Not sure I would ascribe "good" or "valid" to very much in this thread... Several other words DO come to mind to describe the premise here, but they don't really fall into the good or valid categories IMO... But, that's all it is... JMHO...

rigeld2 wrote:

 grrrfranky wrote:
I'm still not seeing anything that tells us that an IC would lose Battle Brother status when he joins an allied unit, and unless he does, he's explicitly barred from embarking on an allied transport.

The issue is that "Battle Brother status" is unit based, and the IC's unit disappears when he joins a unit.

I'm not entirely convinced that the first part of this is true, but I see your point. It doesn't spell out exactly what Battle Brother status is very well, just gives a couple of examples.

The problem is you have a rule that states battle brothers may not embark on allied transports.

Then you have people trying to claim a battle brother ceases being a battle brother and can in fact embark on allied transports despite lacking explicit exceptions to the first rule, and needing to dig through several pages of rules to create a loophole within the first rule.

I wouldn't allow it and I'm 99% sure our local TO's wouldn't. Like others I'm having a hard time getting past "the book says no, but if you do this and then look at it this way, it could be possible" debate. Clearly easter egging IMO.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
The problem is you have a rule that states battle brothers may not embark on allied transports.

Then you have people trying to claim a battle brother ceases being a battle brother and can in fact embark on allied transports despite lacking explicit exceptions to the first rule, and needing to dig through several pages of rules to create a loophole within the first rule.

I wouldn't allow it and I'm 99% sure our local TO's wouldn't. Like others I'm having a hard time getting past "the book says no, but if you do this and then look at it this way, it could be possible" debate. Clearly easter egging IMO.

It's not "several pages of rules to create a loophole".
The first rule creates the "loophole" by making Battle Brothers decided per unit.
You're misrepresenting both the intention of the OP and the actual rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

 grrrfranky wrote:
I'm still not seeing anything that tells us that an IC would lose Battle Brother status when he joins an allied unit, and unless he does, he's explicitly barred from embarking on an allied transport.

The issue is that "Battle Brother status" is unit based, and the IC's unit disappears when he joins a unit.

"Battle Brother status" is not unit based.

Page 113 "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 column."

For example, Codex Blood Angels and Codex Black Templars are Battle Brothers. so anything from Codex Blood Angels can not ride in a transport from Codex Black Templars.

Pretty clear wording there.

rigeld2 wrote:

It's not "several pages of rules to create a loophole".
The first rule creates the "loophole" by making Battle Brothers decided per unit.
You're misrepresenting both the intention of the OP and the actual rules.

Not really. Battle brothers may not embark on allied transports.

Was your IC purchased as a battle brother ally? Does a rule explicitly remove that status at any point in the game? Does a rule explicitly allow battle brothers to embark allied transports if...?

No? Then you're using loopholes to bypass an explicit restriction without explicit permission.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 grrrfranky wrote:
I'm still not seeing anything that tells us that an IC would lose Battle Brother status when he joins an allied unit, and unless he does, he's explicitly barred from embarking on an allied transport.

The issue is that "Battle Brother status" is unit based, and the IC's unit disappears when he joins a unit.

"Battle Brother status" is not unit based.

Page 113 "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 column."

For example, Codex Blood Angels and Codex Black Templars are Battle Brothers. so anything from Codex Blood Angels can not ride in a transport from Codex Black Templars.

Pretty clear wording there.

A "Battle brothers are treated as friendly units" is pretty pretty clear wording as well.

So, for example Codex Blood Angels and Codex Black Templars are Battle Brothers. so anything from Codex Blood Angels and from Codex Black Templars is a friendly unit, everything right?

The BT Neophyte is now his own friendly unit, as is the Blood Angles Sgt.


There are actual rules as to what a battle brother is; ignoring those rules and making up your own is not me refusing to follow the rules

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 grrrfranky wrote:
I'm still not seeing anything that tells us that an IC would lose Battle Brother status when he joins an allied unit, and unless he does, he's explicitly barred from embarking on an allied transport.

The issue is that "Battle Brother status" is unit based, and the IC's unit disappears when he joins a unit.

"Battle Brother status" is not unit based.

For example, Codex Blood Angels and Codex Black Templars are Battle Brothers. so anything from Codex Blood Angels can not ride in a transport from Codex Black Templars.

That's your example, not a citation.

Pretty clear wording there.

So is the wording "Battle brothers are treated as friendly units". I bolded the important word there because you seem to keep missing it. And unlike your example, mine is a quote from the rules.

Which really does not matter, as I quoted the rulebook by saying Page 113 "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 column." (Thus the Quotation marks.Nothing outside the quotation marks is a quote, never said it was, it was not even implied).

The level of alliance is what we are working with.

a battle brother unit, that is an IC can be joined to a unit from an allied codex, but he is still a selection from the primary detachment and a battle brother to the "potential allies" that were chosen from a different codex.

The "Level of alliance" for a primary detachment of Blood Angels and an allied detachment of Black Templars is noted as being battle brothers. Thus they are battle brothers and they can not ride in each others transports as nothing says they are no linger battle brothers when joined to a unit from the allied codex.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Which really does not matter, as I quoted the rulebook by saying Page 113 "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 column." (Thus the Quotation marks.Nothing outside the quotation marks is a quote, never said it was, it was not even implied).

The level of alliance is what we are working with.

a battle brother unit, that is an IC can be joined to a unit from an allied codex, but he is still a selection from the primary detachment and a battle brother to the "potential allies" that were chosen from a different codex.

The "Level of alliance" for a primary detachment of Blood Angels and an allied detachment of Black Templars is noted as being battle brothers. Thus they are battle brothers and they can not ride in each others transports as nothing says they are no linger battle brothers when joined to a unit from the allied codex.

A Blood Angel unit cannot ride in a Black Templar vehicle. No one has said otherwise.
A Black Templar unit, however, can embark on a Black Templar vehicle.
Since an IC is a member of the unit for all rules purposes it's a Black Templar unit attempting to embark.
I understand how you're finding the level of alliance - that's not in dispute. It's also meaningless as the function of being Battle Brothers is defined as being unit based.

rigeld2 wrote:

A Blood Angel unit cannot ride in a Black Templar vehicle. No one has said otherwise.
A Black Templar unit, however, can embark on a Black Templar vehicle.
Since an IC is a member of the unit for all rules purposes it's a Black Templar unit, with a Battle brother IC attempting to embark.
I understand how you're finding the level of alliance - that's not in dispute. It's also meaningless as the function of being Battle Brothers is defined as being unit based.

FTFY.

Why are you treating him separately? He's a member of the unit for all rules purposes and since the rules define Battle Brother status on the unit level those restrictions cannot apply to him.

He is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, but he does not lose his own rules.

There needs to be an exception that makes him no longer a battle brother. There has been nothing quoted that shows that.

 DeathReaper wrote:
He is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, but he does not lose his own rules.

There needs to be an exception that makes him no longer a battle brother. There has been nothing quoted that shows that.

DR, is an IC (any IC does not matter) joined to a unit still a unit (barring certain exceptions which specify that the IC counts as a unit)?

If no, then why does battle brothers (which is an allied unit) still apply?

If yes, why can I not target the IC unit?

Wow wow wow... I can't believe you guys are still bickering about something so obviously obvious.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Wow wow wow... I can't believe you guys are still bickering about something so obviously obvious.

Obviously it is not obviously obvious.

SIde A claims that the wording for Battle Brothers refers to allied units. Since an IC who is joined to a unit counts as a normal member for all rule purposes (with certain exceptions that specify), then a BB IC joined to an allied unit can embark into a transport.

Side B claims that unless something specifically takes away the BB "rule' (status, or whatever you want to call it), then when the unit it is attached to tries to embark, you are trying to embark a BB which is illegal.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Wow wow wow... I can't believe you guys are still bickering about something so obviously obvious.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
+1 to lock the thread now. Pretty please with sugar on top.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
So how much longer does this have to continue? I see nothing constructive.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Epic troll thread in progress. Amazing.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Lock the thread.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
A poll will show exactly how few agree with you. There is nothing here to discuss.

Here's a selection of your posts in this thread, can you post something useful instead of repeating what has already been stated by others or complaining about the discussion happening in the first place? This forum is for rules discussion, not just discussion you deem valid.

edit: formatting

 DeathReaper wrote:
He is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, but he does not lose his own rules.

There needs to be an exception that makes him no longer a battle brother. There has been nothing quoted that shows that.

Cite the rule for a Librarian that tells you the model (not unit) is a battle brother.

Using the reasoning that "for all rules purposes, they become a normal member of the unit"...

... A warlord (say SM Libby) joining a unit of fire warriors ceases to be a warlord, as he becomes a normal member of a troop unit (which cannot be warlord) of the allied detachment (which cannot be warlord) and thus loses his warlord trait while attached?

This is the same argument the pro-embark side is making since a warlord can be a unit (CCS, Bjorn) not just a model, and if "all rules purposes" means they stop being a battle brother, then they stop being warlord also.

I think people are taking that line in the IC rules too far. It could be RAW, but certainly not RAI IMO. Hence why they state battle brothers may not embark an allied transport, not "unless they're attached to an allied unit".

Hvy3mynd; reread the rules for warlord. Warlord is a special rule applied to the single model with the highest Ld value from your HQ choices. Unit is never mentioned in Warlord.

ICs joining units do not lose their Stats, Wargear, nor Special rules, just the status of being a unit themselves

I have already said this 2 or three times btw, but I do realize 6 pages is a lot to read.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Using the reasoning that "for all rules purposes, they become a normal member of the unit"...

... A warlord (say SM Libby) joining a unit of fire warriors ceases to be a warlord, as he becomes a normal member of a troop unit (which cannot be warlord) of the allied detachment (which cannot be warlord) and thus loses his warlord trait while attached?

"When choosing your army, you must nominate one model to be your Warlord." Page 111.
No, the model doesn't lose any of his special rules - he just stops being his own unit.

rigeld2 - The Warlord simply has a special trait and gives up a victory point if destroyed. Don't make it more than it is.

I... I didn't. My point is that the Warlord is a model, not a unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
He is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, but he does not lose his own rules.

There needs to be an exception that makes him no longer a battle brother. There has been nothing quoted that shows that.

Cite the rule for a Librarian that tells you the model (not unit) is a battle brother.

I already did. the allies matrix page tells us who are Battle Brothers to whom. It is all covered on Page 113

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
He is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, but he does not lose his own rules.

There needs to be an exception that makes him no longer a battle brother. There has been nothing quoted that shows that.

Cite the rule for a Librarian that tells you the model (not unit) is a battle brother.

I already did. the allies matrix page tells us who are Battle Brothers to whom. It is all covered on Page 113

And what is the definition of Battle Brother?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
He is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, but he does not lose his own rules.

There needs to be an exception that makes him no longer a battle brother. There has been nothing quoted that shows that.

Cite the rule for a Librarian that tells you the model (not unit) is a battle brother.

I already did. the allies matrix page tells us who are Battle Brothers to whom. It is all covered on Page 113

It tells us what units are Battle Brothers to what other units.
Because the rules for Battle Brothers are unit based. So your citation doesn't say what you pretend it says.

I am not pretending anything. Here is what the rules for figuring out if an allied army is a Battle Brother:

Page 113 "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 column."

Blood Angels are Battle Brothers with Black Templars, and as such no BA's are allowed to ride in any BT transports as per the clause on page 112.

Note the clause does not mention Battle brother units, just Battle Brothers "However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." P. 112

And you still have not answered my question.

What is the definition of Battle Brothers?

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am not pretending anything. Here is what the rules for figuring out if an allied army is a Battle Brother:

Page 113 "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 column."

Correct, you've quoted that three times now - it doesn't say what you're saying it says.

Blood Angels are Battle Brothers with Black Templars, and as such no BA units are allowed to ride in any BT transports as per the clause on page 112.

FTFY.

Note the clause does not mention Battle brother units, just Battle Brothers "However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." P. 112

Correct. Could you read the bold sentence in the header above those bullet points for me, and then explain how the bullet points apply to models and not units? Since that's what I've been referring to, and you've been ignoring.

What is a Battle Brother?

I have not been ignoring it. the bullet point before the one I quoted says "Are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers abilities and so on." 112.

This specifically mentions friendly units. The next bullet point does not. It simply says "not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." 112

This notes that they are not specifically talking about BB units, but BB's in general, as in any models from the detachment that are battle brothers.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Blood Angels are Battle Brothers with Black Templars, and as such no BA units are allowed to ride in any BT transports as per the clause on page 112.

FTFY.

yea, that fix was not needed, as that is not what the bullet point says.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have not been ignoring it. the bullet point before the one I quoted says "Are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers abilities and so on." 112.

This specifically mentions friendly units. The next bullet point does not. It simply says "not even Battle Brothers can embark in
allied transport vehicles." 112

This notes that they are not specifically talking about BB units, but BB's in general, as in any models from the detachment that are battle brothers.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Blood Angels are Battle Brothers with Black Templars, and as such no BA units are allowed to ride in any BT transports as per the clause on page 112.

FTFY.

yea, that fix was not needed, as that is not what the bullet point says.

I'm curious DR, why is it you seem to be dodging the question? It's rather simple, What is the rulebook definition of a Battle Brother?

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have not been ignoring it. the bullet point before the one I quoted says "Are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers abilities and so on." 112.

This specifically mentions friendly units. The next bullet point does not. It simply says "not even Battle Brothers can embark in
allied transport vehicles." 112

This notes that they are not specifically talking about BB units, but BB's in general, as in any models from the detachment that are battle brothers.

Yeah, neither of those is the heading in bold before the bullet points. Keep dodging though, it's cute.

You've quoted zero (as in - zero support for your assertion) rules that say BB status is model based, and page 112 shows that it is unit based.

The heading does not matter as the bullet points specify what they are talking about.

"What is the rulebook definition of a Battle Brother?"

It is a level of alliance as per page 112 Levels of alliance section"To represent this, we have several categories of alliances, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army."

a Battle brother, as defined by the rulebook, is a "categor[y] of alliance" 112

 DeathReaper wrote:
The heading does not matter as the bullet points specify what they are talking about.

Absolutely incorrect, thanks for playing.

The heading says that BB count as friendly units. Pretending that they meant models is just wrong.
The bullet points are (literally - the rule book even spells this out) examples of what being a friendly unit means.
Therefore, the billet points are only, and can only be, referring to units.

I am not " Pretending that they meant models"

They specify units in the one bullet point, but they simply reference "Battle Brothers" when talking about embarking on allied transports. There is a difference between BB units and BB's

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am not " Pretending that they meant models"

They specify units in the one bullet point, but they simply reference "Battle Brothers" when talking about embarking on allied transports. There is a difference between BB units and BB's

Citation required. The heading before the bullet points disagrees with you.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am not " Pretending that they meant models"

They specify units in the one bullet point, but they simply reference "Battle Brothers" when talking about embarking on allied transports. There is a difference between BB units and BB's

Citation required. The heading before the bullet points disagrees with you.

I provided a quote, but I can quote it again.

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:" 112

"Are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers abilities and so on." 112.
Battle Brothers Are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers etc

"not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." 112
No unit designation in this point so it is the broader Battle Brothers definition of: a category of alliance as per page 112 Levels of alliance section"To represent this, we have several categories of alliances, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army."

a Battle brother, as defined by the rulebook, is a "categor[y] of alliance" 112

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am not " Pretending that they meant models"

They specify units in the one bullet point, but they simply reference "Battle Brothers" when talking about embarking on allied transports. There is a difference between BB units and BB's

Citation required. The heading before the bullet points disagrees with you.

I provided a quote, but I can quote it again.

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view.

a Battle brother, as defined by the rulebook, is a "categor[y] of alliance" 112

The bolded quote and your final assertion disagree.

No they do not disagree, as both of my quotes apply to Battle Brothers.

"To represent this, we have several categories of alliances, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army." 112 Under Levels of Alliance

It goes on to list the Levels of Alliance those being Battle Brothers, Allies of Convenience, and Desperate Allies (all P. 112).

Battle brothers is most certainly a "categor[y] of alliance" Or a Level of alliance if you will. The Battle Brothers category of alliance/Level of Alliance imposes certain effects on the game.

Note the direct quote, with the change of tense.

A Battle Brother, as quoted and proven is a category of alliance/Level of Alliance.

Which, by itself, means nothing.
For further guidance the rules say that Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units from all points of view. All. Which means that models that are members of a Blood Angels Assault Squad are Blood Angels, even if there is an IC attached.

A Battle Brother is always a Battle Brother and never ceases to be a Battle Brother. It is not a state of mind nor a passing fancy. It is the rules.

I agree that a Battle Brother unit is always a Battle Brother unit.
An IC ceases to be a member of a Battle Brother unit, however, when it joins a unit from a primary detachment.

What is a Battle Brother?

There's two definitions. One is a high level view of how different codexes interact on the ally table.
The other is a more specific definition of how units from different codexes interact with the rules. The latter is what restricts BB units from embarking on allied transports. ICs joined to an allied unit are not BB units.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
What is a Battle Brother?

A friendly unit.

And DR; the Matrix determines the relation ship between Codices(not models, not units); so to say that everything that has a Grey box intersection is a battle brother is to say that every thing from those codices are battle brothers, and are therefore all friendly units.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
What is a Battle Brother?

A friendly unit.

The definition is not that singular...

rigeld2 wrote:
There's two definitions. One is a high level view of how different codexes interact on the ally table.
The other is a more specific definition of how units from different codexes interact with the rules. The latter is what restricts BB units from embarking on allied transports. ICs joined to an allied unit are not BB units.

There are indeed two definitions.

The bullet point about BB's not entering allied transports does not mention units, so it is the broader definition of Battle Brother, Unless i misquoted the third bullet point.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
There's two definitions. One is a high level view of how different codexes interact on the ally table.
The other is a more specific definition of how units from different codexes interact with the rules. The latter is what restricts BB units from embarking on allied transports. ICs joined to an allied unit are not BB units.

There are indeed two definitions.

The bullet point about BB's not entering allied transports does not mention units, so it is the broader definition of Battle Brother, Unless i misquoted the third bullet point.

The bullet points are a list, correct?
What are they a list of? Fortunately we have a heading telling us.
What does the heading tell us? Oh, examples of what being a friendly unit means.
Unless I've misquoted.

DR: the definition is that singular.

Battle brothers rules are entirely on page 112, when you get to the actual rules you get the definition(a friendly unit)

Where exactly are you finding a second definition?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
DR: the definition is that singular.

Battle brothers rules are entirely on page 112, when you get to the actual rules you get the definition(a friendly unit)

Where exactly are you finding a second definition?

On Page 112, I quoted it earlier.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The second Battle Brothers definition is a Category of Alliance/Level of Alliance as per page 112 Levels of alliance section: "To represent this, we have several categories of alliances, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army."

"Battle brothers are treated as 'friendly ubits' from all points of view." "
"However, note that not even Battle brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles."
Page 112

The rules are crystal clear here IMO, battle brothers count as friendly units EXCEPT for their ability to embark in transport vehicles. If you were to attach an IC to a unit in a transport vehicle, the IC would either have to leave the unit; as he is a BB and CANNOT embark in allied transports, or the entire squad could not deploy in the transport.
This is stated clearly and I honestly do not understand how you could see it the way you do.
Sounds like you may be trying to bend the rules in your favor

EDIT: In hindsight, this seems a bit pointed, sorry. Honestly, this rule makes no sense at all. As someone posted before, I really don't understand it fluff wise ("You think you can just walk into this land raider without proper authorization?! For shame, Calgar") but balance wise it makes sense. There would be rules that would be really easy to exploit, and weird transport capacities. For example, imagine getting a squad of 10 sternguard and putting Yarrick in the squad, and claiming that they can Grav Chute insertion as they count as a friendly unit "from all points of view". I can't imagine people would be happy with that.

I'm a Tyranid player so I'm not trying to bend the rules in any way and I resent the implication.

Battle Brothers count as friendly units except they cannot embark. An IC joined to an allied unit is not a BB unit.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm a Tyranid player so I'm not trying to bend the rules in any way and I resent the implication.

Battle Brothers count as friendly units except they cannot embark. An IC joined to an allied unit is not a BB unit.

But his Level of Alliance/Category of Alliance is Battle brother and as such can not embark.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm a Tyranid player so I'm not trying to bend the rules in any way and I resent the implication.

Battle Brothers count as friendly units except they cannot embark. An IC joined to an allied unit is not a BB unit.

Same here. Especially since I've stated that while I think the rules agree with me, rigeld, and kommissar kel, I don't play that way.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm a Tyranid player so I'm not trying to bend the rules in any way and I resent the implication.

Battle Brothers count as friendly units except they cannot embark. An IC joined to an allied unit is not a BB unit.

But his Level of Alliance/Category of Alliance is Battle brother and as such can not embark.

That restriction is tied to a Battle Brother unit, which an IC is demonstrably not when he's attached to a "native codex" unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm a Tyranid player so I'm not trying to bend the rules in any way and I resent the implication.

Battle Brothers count as friendly units except they cannot embark. An IC joined to an allied unit is not a BB unit.

But his Level of Alliance/Category of Alliance is Battle brother and as such can not embark.

That restriction is tied to a Battle Brother unit, which an IC is demonstrably not when he's attached to a "native codex" unit.

The bullet point I quoted disagrees with that assessment.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm a Tyranid player so I'm not trying to bend the rules in any way and I resent the implication.

Battle Brothers count as friendly units except they cannot embark. An IC joined to an allied unit is not a BB unit.

But his Level of Alliance/Category of Alliance is Battle brother and as such can not embark.

That restriction is tied to a Battle Brother unit, which an IC is demonstrably not when he's attached to a "native codex" unit.

The bullet point I quoted disagrees with that assessment.

What that the restriction is tied to a Battle Brother unit?
I've cited why your assertion is incorrect. Ill requote it in case you missed it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
There's two definitions. One is a high level view of how different codexes interact on the ally table.
The other is a more specific definition of how units from different codexes interact with the rules. The latter is what restricts BB units from embarking on allied transports. ICs joined to an allied unit are not BB units.

There are indeed two definitions.

The bullet point about BB's not entering allied transports does not mention units, so it is the broader definition of Battle Brother, Unless i misquoted the third bullet point.

The bullet points are a list, correct?
What are they a list of? Fortunately we have a heading telling us.
What does the heading tell us? Oh, examples of what being a friendly unit means.
Unless I've misquoted.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm a Tyranid player so I'm not trying to bend the rules in any way and I resent the implication.

Sorry, should have clarified. This is directed to OP (I can't really be bothered to look through 9 pages) but he looks to have ditched this thread a while ago
I really need to remember to quote things...

So in one sentence can you explain why an IC is no longer a battle brother when it joins an allied unit?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
So in one sentence can you explain why an IC is no longer a battle brother when it joins an allied unit?

Because an Independent Character counts as a normal member of the unit he joins for all rules purposes, though he still follows all the rules for characters.

Even if the IC is a member of a unit that doesn't make him suddenly no longer a BB.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Even if the IC is a member of a unit that doesn't make him suddenly no longer a BB.

Except BB status is unit based.

Seriously, it'd be great if you read the thread and responded with rules quotes to support your point instead of just making random assertions.

You are too funny.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Even if the IC is a member of a unit that doesn't make him suddenly no longer a BB.

Except BB status is unit based.

I have cited rules that say that an IC is still a Battle Brother.

Page 112 Levels of alliance section: "To represent this, we have several categories of alliances, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army."

That quote tells us what allies are Battle Brothers. We know that an Independent Character counts as a normal member of the unit he joins for all rules purposes, though he still follows all the rules for characters, but nothing makes him no longer a battle brother as far as the level of alliance is concerned. Therefore he can not embark.

These categories of alliance impose certain effects on the game, one of them being that BB's can not embark on other allied transports.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Even if the IC is a member of a unit that doesn't make him suddenly no longer a BB.

Except BB status is unit based.

I have cited rules that say that an IC is still a Battle Brother.

Page 112 Levels of alliance section: "To represent this, we have several categories of alliances, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army."

That quote tells us what allies are Battle Brothers. We know that an Independent Character counts as a normal member of the unit he joins for all rules purposes, though he still follows all the rules for characters, but nothing makes him no longer a battle brother as far as the level of alliance is concerned. Therefore he can not embark.

These categories of alliance impose certain effects on the game, one of them being that BB's can not embark on other allied transports.

Absolutely wrong.

Those categories have defined effects. Where are those effects defined? Oh, where battle brothers are defined as friendly units.
If he's not a unit, no battle brother rules can apply.

Your assessment is incorrect. He is still a Battle brother because "we have several categories of alliances, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army." 112

If GW wanted it as such then the rules would have specifically stated it.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Your assessment is incorrect. He is still a Battle brother because "we have several categories of alliances, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army." 112

And what effects do Battle Brothers impose on the game?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
DR: the definition is that singular.

Battle brothers rules are entirely on page 112, when you get to the actual rules you get the definition(a friendly unit)

Where exactly are you finding a second definition?

On Page 112, I quoted it earlier.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The second Battle Brothers definition is a Category of Alliance/Level of Alliance as per page 112 Levels of alliance section: "To represent this, we have several categories of alliances, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army."

That is not a definition of what battle brothers are, that is how you determine what the level of alliance is; in fact that entire paragraph does not mention Battle brothers 1 time.

So you are taking a rule that tells you to determine the level of alliance and declaring that rule to be the definition of Battle Brothers because Battle brothers is a level of alliance. That is just... I cannot even begin to describe what that is.

The Levels of alliance rules tell you to determine the level of alliance with the Allies matrix, then you have to look back to the rules under levels of alliance that pertain to the level of alliance held between your 2 codices(Battle brothers in this case), this is where you find the rules and definition for the chosen level of alliance(battle brothers are treated as friendly units, can be joined by ICs, count as friendlies for Psychic powers and special rules, Cannot enter allied transports).

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Your assessment is incorrect. He is still a Battle brother because "we have several categories of alliances, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army." 112

And what effects do Battle Brothers impose on the game?

The bulletpoints, yet the third bulletpoint does not take away BB as the Level of alliance therefore if an IC is a BB on its level of alliance he can not ride in an allied transport.