Can a SW Rune Priest join a squad of 5tacs in a droppod?
they are battlebrothers
just a question.
ik that like guardsmen cant steal a droppod but can a IC join the squad?
rulebook pages would be appreciated!

page 112 under battle brothers.

Battle Brothers can not embark in allied transport vehicles.

It is right there in the allies section that you're trying to have him join, the matter of battle brothers.

"Not even battle brothers IC's may embark on each other's transports." That includes drop pods.

Dang! thank you guys!

Here's some background on this very question.

Kommissar Kel brought this issue up some time ago. Technically, according to the way the IC and Allies rules are written, he (and a total of 18% of poll respondents) agree that ICs can board an allied transport. A larger number (80%) felt that the conventionally accepted interpretation of the rules (that they cannot) is correct.

Here's Kel's original, 14 page thread on the topic. And this is my own poll trying to gather some data on where people stood.

Personally, I feel that many people supporting the majority opinion are doing so either A) because of dogged opposition to the allies rules in general, or B) because of a refusal to re-examine the conventionally accepted theory. (Of course, I play it according to the popular view, because who wants to be the stick-in-the-mud insisting everyone read their book wrong every week? )

Nevertheless, I encourage you to read the arguments presented in the thread and to come to your own conclusion. (And I encourage you to get your group to do likewise.)

Qui-Gon Jinn wrote:
It is right there in the allies section that you're trying to have him join, the matter of battle brothers.

"Not even battle brothers IC's may embark on each other's transports." That includes drop pods.

Please don't misquote rules. It doesn't help in any way.

"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." BRB Pg 112

I can't see any other way to interpret this rule.

 Zagman wrote:
"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." BRB Pg 112

I can't see any other way to interpret this rule.

Welp, the link's have been provided.

You claim that the Battle Brothers rule disallows it. I claim the IC rule (normal member of the unit for all rules purposes) overrides that restriction (especially since they made very clear the few times an IC does not count as part of the unit).

As a summation of the link Jimsolo put in, the argument for them being able to go in is that when ICs join the squad they become part of that squad and cease to be their own unit until they leave or the rest of the unit is destroyed.

 Zagman wrote:
"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." BRB Pg 112

I can't see any other way to interpret this rule.

Then you're refusing to read the linked thread that proves why it works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrashCanuck wrote:
As a summation of the link Jimsolo put in, the argument for them being able to go in is that when ICs join the squad they become part of that squad and cease to be their own unit until they leave or the rest of the unit is destroyed.

Which must be true - pretty much unarguable.

And causes several subsequent rules headaches about things like codex specific abilities.

Happyjew wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." BRB Pg 112

I can't see any other way to interpret this rule.

Welp, the link's have been provided.

You claim that the Battle Brothers rule disallows it. I claim the IC rule (normal member of the unit for all rules purposes) overrides that restriction (especially since they made very clear the few times an IC does not count as part of the unit).

CrashCanuck wrote:As a summation of the link Jimsolo put in, the argument for them being able to go in is that when ICs join the squad they become part of that squad and cease to be their own unit until they leave or the rest of the unit is destroyed.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." BRB Pg 112

I can't see any other way to interpret this rule.

Then you're refusing to read the linked thread that proves why it works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrashCanuck wrote:
As a summation of the link Jimsolo put in, the argument for them being able to go in is that when ICs join the squad they become part of that squad and cease to be their own unit until they leave or the rest of the unit is destroyed.

Which must be true - pretty much unarguable.

Wow, that was extr'emely quick. I have read a good portion of that thread and counter with this.

BRB PG 123
"Independent Characters are also counted as a single unit regardless of whether they have joined another unit or not."

BRB Pg 112
"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles."

For example a Drop Pod or any other reserve of an IC and a Battle Brother unit in a Transport you must consider the IC a separate unit. At least as far as reserve embarkation in either a Drop Pod, Flyer, or reserved Transport the IC rules certainly do not override the prohibition of Battle Brothers embarking in allied transports.


I believe you can make a case for an IC embarking in an allied transport that starts on the board, but I can't see how this can be transferred to Reserves ie Drop Pod.


Edit: The simplest parallel I can think of is trying to reserve a rhino and small tac squad with an attached TDA IC. When declaring reserves you attach the IC in TDA, this now makes it impossible to embark the rhino. Rhinos explicity deny embarkation to Bulky Models as the Battle Brothers rules prohibit an allied unit from embarking in their transport.

 Zagman wrote:
For example a Drop Pod or any other reserve of an IC and a Battle Brother unit in a Transport you must consider the IC a separate unit. At least as far as reserve embarkation in either a Drop Pod, Flyer, or reserved Transport the IC rules certainly do not override the prohibition of Battle Brothers embarking in allied transports.

Except that the quoted "separate unit" rule only applies to calculating the number of units in reserve. You're taking that sentence out of context.

Edit: The simplest parallel I can think of is trying to reserve a rhino and small tac squad with an attached TDA IC. When declaring reserves you attach the IC in TDA, this now makes it impossible to embark the rhino. Rhinos explicity deny embarkation to Bulky Models as the Battle Brothers rules prohibit an allied unit from embarking in their transport.

And after an allied IC joins a main force unit, there is no longer an allied unit attempting to embark.
After a TDA IC joins a PA unit, there is still a Bulky model in the unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jefffar wrote:
And causes several subsequent rules headaches about things like codex specific abilities.

It really doesn't, but that keep tilting at that windmill like it matters.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
For example a Drop Pod or any other reserve of an IC and a Battle Brother unit in a Transport you must consider the IC a separate unit. At least as far as reserve embarkation in either a Drop Pod, Flyer, or reserved Transport the IC rules certainly do not override the prohibition of Battle Brothers embarking in allied transports.

Except that the quoted "separate unit" rule only applies to calculating the number of units in reserve. You're taking that sentence out of context.

I'm sorry, I thought this was turning into a thread about using rules out of context to further your own agenda.

Edit: The simplest parallel I can think of is trying to reserve a rhino and small tac squad with an attached TDA IC. When declaring reserves you attach the IC in TDA, this now makes it impossible to embark the rhino. Rhinos explicity deny embarkation to Bulky Models as the Battle Brothers rules prohibit an allied unit from embarking in their transport.

And after an allied IC joins a main force unit, there is no longer an allied unit attempting to embark.
After a TDA IC joins a PA unit, there is still a Bulky model in the unit.

So, what exactly about gives you permission to no longer count an allied IC as a Batttle Brother? Is he no longer part of your Allied Detachment? Does that make your list illegal? This line of thinking is pretty ridiculous. Nothing, gives you permission to remove the status of Battle Brother from the IC. Therefore, you are attempting to embark a Battle Brother in an Allied Transport which is strictly prohibited on pg 112?

Yes, thanks to the IC rules on pg 39 he is indeed part of that unit and "counts as part of unit for all rules purposes", but that does not change the fact that he is still a Battle Brother, that he was purchased in an Allied Detatchment, and that he is strictly prohibited from embarking on an allied Transport. For your argument to have legs to stand on you would have to supply a rule which gives you permission to remove the status of Battle Brother from the IC. None exists.

 Zagman wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
For example a Drop Pod or any other reserve of an IC and a Battle Brother unit in a Transport you must consider the IC a separate unit. At least as far as reserve embarkation in either a Drop Pod, Flyer, or reserved Transport the IC rules certainly do not override the prohibition of Battle Brothers embarking in allied transports.

Except that the quoted "separate unit" rule only applies to calculating the number of units in reserve. You're taking that sentence out of context.

I'm sorry, I thought this was turning into a thread about using rules out of context to further your own agenda.

Edit: The simplest parallel I can think of is trying to reserve a rhino and small tac squad with an attached TDA IC. When declaring reserves you attach the IC in TDA, this now makes it impossible to embark the rhino. Rhinos explicity deny embarkation to Bulky Models as the Battle Brothers rules prohibit an allied unit from embarking in their transport.

And after an allied IC joins a main force unit, there is no longer an allied unit attempting to embark.
After a TDA IC joins a PA unit, there is still a Bulky model in the unit.

So, what exactly about gives you permission to no longer count an allied IC as a Batttle Brother? Is he no longer part of your Allied Detachment? Does that make your list illegal? This line of thinking is pretty ridiculous. Nothing, gives you permission to remove the status of Battle Brother from the IC. Therefore, you are attempting to embark a Battle Brother in an Allied Transport which is strictly prohibited on pg 112?

Page 112 defines Battle Brothers as friendly units. If the IC is not a unit anymore he cannot be a friendly unit and therefore is not governed by the Battle Brother rules.
Seriously - read the linked thread. This was covered there so your question here proves you haven't read it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
For example a Drop Pod or any other reserve of an IC and a Battle Brother unit in a Transport you must consider the IC a separate unit. At least as far as reserve embarkation in either a Drop Pod, Flyer, or reserved Transport the IC rules certainly do not override the prohibition of Battle Brothers embarking in allied transports.

Except that the quoted "separate unit" rule only applies to calculating the number of units in reserve. You're taking that sentence out of context.

I'm sorry, I thought this was turning into a thread about using rules out of context to further your own agenda.

Edit: The simplest parallel I can think of is trying to reserve a rhino and small tac squad with an attached TDA IC. When declaring reserves you attach the IC in TDA, this now makes it impossible to embark the rhino. Rhinos explicity deny embarkation to Bulky Models as the Battle Brothers rules prohibit an allied unit from embarking in their transport.

And after an allied IC joins a main force unit, there is no longer an allied unit attempting to embark.
After a TDA IC joins a PA unit, there is still a Bulky model in the unit.

So, what exactly about gives you permission to no longer count an allied IC as a Batttle Brother? Is he no longer part of your Allied Detachment? Does that make your list illegal? This line of thinking is pretty ridiculous. Nothing, gives you permission to remove the status of Battle Brother from the IC. Therefore, you are attempting to embark a Battle Brother in an Allied Transport which is strictly prohibited on pg 112?

Page 112 defines Battle Brothers as friendly units. If the IC is not a unit anymore he cannot be a friendly unit and therefore is not governed by the Battle Brother rules.
Seriously - read the linked thread. This was covered there so your question here proves you haven't read it.

No, not quite. Battle Brothers are strictly an Allied Detachment that falls under the Battle Brother level of Allegiance. They are "treated as 'friendly units'". Nothing removes the fact the IC was chosen from an Allied Detatchment. And that the allied force are Battle Brothers. In the OP example, joining the SW IC Rune Priest to the SM tac squad does not stop the rune priest from being a SW. Though if we applied the IC rules, he would now be a SM as he is part of the tac squad for all rules purposes. SW are Allied Battle Brothers.

Yes counts as part of that unit, but is still an Allied Battle Brother. Counting as part of a unit does not remove the fact that he is part of an allied detachment and a Battle Brother.

 Zagman wrote:
No, not quite. Battle Brothers are strictly an Allied Detachment that falls under the Battle Brother level of Allegiance.

Now - define what that means during the game, not during list building.

They are "treated as 'friendly units'". Nothing removes the fact the IC was chosen from an Allied Detatchment. And that the allied force are Battle Brothers. In the OP example, joining the SW IC Rune Priest to the SM tac squad does not stop the rune priest from being a SW. Though if we applied the IC rules, he would now be a SM as he is part of the tac squad for all rules purposes. SW are Allied Battle Brothers.

And what - exactly - does being a BB during the game mean?
It means that BB are treated as (read, are) friendly units. Agreed?
If you are not a unit, you cannot be a friendly unit. Agreed?
If you are not a unit, the rules and restrictions on page 112 cannot apply. Agreed?

An IC will always be an "Allied" model, simply because he exists in the "Allied" detachment of your Army FOC and belongs to a different Codex than your 'Primary' detachment.

But seriously kids, read the linked thread, determine for yourselves.

In the absence of clear rules, or in cases where the rules are completely ambiguous then we should strive to take the least advantageous interpretation as the action taker. In this case, if IC's may or may not be able to embark then, as the action taker, we should not take the action to embark them on an allied transport. It is the ethical and sporting way to play the game.

 DeathReaper wrote:
In the absence of clear rules, or in cases where the rules are completely ambiguous then we should strive to take the least advantageous interpretation as the action taker. In this case, if IC's may or may not be able to embark then, as the action taker, we should not take the action to embark them on an allied transport. It is the ethical and sporting way to play the game.

Agreed, not that this applies here. The rules are clear - people just refuse to accept them.

Battle-brothers can't embark on each others transports, so that seems quite clear to me.

1) Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transport vehicles.
2) The IC is a Battle Brother.
=> He cannot embark on allied transport vehicles.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
In the absence of clear rules, or in cases where the rules are completely ambiguous then we should strive to take the least advantageous interpretation as the action taker. In this case, if IC's may or may not be able to embark then, as the action taker, we should not take the action to embark them on an allied transport. It is the ethical and sporting way to play the game.

Agreed, not that this applies here. The rules are clear - people just refuse to accept them.

I agree with your assessment, The rules are clear - people just refuse to accept them.

Kangodo wrote:
Battle-brothers can't embark on each others transports, so that seems quite clear to me.

1) Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transport vehicles.
2) The IC is a Battle Brother.
=> He cannot embark on allied transport vehicles.

Congratulations on not reading the linked thread at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I agree with your assessment, The rules are clear - people just refuse to accept them.

Were you able to find any rules other than the ones on page 112 that dealt with defining a Battle Brother in the rules yet?
You've never supplied them, so we can only go with what's on page 112. Which works how I've proven.

No, thank you.
I have better things to do than listen to some rules-lawyers trying to find a way around the clear "Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transports".

Kangodo wrote:
No, thank you.
I have better things to do than listen to some rules-lawyers trying to find a way around the clear "Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transports".

And thanks for the insult - perhaps you should read the tenets of the forum? I'm not "trying to find a way around" anything - I play Tyranids and have neither vehicles nor allies.
I'm reading the rules, as they're written. I'm discussing the rules, as they're written. If you had read the threads that were linked you'd know that I couldn't care less how my opponent wanted to play - it wouldn't effect me in the slightest.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I agree with your assessment, The rules are clear - people just refuse to accept them.

Were you able to find any rules other than the ones on page 112 that dealt with defining a Battle Brother in the rules yet?
You've never supplied them, so we can only go with what's on page 112. Which works how I've proven.

I have, it is in that 14 page thread.

Specifically this: (Not me, but Mannahnin said it best).

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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I agree with your assessment, The rules are clear - people just refuse to accept them.

Were you able to find any rules other than the ones on page 112 that dealt with defining a Battle Brother in the rules yet?
You've never supplied them, so we can only go with what's on page 112. Which works how I've proven.

I have, it is in that 14 page thread.

What - this?
"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." "
(If I'm missing the rules you cited, please feel free to correct me. I got this from http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/523666.page?userfilterid=31450)

Yes - the IC was chosen as part of a Battle Brother alliance. Please define what that means.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I agree with your assessment, The rules are clear - people just refuse to accept them.

Were you able to find any rules other than the ones on page 112 that dealt with defining a Battle Brother in the rules yet?
You've never supplied them, so we can only go with what's on page 112. Which works how I've proven.

I have, it is in that 14 page thread.

What - this?
"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." "
(If I'm missing the rules you cited, please feel free to correct me. I got this from http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/523666.page?userfilterid=31450)

Yes - the IC was chosen as part of a Battle Brother alliance. Please define what that means.

Easy it means he can not ride in allies transports. as noted on P112

rigeld2 wrote:
And thanks for the insult - perhaps you should read the tenets of the forum?

Why? Did you rules-lawyer your way around those too with all those comments you're making?

I'm not "trying to find a way around" anything - I play Tyranids and have neither vehicles nor allies.
I'm reading the rules, as they're written. I'm discussing the rules, as they're written. If you had read the threads that were linked you'd know that I couldn't care less how my opponent wanted to play - it wouldn't effect me in the slightest.

Battle Brothers cannot embark an allied transport < Did you miss that written part?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I agree with your assessment, The rules are clear - people just refuse to accept them.

Were you able to find any rules other than the ones on page 112 that dealt with defining a Battle Brother in the rules yet?
You've never supplied them, so we can only go with what's on page 112. Which works how I've proven.

I have, it is in that 14 page thread.

What - this?
"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." "
(If I'm missing the rules you cited, please feel free to correct me. I got this from http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/523666.page?userfilterid=31450)

Yes - the IC was chosen as part of a Battle Brother alliance. Please define what that means.

Easy it means he can not ride in allies transports. as noted on P112

That's not all page 112 says - please don't misquote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And thanks for the insult - perhaps you should read the tenets of the forum?

Why? Did you rules-lawyer your way around those too with all those comments you're making?

I'm not sure what I've done to anger you - but I don't deserve this insulting tone.

I'm not "trying to find a way around" anything - I play Tyranids and have neither vehicles nor allies.
I'm reading the rules, as they're written. I'm discussing the rules, as they're written. If you had read the threads that were linked you'd know that I couldn't care less how my opponent wanted to play - it wouldn't effect me in the slightest.

Battle Brothers cannot embark an allied transport < Did you miss that written part?

Your models are all removed as casualties. Did you miss that written part?

Oh... there's things that come before that. Sorry - the rest of the rulebook actually does matter.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And thanks for the insult - perhaps you should read the tenets of the forum?

Why? Did you rules-lawyer your way around those too with all those comments you're making?

I'm not "trying to find a way around" anything - I play Tyranids and have neither vehicles nor allies.
I'm reading the rules, as they're written. I'm discussing the rules, as they're written. If you had read the threads that were linked you'd know that I couldn't care less how my opponent wanted to play - it wouldn't effect me in the slightest.

Battle Brothers cannot embark an allied transport < Did you miss that written part?

Besides the fact that Happyjew and rigeld2 have stated that the IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes. I am not an experienced debater of RAW and I USUALLY play with house rules and RAI, but he makes a very good point you cannot ignore. I understand the position you are coming from, but where is your real counter for the evidence that has been given to you. The Independent character IS part of the unit, for ALL rules purposes, which I would be inclined to agree overrides the "Battle Brother" status, as he is now just part of a larger unit.

(And, as he has stated, though he doesn't need my defense, there is nothing particularly demanding for an insulting tone in the situation.)

rigeld2 wrote:
Easy it means he can not ride in allies transports. as noted on P112

That's not all page 112 says - please don't misquote.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Easy it means he can not ride in allies transports. as noted on P112

That's not all page 112 says - please don't misquote.

I did not quote anything, it was more of a paraphrase.

Then please quote the entire rule - your paraphrase incorrectly "summarizes" the rules at hand and is leading to your misunderstanding.

 Lord Magnus wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And thanks for the insult - perhaps you should read the tenets of the forum?

Why? Did you rules-lawyer your way around those too with all those comments you're making?

I'm not "trying to find a way around" anything - I play Tyranids and have neither vehicles nor allies.
I'm reading the rules, as they're written. I'm discussing the rules, as they're written. If you had read the threads that were linked you'd know that I couldn't care less how my opponent wanted to play - it wouldn't effect me in the slightest.

Battle Brothers cannot embark an allied transport < Did you miss that written part?

Besides the fact that Happyjew and rigeld2 have stated that the IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes. I am not an experienced debater of RAW and I USUALLY play with house rules and RAI, but he makes a very good point you cannot ignore. I understand the position you are coming from, but where is your real counter for the evidence that has been given to you. The Independent character IS part of the unit, for ALL rules purposes, which I would be inclined to agree overrides the "Battle Brother" status, as he is now just part of a larger unit.

(And, as he has stated, though he doesn't need my defense, there is nothing particularly demanding for an insulting tone in the situation.)

My $0.02:

Does the IC count at part of the unit for all rules purposes? Yes.
Is the IC still a Battle Brother? Yes.

Although the IC is part of the unit, it is still a Battle Brother. Nothing in the IC rules remove this.

So, the IC can deploy with them.. just not in the transport.

clively wrote:
Is the IC still a Battle Brother? Yes.

The rules on page 112 disagree with this.

Is the rule that forbids BB from entering transports a rule? Yes.
Do ICs count as being a normal member of the squad for all rules purposes? Yes.
Is the IC a member of a squad that can join a transport? Yes.

clively wrote:

 Lord Magnus wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And thanks for the insult - perhaps you should read the tenets of the forum?

Why? Did you rules-lawyer your way around those too with all those comments you're making?

I'm not "trying to find a way around" anything - I play Tyranids and have neither vehicles nor allies.
I'm reading the rules, as they're written. I'm discussing the rules, as they're written. If you had read the threads that were linked you'd know that I couldn't care less how my opponent wanted to play - it wouldn't effect me in the slightest.

Battle Brothers cannot embark an allied transport < Did you miss that written part?

Besides the fact that Happyjew and rigeld2 have stated that the IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes. I am not an experienced debater of RAW and I USUALLY play with house rules and RAI, but he makes a very good point you cannot ignore. I understand the position you are coming from, but where is your real counter for the evidence that has been given to you. The Independent character IS part of the unit, for ALL rules purposes, which I would be inclined to agree overrides the "Battle Brother" status, as he is now just part of a larger unit.

(And, as he has stated, though he doesn't need my defense, there is nothing particularly demanding for an insulting tone in the situation.)

My $0.02:

Does the IC count at part of the unit for all rules purposes? Yes.
Is the IC still a Battle Brother? Yes.

Although the IC is part of the unit, it is still a Battle Brother. Nothing in the IC rules remove this.

So, the IC can deploy with them.. just not in the transport.

It certainly does not remove it. However, by being part of the unit for all rules purposes, I believe that the effect of being an "allied unit" (Which, without being an allied unit, there is no such thing as a Battle Brother) would be overridden until he leaves the unit or the unit is destroyed, leaving only the IC.

It is very noteworthy to recognize that Independent Character does bot REMOVE anything from the status, but joining a unit, and losing you allied unit status (Because you are part of the unit for ALL rules purposes, would nullify the effects of being a "Battle Brother" until the character is on his own again.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Easy it means he can not ride in allies transports. as noted on P112

That's not all page 112 says - please don't misquote.

I did not quote anything, it was more of a paraphrase.

Then please quote the entire rule - your paraphrase incorrectly "summarizes" the rules at hand and is leading to your misunderstanding.

I did not misunderstand anything, nothing takes away the fact that the IC is still chosen from the BB's section of the Allies matrix.

rigeld2 wrote:

clively wrote:
Is the IC still a Battle Brother? Yes.

The rules on page 112 disagree with this.

They really do not disagree, nothing there states that the BB IC is no longer a BB.

rigeld2 wrote:

clively wrote:
Is the IC still a Battle Brother? Yes.

The rules on page 112 disagree with this.

To be precise (which we are clearly doing in this thread): You disagree with it and think the rules on page 112 support that view.
We friendly disagree with that.

 DeathReaper wrote:
They really do not disagree, nothing there states that the BB IC is no longer a BB.

That is my view too..
When you want to remove his 'BB-status', you'd need clear permission to do that.
The BRB doesn't give that permission anywhere.

It explicitly does when it defines BB as a friendly unit.
Your assertion leads to the IC still being a unit (with all that entails). That cannot be correct.

At this point the argument seems to have devolved from "Can an IC from an allied detachment join a unit in a transport" to "Does a character chosen as part of an allied detachment count as a member of the allied detachment or as a member of the unit he has joined" The latter seems to be the real question.

If a BB IC joins a primary detatchment he counts as being chosen from a primary detatchment for all rules purposes

 A GumyBear wrote:
If a BB IC joins a primary detatchment he counts as being chosen from a primary detatchment for all rules purposes

I agree, he counts as being from the primary detachment because he is a member of the unit from the primary detachment, which is a piece of the primary detachment.

Hypothetical situation for you:

For the purposes of this situation we are assuming that your side is true rig and a BB IC can embark on a transport. (This is the contested issue).

What happens when a IC and a unit consisting on 1 member embarks on a rhino. then in the shooting phase the non IC member of the unit shoots his plasma gun and rolls a 1 and fails his save and dies.

Now what? (Rules citations for what happens would be great, thanks).

 DeathReaper wrote:
Hypothetical situation for you:

For the purposes of this situation we are assuming that your side is true rig and a BB IC can embark on a transport. (This is the contested issue).

What happens when a IC and a unit consisting on 1 member embarks on a rhino. then in the shooting phase the non IC member of the unit shoots his plasma gun and rolls a 1 and fails his save and dies.

Now what? (Rules citations for what happens would be great, thanks).

There isn't one.
It's not covered by the rules. I've said as much every time. That doesn't mean your side is correct - it just means GW has failed to cover every aspect of the rules (shocker).
Hell - I'll even say it's probably not intended. That's irrelevant.

HIWPI in your example is he is forced to disembark on his next movement phase.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Hypothetical situation for you:

For the purposes of this situation we are assuming that your side is true rig and a BB IC can embark on a transport. (This is the contested issue).

What happens when a IC and a unit consisting on 1 member embarks on a rhino. then in the shooting phase the non IC member of the unit shoots his plasma gun and rolls a 1 and fails his save and dies.

Now what? (Rules citations for what happens would be great, thanks).

There isn't one.
It's not covered by the rules. I've said as much every time. That doesn't mean your side is correct - it just means GW has failed to cover every aspect of the rules (shocker).
Hell - I'll even say it's probably not intended. That's irrelevant.

HIWPI in your example is he is forced to disembark on his next movement phase.

Since this is not covered in the rules, and creates a situation that is not legal then this interpretation can not be correct.

The other side's interpretation creates no such inconsistencies within the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Hypothetical situation for you:

For the purposes of this situation we are assuming that your side is true rig and a BB IC can embark on a transport. (This is the contested issue).

What happens when a IC and a unit consisting on 1 member embarks on a rhino. then in the shooting phase the non IC member of the unit shoots his plasma gun and rolls a 1 and fails his save and dies.

Now what? (Rules citations for what happens would be great, thanks).

There isn't one.
It's not covered by the rules. I've said as much every time. That doesn't mean your side is correct - it just means GW has failed to cover every aspect of the rules (shocker).
Hell - I'll even say it's probably not intended. That's irrelevant.

HIWPI in your example is he is forced to disembark on his next movement phase.

I thought of this example, where his squad somehow died out from under him in a vehicle (not the plasma part, but oh well) And as rigeld2 said, there really isn't an answer. Just because you CAN do what we propose doesn't mean you should, or that it is a good idea, or that it can be well applied to other places in the rule, and rigeld2 suggests a good way to play it, however, as the situation is already extremely sketchy, I would simply destroy the model, he is in a place that he CANNOT exist, and so, therefore, ceases to exist. I am not sure what rules apply what way for a unit being where it isn't supposed to be (impassible terrain, for example) but that is how I would treat this situation, as if the character somehow was inside impassible terrain, and the most simple solution, in my opinion,is to simply destroy the character.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Since this is not covered in the rules, and creates a situation that is not legal then this interpretation can not be correct.

That's simply not true. It leads to an understanding of what is very likely intended, but there is nothing illegal happening.

The other side's interpretation creates no such inconsistencies within the rules.

Irrelevant. What do the rules actually say? They say that the BB unit ceases to exist.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Hypothetical situation for you:

For the purposes of this situation we are assuming that your side is true rig and a BB IC can embark on a transport. (This is the contested issue).

What happens when a IC and a unit consisting on 1 member embarks on a rhino. then in the shooting phase the non IC member of the unit shoots his plasma gun and rolls a 1 and fails his save and dies.

Now what? (Rules citations for what happens would be great, thanks).

There isn't one.
It's not covered by the rules. I've said as much every time. That doesn't mean your side is correct - it just means GW has failed to cover every aspect of the rules (shocker).
Hell - I'll even say it's probably not intended. That's irrelevant.

HIWPI in your example is he is forced to disembark on his next movement phase.

Since this is not covered in the rules, and creates a situation that is not legal then this interpretation can not be correct.

The other side's interpretation creates no such inconsistencies within the rules.

This inconsistency is ENTIRELY based on player choice, you can choose to simply not shoot if the only model left is one with the plasma gun, avoiding the illegal situation completely, so you could argue that the chance of creating the rule inconsistency means you cannot shoot, rather than the character cannot join or ride along. It is always a really sketchy situation.

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The other side's interpretation creates no such inconsistencies within the rules.

Irrelevant. What do the rules actually say? They say that the BB unit ceases to exist.

Regarding the IC unit, the rule on 39 says that it still has to follow the rules for characters after joining a unit. Those rules are on page 63; which allows it to remain an IC. The unit doesn't "cease to exist" as a separate entity. Rather it takes on the rules for being part of the joined unit as well as retains it's own IC status - meaning it has a dual personality. If it did "cease to exist" then it could never leave the unit as those rules are part of it being an IC.

Getting back to the BB status, the rules are silent. Therefore the correct interpretation is to preserve it as we have no permission to remove it.

clively wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The other side's interpretation creates no such inconsistencies within the rules.

Irrelevant. What do the rules actually say? They say that the BB unit ceases to exist.

Regarding the IC unit, the rule on 39 says that it still has to follow the rules for characters after joining a unit. Those rules are on page 63; which allows it to remain an IC. The unit doesn't "cease to exist" as a separate entity. Rather it takes on the rules for being part of the joined unit as well as retains it's own IC status - meaning it has a dual personality. If it did "cease to exist" then it could never leave the unit as those rules are part of it being an IC.

So the IC unit still exists?
Cool - I target it when shooting. You cannot LOS! to another model, because you can only do that within your own unit. Coherency is only slightly an issue - you have to think about it when you move through difficult terrain as you'd need to roll two sets of dice (one for each unit). There's more, but that should be enough to prove you wrong.

Getting back to the BB status, the rules are silent. Therefore the correct interpretation is to preserve it as we have no permission to remove it.

No, the rules are not silent. The rules equate BB with a friendly unit.

 Lord Magnus wrote:
This inconsistency is ENTIRELY based on player choice

Which, of course, makes no difference, it has the ability to create an illegal situation and thus the interpretation can not be valid.

, you can choose to simply not shoot if the only model left is one with the plasma gun, avoiding the illegal situation completely, so you could argue that the chance of creating the rule inconsistency means you cannot shoot, rather than the character cannot join or ride along. It is always a really sketchy situation.

No, you can not find any rules to back the " you could argue that the chance of creating the rule inconsistency means you cannot shoot" side of things.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The other side's interpretation creates no such inconsistencies within the rules.

Irrelevant. What do the rules actually say? They say that the BB unit ceases to exist.

It does not matter if his unit ceases to exist, he is still a Battle Brother level of alliance and as such can not embark.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Which, of course, makes no difference, it has the ability to create an illegal situation and thus the interpretation can not be valid.

Well, no - that's not true. The rule itself does not create inconsistencies. There could possibly be fallout if the stars align correctly, but that just means GW failed. I know there are more examples similar to this (and I know you do as well - arguing that here and not other times this comes up is disingenuous at best, and I don't remember you arguing this much at all before)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The other side's interpretation creates no such inconsistencies within the rules.

Irrelevant. What do the rules actually say? They say that the BB unit ceases to exist.

It does not matter if his unit ceases to exist, he is still a Battle Brother level of alliance and as such can not embark.

Define - using rules - what the BB level of alliance means during play. Please actually quote rules, and not paraphrase. You appear to still not be convinced of what the rules actually say.

IC is a member of the unit for all rules purposes = General Rule.

Even Battle Brothers cannot embark on an ally's transport = Specific rule.

Specific overrides General.

 Psienesis wrote:
IC is a member of the unit for all rules purposes = General Rule.

Even Battle Brothers cannot embark on an ally's transport = Specific rule.

Specific overrides General.

And irrelevant to my argument.
And only applies in a conflict - this isn't one.

rigeld2 wrote:
Define - using rules - what the BB level of alliance means during play. Please actually quote rules, and not paraphrase. You appear to still not be convinced of what the rules actually say.

" The Allies Matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army." (112)

What is the level of alliance between SW's and Ultramarines? (A: BB's)

It doesn't say battle brother units, if that was the wording I'd have no issue with that as a RAW argument about ICs.

In it's simple terms, is the IC a battle brother? Does he ever cease being one? Is battle brother status linked in the rules to units or is it a blanket thing?

I read it as being a blanket thing.

Or number 3 or C, those in opposition are reading correctly and won't argue silly points when there is clearly a rule that says you cannot embark.

Lungpickle wrote:
Or number 3 or C, those in opposition are reading correctly and won't argue silly points when there is clearly a rule that says you cannot embark.

And then there is another rule that allows ICs to bypass that rule as long as it is in a unit from the primary detatchment

ok so in reading all of this. i think GW needs to FAQ it. because the rule does say BBs cant embark in a allie vehicle but there are ways to get around it.
but the rule was "designed" to be used in such a way that BBs are not suppose to be able to do it.

thank you all for the help and sorry if any bad feelings were made that was not the intent of the post! ty for all who posted!

Cheers!

DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Define - using rules - what the BB level of alliance means during play. Please actually quote rules, and not paraphrase. You appear to still not be convinced of what the rules actually say.

" The Allies Matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army." (112)

What is the level of alliance between SW's and Ultramarines? (A: BB's)

So no quote as to what that means during play? Because what you just quoted literally means nothing.

liturgies of blood wrote:It doesn't say battle brother units, if that was the wording I'd have no issue with that as a RAW argument about ICs.

In it's simple terms, is the IC a battle brother? Does he ever cease being one? Is battle brother status linked in the rules to units or is it a blanket thing?

I read it as being a blanket thing.

It does say BB units. Read the heading for that list where it equates BB to friendly units and then defines what that means.

It doesn't say BB units...

Not even BB can embark... specific restriction vs general permission.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
It doesn't say BB units...

Not even BB can embark... specific restriction vs general permission.

The definition, in that very paragraph, of Battle Brothers is a friendly unit. Therefore BB are units.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
It doesn't say BB units...

So it doesn't say the Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units?
Are you sure?
Like - really sure?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
It doesn't say BB units...

Not even BB can embark... specific restriction vs general permission.

The definition, in that very paragraph, of Battle Brothers is a friendly unit. Therefore BB are units.

Good job Kel. Unfortunately you're missing the pedantic tone, written word does limit the ability for that to come across. And IN THAT VERY PARAGRAPH it doesn't say "battlebrother units" only in the bullet points.

Rigeld see above.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
It doesn't say BB units...

Not even BB can embark... specific restriction vs general permission.

The definition, in that very paragraph, of Battle Brothers is a friendly unit. Therefore BB are units.

Good job Kel. Unfortunately you're missing the pedantic tone, written word does limit the ability for that to come across. And IN THAT VERY PARAGRAPH it doesn't say "battlebrother units" only in the bullet points.

Rigeld see above.

If BB are treated as friendly units and you cease to be a unit, can you possibly fit that definition any more?

Yet another case of people trying to make their own rules by misapplying definitions and using tangentially related rules from other parts of the rulebook to circumvent a very clearly spelled prohibition.

If GW wanted to make an exception for how allied ICs are treated, they would have put it under the allies rules and not hidden it 70 pages away for only particularly crafty players to (ab)use.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Yet another case of people trying to make their own rules by misapplying definitions and using tangentially related rules from other parts of the rulebook to circumvent a very clearly spelled prohibition.

Please cite where I've misapplied definitions. Or apologize - one way or the other.

If GW wanted to make an exception for how allied ICs are treated, they would have put it under the allies rules and not hidden it 70 pages away for only particularly crafty players to (ab)use.

Have I said this is likely intended? No - in fact I've said it likely isn't. Instead of throwing around hate in your ignorance fueled need to insult, perhaps pause and read the thread and learn what people are actually arguing.

I use the word "ignorance" here because you clearly have not read the entire thread or you would not come to the conclusions you did.

One of the problems I see here, is that if you read "Battle brothers are treated as friendly units from all points of view" entirely literally, the bb's remain friendly units at all times, regardless of their actual in-game status.

Therefore, an ic in a unit, is still 2 units, which really is a clash with the normal ic rules (part of the unit for all rules purposes).

At that point, we can cite specific vs general.
Doesn't resolve anything though.

Imo, rigelds view is partially correct by RAW, but he is ignoring half of the sentence he's using as his primary argument and implementing rules from elsewhere that contradict and not resorting to specific vs. general.

The oppositions arguments seem to me to be RAI considerations that are not quite backed up in the rules, nearly but no.

As far as a solution is concerned (that is, house-rule), I think the best way to look at it is to accept that allies are bought as friendly "units" but in game that can change, however, a battle brother is a battle brother, unit or not.

In other words, they are "treated" as friendly units, except when they are not. Battle brothers they remain.

 fuusa wrote:
One of the problems I see here, is that if you read "Battle brothers are treated as friendly units from all points of view" entirely literally, the bb's remain friendly units at all times, regardless of their actual in-game status.

Therefore, an ic in a unit, is still 2 units, which really is a clash with the normal ic rules (part of the unit for all rules purposes).

At that point, we can cite specific vs general.
Doesn't resolve anything though.

How does it not resolve anything? It "fixes" the exact issue you bring up, you're just hand-waving it away.

Imo, rigelds view is partially correct by RAW, but he is ignoring half of the sentence he's using as his primary argument and implementing rules from elsewhere that contradict and not resorting to specific vs. general.

Please, cite what I'm ignoring. You'd be the first in either thread. Also, cite the rules I'm implementing from elsewhere and not resorting to specific vs general. You've made some interesting statements without backing them up - please do so.

rigeld2 wrote:
How does it not resolve anything? It "fixes" the exact issue you bring up, you're just hand-waving it away.

I'm not hand waving it away, more like avoiding it for the consequences that may arise.
Shooting, assaulting, difficult terrain, etc goes bendy if there are 2 units "in one".
]

Imo, rigelds view is partially correct by RAW, but he is ignoring half of the sentence he's using as his primary argument and implementing rules from elsewhere that contradict and not resorting to specific vs. general.

Please, cite what I'm ignoring. You'd be the first in either thread. Also, cite the rules I'm implementing from elsewhere and not resorting to specific vs general. You've made some interesting statements without backing them up - please do so.

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
How does it not resolve anything? It "fixes" the exact issue you bring up, you're just hand-waving it away.

I'm not hand waving it away, more like avoiding it for the consequences that may arise.
Shooting, assaulting, difficult terrain, etc goes bendy if there are 2 units "in one".

Right - and I've asserted that *doesn't* happen. You've managed to confuse me here.

Imo, rigelds view is partially correct by RAW, but he is ignoring half of the sentence he's using as his primary argument and implementing rules from elsewhere that contradict and not resorting to specific vs. general.

Please, cite what I'm ignoring. You'd be the first in either thread. Also, cite the rules I'm implementing from elsewhere and not resorting to specific vs general. You've made some interesting statements without backing them up - please do so.

I have spelt it out, but very well ...

The crux of your argument is battle brothers are units, but when an ic joins a unit, it entirely "merges" with that unit, therefore it is no-longer a unit in of itself, therefore the ic no-longer fits the definition of "battle brother." That fair?

Close enough.

The sentence the idea emerges from is "Battle brothers are treated as "friendly units" from all points of view."
In other words, battle brothers are friendly units, no-matter how they are looked at = battle brothers are always friendly units.

Yes.

= an ic, in a unit = 2 units.
This contradicts with p39, where an ic is entirely a part of a unit, ic + unit = 1 unit.

What you are ignoring, is this contradiction sourced from the battle brothers rule and simply using the ic rules with only half the battle brothers rule being used.

No, once the IC joins the unit I'm using none of the Battle Brother rules because they don't apply.

I think its an unfortunate technicality, for example ...
An ic in a bb unit can embark upon its transport (according to you) because there is 1 unit.
But, if the ic is outside, it could not embark upon the transport if it is already occupied by its battle brothers, as it is still a unit and only units can embark.

And?

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I think its an unfortunate technicality, for example ...
An ic in a bb unit can embark upon its transport (according to you) because there is 1 unit.
But, if the ic is outside, it could not embark upon the transport if it is already occupied by its battle brothers, as it is still a unit and only units can embark.

Like I say, its a daft technicality.

BUT his point still stands, no one has ever stated within this thread that Games Workshop MEANT for ICs to ride in transports with units from an allied detachment. I do not believe it is on purpose or RAI, it is an inadvertent slip in rule writing by a company, similar to other rules, IT IS A LOOPHOLE. No one is saying that it is a good idea, no one is saying they intend to use it, no one is saying it is intentional or that it was designed to be a possibility, but I completely think that rigeld2 is right from a RAW standpoint. The allied unit status is lost, and therefore, BATTLE BROTHER, THOUGH PRESENT, CANNOT BE APPLIED. It is an unintentional temporary exemption that GW needs to FAQ, that is all. The example you have presented is a perfect image of how we know it was unintentional, because we see that the rule is so conditional and such a loophole to conventional rules. I STILL believe rigeld2 to be correct in his interpretation, people keep protesting, but until I see someone DISPROVE this, (which you specific versus general has come BY FAR the closest to doing, by the way, at least you sited real rules that contest.) I will continue to regard rigeld2 as correct.


EDIT: No idea why this is quotes, this is mine ^^^ sorry, not sure what I did wrong.

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The IC rules on page 39 allow him to join the unit. The BB rules just reinforce that. But when the BB rules no longer apply (because he's not a separate unit anymore) there is no rule denying the permission the IC rules give.

P39 along with the allies rules do that, not p39 alone.
If there were no-such status as battle brothers, no allied ic would be able to join.

Cite the denial. Page 39 alone does allow it.

rigeld2 wrote:
Why do people keep saying this?
I've cited rules. Multiple times. All I get back is people repeating this with no citations. Please adhere to the tenets of the forum.

Because its true.
You have cited half-rules and made groundless assumptions, based on faulty logic.

No, I haven't cited half rules. Stop lying please.

The battle brothers rule is encompassing of ic's and their changeable unit status, if it wasn't it would be noted.
Therefore the "friendly unit" status of an allied ic is exactly that, until its not a unit in of its own right (joined), but remains a battle brother, which is expressly forbidden to embark.

Pleas provide actual rules quotes supporting your statements. I have done so.

The model is a bb when the game begins, it will be when the game ends, nothing in the actual rules contradicts this.

Funny. Another post of yours that contains an assertion with no rules to support that assertion. Would you mind adhering to the tenets of the forum and citing some support?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fuusa wrote:
So, if I join the rune priest with the (ultramarine) tacticals, I don't have a unit comprised of battle brothers then?

No, you have a unit of Ultramarines.

rigeld2 wrote:
Cite the denial. Page 39 alone does allow it.

P112 (that's a surprise, isn't it?
If battle brothers didn't exist, they would be allies of a different type, therefore enemy units +.

rigeld2 wrote:
Why do people keep saying this?
I've cited rules. Multiple times. All I get back is people repeating this with no citations. Please adhere to the tenets of the forum.

Because its true.
You have cited half-rules and made groundless assumptions, based on faulty logic.

the rules also say quite clearly that "...However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles..."

IC's that are BB's are still battle brothers in a unit, just like they are still ICs and retain other rules/restrictions.

the opposing argument, that somehow a battle brother can enter an allied transport, would need a specific permission, that overides this restriction on all BB's, which is NOT given by the IC rule that they are treated as part of the unit they join. Just how Being treated as part of a unit wont change your unit type from bike to infantry, neither does it change you from a battle brother to primary detachment. you can be treated as part of the unit for all purposes, and still be subject to additional permissions/restrictions, like with BB's+ allied transports.

the identity of the "unit" an BB ic joins, doesnt change that he is a BB and subject to the RAW restriction on such.

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Cite the denial. Page 39 alone does allow it.

P112 (that's a surprise, isn't it?
If battle brothers didn't exist, they would be allies of a different type, therefore enemy units +.

That's simply not true. You're making a leap with no support.
How about actually citing the denial - there isn't a single rule on page 112 saying an IC cannot join an allied unit.

Its clear that you have, I am not the only one to mention this.

Any number of people can say something, that doesn't make it true. I've asked you to prove it in the past and you failed.

I am not lying, why would expressing my genuine opinion be considered lying?

Saying I've half quoted rules (with the implication that a full quote would prove me wrong) isn't an opinion - you're asserting (incorrectly) a fact. Doing so while knowing its incorrect (which you should - I've corrected you before) is lying.

A groundless accusation like that is offensive and offers more of an insight into your character than mine, imo.

It's not groundless. You've stated it, I asked you to defend it, you failed, and you continue to say it. Reported.

Already done, multiple times.

Please link the posts where you have - apparently I've missed them. You've given page numbers but no actual rules.

Then all of the rules for my space wolf rune priest will be conviniently found in the space marine codex then.
Absurd.

No, that's not what I said nor what you asked. Don't put words in my mouth please.

easysauce wrote:the opposing argument, that somehow a battle brother can enter an allied transport, would need a specific permission, that overides this restriction on all BB's, which is NOT given by the IC rule that they are treated as part of the unit they join. Just how Being treated as part of a unit wont change your unit type from bike to infantry, neither does it change you from a battle brother to primary detachment. you can be treated as part of the unit for all purposes, and still be subject to additional permissions/restrictions, like with BB's+ allied transports.

the identity of the "unit" an BB ic joins, doesnt change that he is a BB and subject to the RAW restriction on such.

Exactly. By virtue of being a model from the allied detachment, the IC is subject to 'all' the battle brother rules including the one stopping them from embarking on an allied transport. There is nothing in the normal rules for how an IC may join a unit which overrides this.

 Neorealist wrote:

easysauce wrote:the opposing argument, that somehow a battle brother can enter an allied transport, would need a specific permission, that overides this restriction on all BB's, which is NOT given by the IC rule that they are treated as part of the unit they join. Just how Being treated as part of a unit wont change your unit type from bike to infantry, neither does it change you from a battle brother to primary detachment. you can be treated as part of the unit for all purposes, and still be subject to additional permissions/restrictions, like with BB's+ allied transports.

the identity of the "unit" an BB ic joins, doesnt change that he is a BB and subject to the RAW restriction on such.

Exactly. By virtue of being a model from the allied detachment, the IC is subject to 'all' the battle brother rules including the one stopping them from embarking on an allied transport. There is nothing in the normal rules for how an IC may join a unit which overrides this.

Is an IC attempting to embark a rules purpose?
Are ICs members of their unit for all rules purposes or some?

rigeld2 wrote:Are ICs members of their unit for all rules purposes or some?

You seem to feel the above is inclusive. It is not. In other words the IC can be a member of a unit for 'all rules purposes' and still be subject to additional rules, for example: Those unique to being an IC, Those unique to being a Battle Brother, or anything specific to that model rather than generic to the unit as a whole really. (Wargear comes to mind, as often being different on ICs than those they accompany)

To provide a hypothetical example: A Rune Priest joins an Ultramarine combat squad-ed unit of 5 marines. Does the rune priest stop being an IC, or a Psyker, or an Ally for that matter because it is now a member of that squad? Why then would it stop being a Battle Brother?

My question is what exactly is encompassed by "a part of the unit". There are plenty of rules that govern single models within a unit but those models are still a "part of the unit".

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Are ICs members of their unit for all rules purposes or some?

You seem to feel the above is inclusive. It is not. In other words the IC can be a member of a unit for 'all rules purposes' and still be subject to additional rules, for example: Those unique to being an IC, Those unique to being a Battle Brother, or anything specific to that model rather than generic to the unit as a whole really. (Wargear comes to mind, as often being different on ICs than those they accompany)

To provide a hypothetical example: A Rune Priest joins an Ultramarine combat squad-ed unit of 5 marines. Does the rune priest stop being an IC, or a Psyker, or an Ally for that matter because it is now a member of that squad? Why then would it stop being a Battle Brother?

No, I don't think its inclusive.
Nothing iin any rule changes model type or wargear based on unit membership. Since BB is defined as a friendly unit and the IC is no longer a unit, he cannot be a Battle Brother.

rigeld2 wrote:Nothing iin any rule changes model type or wargear based on unit membership. Since BB is defined as a friendly unit and the IC is no longer a unit, he cannot be a Battle Brother.

So, the IC is no longer '...treated as friendly units...' when it is joined to the other unit? At that point, how do you still have permission for the IC to be attached in that situation? Your interpretation needs a bit of work, since it seemingly leads to Schrödinger's IC: where it both can and cannot be in the unit at the same time.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Nothing iin any rule changes model type or wargear based on unit membership. Since BB is defined as a friendly unit and the IC is no longer a unit, he cannot be a Battle Brother.

So, the IC is no longer '...treated as friendly units...' when it is joined to the other unit? At that point, how do you still have permission for the IC to be attached in that situation? Your interpretation needs a bit of work, since it seemingly leads to Schrödinger's IC: where it both can and cannot be in the unit at the same time.

The unit "X" (which consists of an IC) does not exist as itself when attached to a unit, so no it is not a friendly unit. The rules for ICs tells us this as it is a normal member of the unit. Furthermore, every time GW wants an IC to be treated as its own unit while attached to another unit, such as for VPs, or Reserves, they specifically say "Yo! Even though the IC is normally a normal member for all rules purposes, for this purpose it is not.". Ok maybe not quite in those words, but still. So, I ask again. Where in the rules does it specifically state that while a BB IC is attached to a unit, it is a) not a normal member of the unit; and b) is still a friendly unit?

If a SM CM joins a SM Tac squad, is the SM CM still a friendly unit?

Happyjew wrote:So, I ask again. Where in the rules does it specifically state that while a BB IC is attached to a unit, it is a) not a normal member of the unit; and b) is still a friendly unit?

If a SM CM joins a SM Tac squad, is the SM CM still a friendly unit?

If it isn't treated as a Battle brother in the above scenario, then it does not have permission to be attached to the other squad at all.

but to answer your questions specifically:
a) It doesn't matter if it's a normal member of the unit or not. It's still subject to it's own additional benefits and restrictions as indicated in the rules text of the model itself, and any relevant rules directly pursuant thereto. (in this instance including but not limited to the IC rules, and the Allies rules)

b) Allies are defined on page 109 as chosen in the same way as your primary army with a couple of exceptions. If the model in question was selected for your list using those rules, it is considered a 'friendly unit' as part of their resolution. Can you indicate what specific part of the IC rules you feel overwrites this?

And once again at the risk of sounding redundant, if the Battle Brother Psyker in the OPs scenario is 'not' counted as such while it is part of another unit, how do you believe you have permission to ignore: "...If an Independent Character... ...(or cannot) join a unit, it must (where possible) remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the Movement phase..."




Also this may help. There are several instances where the Independent character is referenced uniquely from another unit it is otherwise subject to the rules of.

In the context of a unit with the 'Brotherhood of Psykers' special rule for Psychic tests.
in the context of a unit with the 'Infiltrate' special rule relative to joining said unit during deployment
When joining an Artillery unit, regarding whether or not they enable firing of the artillery itself by their presence in the unit
When in reserves: "...Independent Characters are also counted as a single unit regardless of whether they have joined another unit or not..." for the purposes of counting how many units are in reserves
From the mission objective rules of the 'Purge the Alien' ruleset: "...Remember that Independent Characters... ... are individual units..."

the problem with rigeld2's argument at this point is that he is asking for people to provide proof of a denial that does not need to exist.

If you were to remove the allies section of the BRB entirely, then there is no rule that allows an IC to join an allied unit, simply because there would be no such thing as an allied unit. Furthermore, all ally rules, with the exception of Battle Brothers, state that allied units are treated as enemy units in most cases.. further preventing an IC from joining one of those allied units, since there is no rule granting an IC permission to join an enemy unit. Therefore, it is, in fact, the Battle Brothers rule, solely, that allows an IC to join an allied unit. If you want to argue that the IC somehow loses its BB status by joining that unit, then you must also concede that in that state he would not be allowed to join the unit at all. For an IC to be joined to an allied unit he must be considered a Battle Brother. Therefore, he can not embark in allied transports.

CanisLupus518 wrote:
the problem with rigeld2's argument at this point is that he is asking for people to provide proof of a denial that does not need to exist.

If you were to remove the allies section of the BRB entirely, then there is no rule that allows an IC to join an allied unit, simply because there would be no such thing as an allied unit.

That's simply not true. Units from your army list would be considered friendly units. Page 39 gives permission for ICs to join friendly units.
Hell, the non-BB allies have a redundant statement (that they can't be joined by allied characters) because they're already not a friendly unit.

Cite where allied units are - by default - not friendly units. You have to prove that for page 39 not to apply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Neorealist wrote:

Happyjew wrote:So, I ask again. Where in the rules does it specifically state that while a BB IC is attached to a unit, it is a) not a normal member of the unit; and b) is still a friendly unit?

If a SM CM joins a SM Tac squad, is the SM CM still a friendly unit?

If it isn't treated as a Battle brother in the above scenario, then it does not have permission to be attached to the other squad at all.

Incorrect. Page 39 gives it that permission.

And once again at the risk of sounding redundant, if the Battle Brother Psyker in the OPs scenario is 'not' counted as such while it is part of another unit, how do you believe you have permission to ignore: "...If an Independent Character... ...(or cannot) join a unit, it must (where possible) remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the Movement phase..."

I'm confused. Why can an IC not join a friendly unit? Are allies somehow default non-friendly units? If you can prove that I'd love it.

rigeld2 wrote:

CanisLupus518 wrote:
the problem with rigeld2's argument at this point is that he is asking for people to provide proof of a denial that does not need to exist.

If you were to remove the allies section of the BRB entirely, then there is no rule that allows an IC to join an allied unit, simply because there would be no such thing as an allied unit.

That's simply not true. Units from your army list would be considered friendly units. Page 39 gives permission for ICs to join friendly units.
Hell, the non-BB allies have a redundant statement (that they can't be joined by allied characters) because they're already not a friendly unit.

Cite where allied units are - by default - not friendly units. You have to prove that for page 39 not to apply.

At no point am I saying that pg 39 does not apply. If anything I am arguing that even after an IC joins an allied unit it also still considered an ally.

I do not need to cite a default state for allies. Without the allies section of the BRB, if my army list included units from two different codexes it would be considered an illegal list (with some house rule exceptions). Thus in that case an IC from one codex would never be allowed to join a unit from another. It is the ally rules that allow such a list to be legal. So now that your list includes a detachment that is considered Battle Brothers, you may now have permission for your IC from one codex to join a unit from the other. Simply put, it is not simply that the Battle Brother rule allows you to treat allied units as "friendly", it is the existence of the rule in the first place that allows the IC to join such a unit. If at any point the BB rule ceases to apply\exist, then the IC could not join the unit in the first place.

So you are indeed asserting that allies by default are not friendly, and that it's the BB rules that make them friendly (and allow ICs to join).

And you have zero rules to back that up. Are you arguing for intent?

rigeld2 wrote:
So you are indeed asserting that allies by default are not friendly, and that it's the BB rules that make them friendly (and allow ICs to join).

And you have zero rules to back that up. Are you arguing for intent?

I am asserting that allies, by default, do not exist, and that its the BB rules that make them friendly (and allow ICs to join). I am also looking at the same rules you are for backing up my assertion.

I'm not sure why you hang on the idea of a default state. There is a general rule of allies, and a specific one of Battle Brothers. It is these two things together that allow an IC to join an allied unit, as there is no such thing as allies without the former, and they are not defined as friendly without the latter. No citation or argument of default state is necessary.

rigeld2 wrote:
So you are indeed asserting that allies by default are not friendly, and that it's the BB rules that make them friendly (and allow ICs to join).

Sure!

The only location that specifies wether or not an allied IC can join units from a different army and/or that they count as friendly units at all to each other for that matter is the allies ruleset in the first case and the battle brothers sub-section specifically in the latter case.

There is no default rule which allows ICs and units from two different armies to join each other.

Lets go at this another way.

You have a no allies army. How do you know (using rules) that all units in your army are friendly?

The SW Runepriest is still a SW Model, but is no longer a SW Unit when joined to the Tacs.

In a similar vein a FW team is still a FW Unit when either a) an ethereal, or b) a Farseer joins the unit. It can therefore still have a Fireblade join the unit legally.

ICs joining a unit retain all their special rules, stats, and wargear.

This is how the IC rules work.

And while the 1 bullet point does say that "not even Battle Brothers can embark on allied transports"; you have to take that in the context of the paragraph, whose first sentence tells you that BB are Friendly units.

An IC that joins the unit becomes a part of that unit with granted allowances to leave it again; and thus ceases to be a unit in and of itself.

Kommissar Kel wrote: An IC that joins the unit becomes a part of that unit with granted allowances to leave it again; and thus ceases to be a unit in and of itself.

While it may cease to be a unit in it's own right. (which is debatable given how many different examples there are referring to ICs as exactly that within the context of one rule or another) that doesn't matter. At no point does it ever cease to be a 'battle brother' and therefor at no point does it stop being effected by that ruleset.

Why on earth would it matter wether or not it's a discrete unit for the purposes of applying the battle brother rules?

rigeld2 wrote:
Lets go at this another way.

You have a no allies army. How do you know (using rules) that all units in your army are friendly?

I think I see where you are going with this. You want to point out that it is implied that models in your own list are friendly. I'm sure you'll quote it if it's in there, but I'll guess there is no explicit rule stating it. In which case your argument is as good as mine.

 Neorealist wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote: An IC that joins the unit becomes a part of that unit with granted allowances to leave it again; and thus ceases to be a unit in and of itself.

While it may cease to be a unit in it's own right. (which is debatable given how many different examples there are referring to ICs as exactly that within the context of one rule or another) that doesn't matter. At no point does it ever cease to be a 'battle brother' and therefor at no point does it stop being effected by that ruleset.

Why on earth would it matter wether or not it's a discrete unit for the purposes of applying the battle brother rules?

What is a Battle Brother?

Can you find the definition?

I can give you a hint: its in the same paragraph as the bullet point.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote: An IC that joins the unit becomes a part of that unit with granted allowances to leave it again; and thus ceases to be a unit in and of itself.

While it may cease to be a unit in it's own right. (which is debatable given how many different examples there are referring to ICs as exactly that within the context of one rule or another) that doesn't matter. At no point does it ever cease to be a 'battle brother' and therefor at no point does it stop being effected by that ruleset.

Why on earth would it matter wether or not it's a discrete unit for the purposes of applying the battle brother rules?

What is a Battle Brother?

Can you find the definition?

I can give you a hint: its in the same paragraph as the bullet point.

A Battle Brother is a member of an allied detachment that is treated as a "friendly unit"

Now you tell me how the IC rule ever stops the above from being true? You have an IC join an allied unit, something allowed only by the BB rule, and then you say he ceases to be an allied unit and becomes part of the unit. At that moment, if he does in fact cease to be a Battle Brother, then he also loses the ability to join the unit in the first place. There is a big difference between "is a friendly unit" and "treated as a friendly unit". The definition of Battle Brother is not the first sentence of the rule, but rather the entire paragraph taken as a whole. The third bullet point applies in all cases, to all models of one detachment attempting to embark on a transport from another. The IC rule does not override this.

rigeld2 wrote:You have a no allies army. How do you know (using rules) that all units in your army are friendly?

Here you go:

A) (page 109 - Primary Detachments) "...It dictates the units you can take in the main body of your army. All of the units in your primary detachment must be chosen from the same codex...
B) (page 121 - Deploy Forces) "...Armies are placed within the owning player's deployment zone..."
C) (page 8 - Controlling Player vs Opposing Player) "...The controlling player is always the player who 'owns' the model in question...
D) (page 8 - Line Of Sight) "...line of sight determines what a model can 'see'... ...line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy - they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)....


By the Transitive Property:
Units selected from a single codex = Primary Detachment
Units selected from a single codex = Army (when ignoring the allies rules)
Army = 'Objects' which are placed in the owning players deployment zone
'Objects' which are placed in the owning players deployment zone = Models owned by the controlling player
Models owned by the controlling player = 'not' enemy models or battlefield terrain
'not' enemy models or battlefield terrain = friendly models

Therefore
Primary Detachment (when ignoring the allies rules) = Friendly models

Kommissar Kel wrote:
What is a Battle Brother?

Can you find the definition?

I can give you a hint: its in the same paragraph as the bullet point.

This is what battle brothers are: (page 109 - Allied Detachment) "...units in the allied detachment must be chosen from the same codex, and this must be a different codex to the one used for the primary detachment..."

it is further more explicitly defined in the allies section with a couple of permissions and an exception but at it's most fundamental? a battle brother is one possible type of allied detachment

You'll note it is 'not' even on the same page, let alone the same paragraph as you'd presume.

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Cite the denial. Page 39 alone does allow it.

P112 (that's a surprise, isn't it?
If battle brothers didn't exist, they would be allies of a different type, therefore enemy units +.

rigeld2 wrote:
That's simply not true. You're making a leap with no support.
How about actually citing the denial - there isn't a single rule on page 112 saying an IC cannot join an allied unit.

If battle brother status did not exist, all allies would be enemy units, that is clear and yet you say its untrue!
I must be lying again!

What leap?

Without the allies rules (or house rules), that model cannot join one of my units.

P112, allies of convenience, "enemy units" and "cannot be joined by allied ic's."

Its really quite simple, for allies to exist, you need the allies rules.
In rule terms, you need the battle brothers rules to state that an allied unit is a friendly unit.
You need 112 AND 39.
Your claim is groundless.

rigeld2 wrote:
Saying I've half quoted rules (with the implication that a full quote would prove me wrong) isn't an opinion - you're asserting (incorrectly) a fact. Doing so while knowing its incorrect (which you should - I've corrected you before) is lying.

You have not "corrected" me, you have failed to change my mind, two very different things.

It seems yet again a little of your character is leaking onto these pages. I am beginning to believe this is what you would do in these circumstances you invent, nothing to do with me at all.

 fuusa wrote:
[Then all of the rules for my space wolf rune priest will be conveniently found in the space marine codex then.
Absurd.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, that's not what I said nor what you asked. Don't put words in my mouth please.

So, let me get this straight.
According to you, a unit that consists of a (space wolf) rune priest and (ultramarine) tacticals, is not a unit comprised of battle brothers, its a unit of ultra marines???
That is what you said, isn't it?

Where are the rules for ultramarines and where are the rules for space wolves?
Answer = in 2 different codexes.

Without the allies rules, there would be no-unit like that, p39 can't justify it. You say it can, but that's demonstrably inaccurate.
The existence of allies and battle brother status allows it.

Are you really claiming that this unit, does not contain battle brothers?
Are ultramarines and space wolves not battle brothers?

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:You have a no allies army. How do you know (using rules) that all units in your army are friendly?

Here you go:

A) (page 109 - Primary Detachments) "...It dictates the units you can take in the main body of your army. All of the units in your primary detachment must be chosen from the same codex...[/color]
B) (page 121 - Deploy Forces) "...Armies are placed within the owning player's deployment zone..."[/color]
C) (page 8 - Controlling Player vs Opposing Player) "...The controlling player is always the player who 'owns' the model in question...[/color]
D) (page 8 - Line Of Sight) "...line of sight determines what a model can 'see'... ...line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy - they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)....[/color]


By the Transitive Property:
Units selected from a single codex = Primary Detachment
Units selected from a single codex = Army (when ignoring the allies rules)
Army = 'Objects' which are placed in the owning players deployment zone
'Objects' which are placed in the owning players deployment zone = Models owned by the controlling player
Models owned by the controlling player = 'not' enemy models or battlefield terrain
'not' enemy models or battlefield terrain = friendly models

Therefore
Primary Detachment (when ignoring the allies rules) = Friendly models

Now - add allies into that.
Are allies objects placed in your deployment zone?
Are they owned by the controlling player?
Are they "not enemy models or battlefield terrain"?

This is what battle brothers are: (page 109 - Allied Detachment) "...units in the allied detachment must be chosen from the same codex, and this must be a different codex to the one used for the primary detachment..."[/color]

it is further more explicitly defined in the allies section with a couple of permissions and an exception but at it's most fundamental? a battle brother is one possible type of allied detachment

You'll note it is 'not' even on the same page, let alone the same paragraph as you'd presume.

That's a cool definition. It means literally nothing, but it's nice.
Hint: what game effect does the rule you quoted have?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CanisLupus518 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Lets go at this another way.

You have a no allies army. How do you know (using rules) that all units in your army are friendly?

I think I see where you are going with this. You want to point out that it is implied that models in your own list are friendly. I'm sure you'll quote it if it's in there, but I'll guess there is no explicit rule stating it. In which case your argument is as good as mine.

Neo proved it well enough. Perhaps you'd like to argue with his post?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fuusa wrote:

If battle brother status did not exist, all allies would be enemy units, that is clear and yet you say its untrue!

Neorealist proved it wrong.

Without the allies rules (or house rules), that model cannot join one of my units.

P112, allies of convenience, "enemy units" and "cannot be joined by allied ic's."

It's almost like that's a redundant rule because AoC are enemy units (with some exceptions). Oh, that's exactly the case.

Its really quite simple, for allies to exist, you need the allies rules.
In rule terms, you need the battle brothers rules to state that an allied unit is a friendly unit.
You need 112 AND 39.
Your claim is groundless.

Proven incorrect. Models which are owned by the controlling player are friendly models.

rigeld2 wrote:
Saying I've half quoted rules (with the implication that a full quote would prove me wrong) isn't an opinion - you're asserting (incorrectly) a fact. Doing so while knowing its incorrect (which you should - I've corrected you before) is lying.

You have not "corrected" me, you have failed to change my mind, two very different things.

No - you asserted a fact (that I was half quoting a rule). I corrected you - I was and did not, and you did not prove I was. I don't care that you still disagree with me, I have not misquoted a rule. Your impugning my integrity and I won't have that.

It seems yet again a little of your character is leaking onto these pages. I am beginning to believe this is what you would do in these circumstances you invent, nothing to do with me at all.

What?

According to you, a unit that consists of a (space wolf) rune priest and (ultramarine) tacticals, is not a unit comprised of battle brothers, its a unit of ultra marines???
That is what you said, isn't it?

Yes.

Where are the rules for ultramarines and where are the rules for space wolves?
Answer = in 2 different codexes.

Irrelevant.

Without the allies rules, there would be no-unit like that, p39 can't justify it. You say it can, but that's demonstrably inaccurate.
The existence of allies and battle brother status allows it.

Proven incorrect.

Are you really claiming that this unit, does not contain battle brothers?
Are ultramarines and space wolves not battle brothers?

They are. That's irrelevant to the question at hand however.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote: An IC that joins the unit becomes a part of that unit with granted allowances to leave it again; and thus ceases to be a unit in and of itself.

While it may cease to be a unit in it's own right. (which is debatable given how many different examples there are referring to ICs as exactly that within the context of one rule or another) that doesn't matter. At no point does it ever cease to be a 'battle brother' and therefor at no point does it stop being effected by that ruleset.

Why on earth would it matter wether or not it's a discrete unit for the purposes of applying the battle brother rules?

What is a Battle Brother?

Can you find the definition?

I can give you a hint: its in the same paragraph as the bullet point.

It is also a level of alliance,

rigeld2 wrote:Now - add allies into that.
Are allies objects placed in your deployment zone?
Are they owned by the controlling player?
Are they "not enemy models or battlefield terrain"?

Figured you'd say that. Adding the text from the Allied Detachment section into the above but ignoring the battle brother rules leaves you with two (or more) distinct armies; with individual models in each army only counting as friendly to other models within that Detachment.

You are advised to review the Allies matrix and rules: "...Bear in mind that some combinations of armies and allies are more effective (and more eagerly entered into) than others - this is covered in detail later in the section (see page 112)..." in order to determine how they actually interact.

rigeld2 wrote:

That's a cool definition. It means literally nothing, but it's nice.
Hint: what game effect does the rule you quoted have?

Make up your mind (see below).

 fuusa wrote:

If battle brother status did not exist, all allies would be enemy units, that is clear and yet you say its untrue!

rigeld2 wrote:
Neorealist proved it wrong.

Nope and you either are horribly mistaken to think that, or its a dishonest post.
If I were to adopt one of your character traits here, I (you) would ask, "which one is correct?"

If you mean this ...

 Neorealist wrote:

Therefore
Primary Detachment (when ignoring the allies rules) = Friendly models

That was his conclusion, please if you reply to this, understand that it is true what he said and that what he said is Primary Detachment (when ignoring the allies rules) = Friendly models.

Once again for clarity, Primary Detachment [(when ignoring the allies rules)= Friendly models

 fuusa wrote:
Without the allies rules (or house rules), that model cannot join one of my units.

P112, allies of convenience, "enemy units" and "cannot be joined by allied ic's."

rigeld2 wrote:
It's almost like that's a redundant rule because AoC are enemy units (with some exceptions). Oh, that's exactly the case.

You said that p112 did not prevent allied ic's joining primary units, that is proof of your error.

 fuusa wrote:
Its really quite simple, for allies to exist, you need the allies rules.
In rule terms, you need the battle brothers rules to state that an allied unit is a friendly unit.
You need 112 AND 39.
Your claim is groundless.

rigeld2 wrote:
Proven incorrect. Models which are owned by the controlling player are friendly models.

Yet again, you are typing half truths.

I quoted his conclusion above, which you are now trying to use either wrongly or dishonestly.

Without the allies rules, please prove to me how a model is owned by the controlling player and therefore a friendly model (in rules context) when it is from a different codex.
How is a model chosen from a different codex, part of your army???

[

rigeld2 wrote:
Your impugning my integrity and I won't have that.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

I am here with an open mind, you are damaging your own integrity.

 fuusa wrote:
According to you, a unit that consists of a (space wolf) rune priest and (ultramarine) tacticals, is not a unit comprised of battle brothers, its a unit of ultra marines???
That is what you said, isn't it?

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes.

Ok, then, I'm playing you, you deploy the tacticals in a rhino along with the rune priest (cue objection, but for arguments sake).
Later, I forget what's in the box and ask you.
If you reply "A unit of ultramarines."

Are you cheating or just wrong (that's you again!)?

 fuusa wrote:
Where are the rules for ultramarines and where are the rules for space wolves?
Answer = in 2 different codexes.
[

rigeld2 wrote:
Irrelevant.

So, without the allies rules, this would be an illegal unit. It would be part of an illegal army.
But, it seems in your mind, that's irrelevant.

 fuusa wrote:
Are you really claiming that this unit, does not contain battle brothers?
Are ultramarines and space wolves not battle brothers?

rigeld2 wrote:
They are. That's irrelevant to the question at hand however.

This is a reeeeaaaallly moment of jim carrey proportions.

CanisLupus518 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote: An IC that joins the unit becomes a part of that unit with granted allowances to leave it again; and thus ceases to be a unit in and of itself.

While it may cease to be a unit in it's own right. (which is debatable given how many different examples there are referring to ICs as exactly that within the context of one rule or another) that doesn't matter. At no point does it ever cease to be a 'battle brother' and therefor at no point does it stop being effected by that ruleset.

Why on earth would it matter wether or not it's a discrete unit for the purposes of applying the battle brother rules?

What is a Battle Brother?

Can you find the definition?

I can give you a hint: its in the same paragraph as the bullet point.

A Battle Brother is a member of an allied detachment that is treated as a "friendly unit"

Now you tell me how the IC rule ever stops the above from being true? You have an IC join an allied unit, something allowed only by the BB rule, and then you say he ceases to be an allied unit and becomes part of the unit. At that moment, if he does in fact cease to be a Battle Brother, then he also loses the ability to join the unit in the first place. There is a big difference between "is a friendly unit" and "treated as a friendly unit". The definition of Battle Brother is not the first sentence of the rule, but rather the entire paragraph taken as a whole. The third bullet point applies in all cases, to all models of one detachment attempting to embark on a transport from another. The IC rule does not override this.

The BB rules allow for joining, when the IC joins he is a battle brother and thus allowed. Once joined, he is no longer a battle brother because he is joined(and has become part of the unit for all rules purposes). This creates no issue because he is now a part of the unit(not continuously trying to join it) and may leave because the IC rules allow him to leave the unit he is in.

Reaper and Neorealist; the level of alliance is a designation; a term applied through the interaction of 2 entities, it is not in any way a definition of the designation. The definition is in the Battle brothers rules and is a Friendly unit. If you do not fit the definition you are no longer that thing.

Kommissar Kel wrote:The BB rules allow for joining, when the IC joins he is a battle brother and thus allowed. Once joined, he is no longer a battle brother because he is joined(and has become part of the unit for all rules purposes). This creates no issue because he is now a part of the unit(not continuously trying to join it) and may leave because the IC rules allow him to leave the unit he is in.

Reaper and Neorealist; the level of alliance is a designation; a term applied through the interaction of 2 entities, it is not in any way a definition of the designation. The definition is in the Battle brothers rules and is a Friendly unit. If you do not fit the definition you are no longer that thing.

If the IC is no longer a battle brother once it is joined to the unit, what you have at that precise moment is models from two different armies closer than 2 inches from each other that no longer have permission to be joined in a single unit at all.

You seem to be handwaving away the fact that the only thing giving permission for that to occur 'is' those rules that you say no longer apply once it is in a unit.

no, you don't.

You have a model from your army joined to your squad.

The rule that permits him to(adverb) join(modified Verb) does not need to be there when he is already joined.

But that rule is what allows him to be a part of your army. Once that rule is gone, he doesn't have permission to be a part of your army anymore. If he doesn't have permission to be a part of your army, he doesn't have permission to be in one of your army's units.

Does it mean that if my rune priest joined a BA tac squad, he can now benefit from a sanguinary priest and gains FC and FNP? It seems legal because according to this logic now he is part of a BA unit, no longer a BB IC, and sanguinary priest does affect BA unit.

Page 52 – Sanguinary Novitiate, Blood Chalice.
Change this entry to read: “All friendly units chosen from
Code x: Blood Angels within 6" of the Sanguinary Novitiate are
subject to the Furious Charge and Feel No Pain special rules”.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Now - add allies into that.
Are allies objects placed in your deployment zone?
Are they owned by the controlling player?
Are they "not enemy models or battlefield terrain"?

Figured you'd say that. Adding the text from the Allied Detachment section into the above but ignoring the battle brother rules leaves you with two (or more) distinct armies; with individual models in each army only counting as friendly to other models within that Detachment.

You are advised to review the Allies matrix and rules: "...Bear in mind that some combinations of armies and allies are more effective (and more eagerly entered into) than others - this is covered in detail later in the section (see page 112)..."[/color] in order to determine how they actually interact.

How does your rules quote support your assertion? I'm not seeing it.

I like how his got all the way onto faeit 212

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/09/independent-characters-embarking-into.html?m=1

Keep up the debate guys we got people on both sides

Jefffar wrote:
But that rule is what allows him to be a part of your army. Once that rule is gone, he doesn't have permission to be a part of your army anymore. If he doesn't have permission to be a part of your army, he doesn't have permission to be in one of your army's units.

You buy your army at list creation; Any IC ceases to be a separate unit when joined just like Split-off Wolf Guard or Necron royal court were purchased and are no longer a part of/ a unit at all; but still take up an FOC slot in your army(well, the necron royal court never take up a slot).

Madcamel: yes, because he is a member of a unit chosen from Codex:BA for all rules purposes.

 A GumyBear wrote:
I like how his got all the way onto faeit 212

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/09/independent-characters-embarking-into.html?m=1

Keep up the debate guys we got people on both sides

No, I'm pretty close to dropping it due to being insulted repeatedly and misrepresented.

All of the people posting on this thread need to understand that rigeld and the people supporting his view are not fans of this rule. We don't want to shove our IC's in transports or any of that, we want to illustrate an INCONSISTENCY in the rules which allows a loophole, not a definitive rule saying you should do it.

It shows very clearly that the independent character (an allied character attached to the unit) counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes. He ceases to be a friendly unit, and become PART OF THE UNIT FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES, with emphasis on the all. You need to recognize this full chain of rules permitting the IC to BECOME PART OF THE UNIT FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES, which makes him no longer an allied unit, which means "Battle Brother" is irrelevant, it has no place to apply. The rules look at the unit and see it as a Space Marine unit, so the Space Marine unit can get in the Space Marine transport. This was obviously not RAI, I am not arguing that it should be played, I don't think it should, however, under the conditions stated above, RAW it is possible.

Please let me know exactly what I am ignoring, if you think that I am.


I also see that people on the side of allowing it by RAW are making huge and complicated rules that form a path to allowance. With a few exceptions, many people on Faeit 212 and here just say "NO THEY ARE BATTLE BROTHERS STILLLLLL". That argument is not valid because the character is part of the unit from Codex:X for all rules purposes.

Quick question for Kom. Kel... Have you ever tried to play it using your interpretation? And if so have you ever played against that person a second time? Just curious...

feth it - not worth it. People are failing to fething read the thread. I'm done.

But those purchases still have effects along the way. A unit purchased as Troops scores you points in most games. A unit selected as Fast Attack or Heavy Support scores points in some games by nature of its selection. Taking away these characteristics once they hit the tabletop changes the game.

An Ally is a unit that wouldn't be a part of your army due to not being in your codex, an internal division created in your codex (ie SM of differing Chapter Tactics) or being selected from a Codex Supplement (ie Farsight - Tau Empire alliances). If you take the rule that makes them a part of your army away mid game, they cease to be a part of your Army and in 40K, an IC that is not part of your army can't join your units.

So, if the interpretation of the rule is that the joining to a unit removes the Battle Brother rules, thus removing the restriction on boarding a transport, then the joining to a unit also removes the Battle Brother rules allowing them to be joined in the first place, forcing them to leave the unit. At that point the Battle Brothers rules return and they can rejoin said unit, but again must leave.

In short, the model is or isn't covered by the Ally rules, you can't have it both ways.

rigeld2 wrote:
feth it - not worth it. People are failing to fething read the thread. I'm done.

Nah... People are reading just fine... They come to a very different conclusion from the written words than you and Kel are coming to... Just because someone doesn't agree with your interpretation (or your take on logical conclusions) doesn't mean they ahven't read the thread... Asserting otherwise is disingenuous...

Beast wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
feth it - not worth it. People are failing to fething read the thread. I'm done.

Nah... People are reading just fine... They come to a very different conclusion from the written words than you and Kel are coming to... Just because someone doesn't agree with your interpretation (or your take on logical conclusions) doesn't mean they ahven't read the thread... Asserting otherwise is disingenuous...

No offense intended, but people saying "NO YOU CAN'T DO IT CUZ IT IS STILL BATTLE BROTHERS" was proven invalid a long time ago, and only a few people here have stated anything but this.

I think you will find quite a bit of dissent on the notion that it has been proven at all, much less long ago...

 Lord Magnus wrote:
No offense intended, but people saying "NO YOU CAN'T DO IT CUZ IT IS STILL BATTLE BROTHERS" was proven invalid a long time ago, and only a few people here have stated anything but this.

Actually proving that something is invalid and saying that you proved it are two different things.

Oh, you asked what you are missing on the last page:
1) IC-rules state that they count as part of the unit for all rules purposes, it does not state that they count as part of the same detachment which means they are still Battle Brothers.
2) Even IF you were right, you join IC's and units at the same time as you embark them on transports. So the IC would not be eligible for it.

So just wondering exactly what "for ALL rules purposes" actually means when an IC joins a Allied unit? If we literally mean ALL rules purposes, then that IC must also follow all the rules (and nothing more) for that unit. In this case we are talking about a Tac Sqd... So Any IC psycher that joins it may no longer use psychic powers since that unit doesn't have access to psychic powers. And that IC can't use his special weapon since that probably isn't an option for that Tac Sqd. And likewise, he can't have more than 1 wound since Tac Sqds don't have multi-wound models... So then, exactly what does "ALL rules purposes" actually mean? Apparently we are being at least somewhat non-literal by the very fact that we are letting him be a part of this unit yet not following "ALL" of the rules for that unit (and only the rules for that unit)... But perhaps we actually are allowed to use other rules and restrictions IN ADDITION to the rules for that unit??? For example maybe he is actually allowed to use his psychic powers and use his special weapon and maybe he actually does have some restrictions (like Battle Brothers.......) Hmmm....

Edit, spelling

Beast wrote:
So just wondering exactly what "for ALL rules purposes" actually means when an IC joins a Allied unit? If we literally mean ALL rules purposes, then that IC must also follow all the rules (and nothing more) for that unit. In this case we are talking about a Tac Sqd... So Any IC psycher that joins it may no longer use psychic powers since that unit doesn't have access to psychic powers. And that IC can't use his special weapon since that probably isn't an option for that Tac Sqd. And likewise, he can't have more than 1 wound since Tac Sqds don't have multi-wound models... So then, exactly what does "ALL rules purposes" actually mean? Apparently we are being at least somewhat non-literal by the very fact that we are letting him be a part of this unit yet not following "ALL" of the rules for that unit (and only the rules for that unit)... But perhaps we actually are allowed to use other rules and restrictions IN ADDITION to the rules for that unit??? For example maybe he is actually allowed to use his psychic powers and use his special weapon and maybe he actually does have some restrictions (like Battle Brothers.......) Hmmm....

Edit, spelling

I know, I said I was done, but this argument is so full of fail I can't help responding. I have no idea why people keep trying this straw man like it's even possibly relevant.

Different models in a unit are allowed to have different rules.
A model joining a unit does not have to conform to the same rules other models conform to. For example, the Tac Squad member with a missile launcher does not have his range, AP, STR set to that of a Bolter.
The model's type and rules do not change. He just ceases to be a unit by himself.

And the Battle Brother restriction is on a *unit*. This has been proven over and over and can't really be disputed (with actual rules). The Battle Brother restriction is not on a model.

rigeld2 wrote:

Beast wrote:
So just wondering exactly what "for ALL rules purposes" actually means when an IC joins a Allied unit? If we literally mean ALL rules purposes, then that IC must also follow all the rules (and nothing more) for that unit. In this case we are talking about a Tac Sqd... So Any IC psycher that joins it may no longer use psychic powers since that unit doesn't have access to psychic powers. And that IC can't use his special weapon since that probably isn't an option for that Tac Sqd. And likewise, he can't have more than 1 wound since Tac Sqds don't have multi-wound models... So then, exactly what does "ALL rules purposes" actually mean? Apparently we are being at least somewhat non-literal by the very fact that we are letting him be a part of this unit yet not following "ALL" of the rules for that unit (and only the rules for that unit)... But perhaps we actually are allowed to use other rules and restrictions IN ADDITION to the rules for that unit??? For example maybe he is actually allowed to use his psychic powers and use his special weapon and maybe he actually does have some restrictions (like Battle Brothers.......) Hmmm....

Edit, spelling

I know, I said I was done, but this argument is so full of fail I can't help responding. I have no idea why people keep trying this straw man like it's even possibly relevant.

Different models in a unit are allowed to have different rules.
A model joining a unit does not have to conform to the same rules other models conform to. For example, the Tac Squad member with a missile launcher does not have his range, AP, STR set to that of a Bolter.
The model's type and rules do not change. He just ceases to be a unit by himself.

And the Battle Brother restriction is on a *unit*. This has been proven over and over and can't really be disputed (with actual rules). The Battle Brother restriction is not on a model.

okay so pls provide a page and rule showing where a Tac Sqd has an option for psychic powers... If we are being as literal in the writing as you want (for ALL rules purposes) then you would be correct.. I am pointing out the fail of YOUR argument... lol.. Thx for reinforcing that... lol The wording is clearly NOT as literal as you would have. That opens the door to the reality that there are restrictions and additional rules that can apply to this "unit"...

Beast wrote:
okay so pls provide a page and rule showing where a Tac Sqd has an option for psychic powers... If we are being as literal in the writing as you want (for ALL rules purposes) then you would be correct.. I am pointing out the fail of YOUR argument... lol.. Thx for reinforcing that... lol The wording is clearly NOT as literal as you would have. That opens the door to the reality that there are restrictions and additional rules that can apply to this "unit"...

The tac squad does not have that option. That's irrelevant however as there's nothing that changes the special rule of a model that joins a unit.
Your argument has no basis in actual rules - he's a member of the unit for all rules purposes. There's no rule changing his type, etc. There is a rule that with a restriction tied to an allied *unit* (not that unit and model are not interchangeable).

Cite a rule that gives you permission to change a unit type and special rules of a model based on the unit it's in. If you cannot your argument has failed. You're not showing anything but an unwillingness to argue using actual rules.

Beast wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Beast wrote:
So just wondering exactly what "for ALL rules purposes" actually means when an IC joins a Allied unit? If we literally mean ALL rules purposes, then that IC must also follow all the rules (and nothing more) for that unit. In this case we are talking about a Tac Sqd... So Any IC psycher that joins it may no longer use psychic powers since that unit doesn't have access to psychic powers. And that IC can't use his special weapon since that probably isn't an option for that Tac Sqd. And likewise, he can't have more than 1 wound since Tac Sqds don't have multi-wound models... So then, exactly what does "ALL rules purposes" actually mean? Apparently we are being at least somewhat non-literal by the very fact that we are letting him be a part of this unit yet not following "ALL" of the rules for that unit (and only the rules for that unit)... But perhaps we actually are allowed to use other rules and restrictions IN ADDITION to the rules for that unit??? For example maybe he is actually allowed to use his psychic powers and use his special weapon and maybe he actually does have some restrictions (like Battle Brothers.......) Hmmm....

Edit, spelling

I know, I said I was done, but this argument is so full of fail I can't help responding. I have no idea why people keep trying this straw man like it's even possibly relevant.

Different models in a unit are allowed to have different rules.
A model joining a unit does not have to conform to the same rules other models conform to. For example, the Tac Squad member with a missile launcher does not have his range, AP, STR set to that of a Bolter.
The model's type and rules do not change. He just ceases to be a unit by himself.

And the Battle Brother restriction is on a *unit*. This has been proven over and over and can't really be disputed (with actual rules). The Battle Brother restriction is not on a model.

okay so pls provide a page and rule showing where a Tac Sqd has an option for psychic powers... If we are being as literal in the writing as you want (for ALL rules purposes) then you would be correct.. I am pointing out the fail of YOUR argument... lol.. Thx for reinforcing that... lol The wording is clearly NOT as literal as you would have. That opens the door to the reality that there are restrictions and additional rules that can apply to this "unit"...

Are you saying models in a unit are not allowed to use their own rules?
Instead of a Tac Squad with a Psyker, how about a Thousand Sons squad. comes with a Psyker as standard. That model can't use it's powers?

I'm sayin nothing of the kind... Just pointing out the ridiculousness of rigeld's line of thinking and the level of literalness he wants to assume in the RAW... He wants the IC to abide by ALL the rules for that unit yet wants to be able to use other rules and restrictions for the IC at the same time, but not rules and restrictions placed upon it by the BB ruleset... He wants to have his cake and eat it too...

You can't claim a level of literalness in one part of the rules and then turn around and claim you aren't using the same degree of literalness in the very next breath...

Beast wrote:
I'm sayin nothing of the kind... Just pointing out the ridiculousness of rigeld's line of thinking and the level of literalness he wants to assume in the RAW... He wants the IC to abide by ALL the rules for that unit yet wants to be able to use other rules and restrictions for the IC at the same time, but not rules and restrictions placed upon it by the BB ruleset... He wants to have his cake and eat it too...

No - I never said that. You're misrepresenting my statements. One of the reasons I shouldn't bother contributing to the thread any more.

Your argument fails, you've failed to understand my argument, and you're trolling me now. Good bye.

Nope not trolling you at all... Just pointing out the failure of your argument through its inherent inconsistency... But saying that I am trolling you might be a form of passive-aggressive trolling in and of itself... lol not sure though... (psst- that was a joke...)

Beast wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Beast wrote:
So just wondering exactly what "for ALL rules purposes" actually means when an IC joins a Allied unit? If we literally mean ALL rules purposes, then that IC must also follow all the rules (and nothing more) for that unit. In this case we are talking about a Tac Sqd... So Any IC psycher that joins it may no longer use psychic powers since that unit doesn't have access to psychic powers. And that IC can't use his special weapon since that probably isn't an option for that Tac Sqd. And likewise, he can't have more than 1 wound since Tac Sqds don't have multi-wound models... So then, exactly what does "ALL rules purposes" actually mean? Apparently we are being at least somewhat non-literal by the very fact that we are letting him be a part of this unit yet not following "ALL" of the rules for that unit (and only the rules for that unit)... But perhaps we actually are allowed to use other rules and restrictions IN ADDITION to the rules for that unit??? For example maybe he is actually allowed to use his psychic powers and use his special weapon and maybe he actually does have some restrictions (like Battle Brothers.......) Hmmm....

Edit, spelling

I know, I said I was done, but this argument is so full of fail I can't help responding. I have no idea why people keep trying this straw man like it's even possibly relevant.

Different models in a unit are allowed to have different rules.
A model joining a unit does not have to conform to the same rules other models conform to. For example, the Tac Squad member with a missile launcher does not have his range, AP, STR set to that of a Bolter.
The model's type and rules do not change. He just ceases to be a unit by himself.

And the Battle Brother restriction is on a *unit*. This has been proven over and over and can't really be disputed (with actual rules). The Battle Brother restriction is not on a model.

okay so pls provide a page and rule showing where a Tac Sqd has an option for psychic powers... If we are being as literal in the writing as you want (for ALL rules purposes) then you would be correct.. I am pointing out the fail of YOUR argument... lol.. Thx for reinforcing that... lol The wording is clearly NOT as literal as you would have. That opens the door to the reality that there are restrictions and additional rules that can apply to this "unit"...

Did you ignore my post or are you claiming that adding an IC(Same codex, same detatchment) to a Space Marine tactical squad allow me to retroactively assign 1 model a Heavy weapon?

ICS ALWAYS RETAIN THEIR OWN STATS, SPECIAL RULES, AND WARGEAR this is not hard to understand and any claims otherwise is either willful misinterpretation, or a sign that you should not be in YMDC at all.

rigeld2 wrote:
That's irrelevant however as there's nothing that changes the special rule of a model that joins a unit.

So then it is no longer "ALL rules purposes" is it??? You continue to undermine your own line of reasoning...

(sorry for the late quote, but just noticed this additional inherent incosistency...)

Beast wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
That's irrelevant however as there's nothing that changes the special rule of a model that joins a unit.

So then it is no longer "ALL rules purposes" is it??? You continue to undermine your own line of reasoning...

(sorry for the late quote, but just noticed this additional inherent incosistency...)

It absolutely is all rules purposes. Is there a rule that says all members of a unit must have the same special rules? Please cite one.
Is there a rule giving you permission to change special rules during a game? Please cite one.

Or are you continuing to misrepresent my argument? You've obviously failed to actually understand it if you're harping on this unarguable point.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:


Did you ignore my post or are you claiming that adding an IC(Same codex, same detatchment) to a Space Marine tactical squad allow me to retroactively assign 1 model a Heavy weapon?

ICS ALWAYS RETAIN THEIR OWN STATS, SPECIAL RULES, AND WARGEAR this is not hard to understand and any claims otherwise is either willful misinterpretation, or a sign that you should not be in YMDC at all.

Same comment to you Kel... If we take your line of reasoning, then logically the IC would be disallowed from using his own rules because he is a part of the "unit" "for ALL rules purposes" isn't he... That then takes us to the reality that there ARE additional rules and restrictions we must use (these would allow the IC to use his own rules and restrictions after joining the unit)... Therefore, if we are allowing additional rules and restrictions beyond just those of the unit itself, then you have to allow all of the rules and restrictions in the BRB... And the BB rules are included in that...

Edit spelling and grammar...

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry boys but you can't ahve your cake and eat it too... Nobody has ever managed it so to keep trying is folly... lol...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You guys are obviously not understanding the failure of your line of reasoning... So I'll leave you to your games... Have fun with them... The other 85% of the people out here will play "our way" with "ALL" of the rules... lol Cheers and no hard feelings...

Beast wrote:
If we take your line of reasoning, then logically the IC would be disallowed from using his own rules because they are a part of the "unit" "for ALL rules purposes" are they...

A statement which you've completely failed to supply rules support for. Please stop trolling and follow the tenets of YMDC.

rigeld2 wrote:

Beast wrote:
If we take your line of reasoning, then logically the IC would be disallowed from using his own rules because they are a part of the "unit" "for ALL rules purposes" are they...

A statement which you've completely failed to supply rules support for. Please stop trolling and follow the tenets of YMDC.

Repeatedly claiming someone is trolling you when they are just arguing against your POV is a form of trolling rigeld... Just so you know....

Beast wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Beast wrote:
If we take your line of reasoning, then logically the IC would be disallowed from using his own rules because they are a part of the "unit" "for ALL rules purposes" are they...

A statement which you've completely failed to supply rules support for. Please stop trolling and follow the tenets of YMDC.

Repeatedly claiming someone is trolling you when they are just arguing against your POV is a form of trolling rigeld... Just so you know....

At this point you have two options:

1) Provide rules support for your assertions.
2) Fail to provide rules support and instead keep saying "ALL rules purposes" "lol", etc. like it helps your argument. If you pick this one you're failing to contribute and choosing to do nothing but "poke" other people. That's pretty much the definition of trolling.

rigeld2 wrote:

Beast wrote:
If we take your line of reasoning, then logically the IC would be disallowed from using his own rules because they are a part of the "unit" "for ALL rules purposes" are they...

A statement which you've completely failed to supply rules support for. Please stop trolling and follow the tenets of YMDC.

I have no need to provide a rule for this because it wasn't my assertion, it was pointing out the fallacy of yours....

Beast wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:


Did you ignore my post or are you claiming that adding an IC(Same codex, same detatchment) to a Space Marine tactical squad allow me to retroactively assign 1 model a Heavy weapon?

ICS ALWAYS RETAIN THEIR OWN STATS, SPECIAL RULES, AND WARGEAR this is not hard to understand and any claims otherwise is either willful misinterpretation, or a sign that you should not be in YMDC at all.

Same comment to you Kel... If we take your line of reasoning, then logically the IC would be disallowed from using his own rules because he is a part of the "unit" "for ALL rules purposes" isn't he... That then takes us to the reality that there ARE additional rules and restrictions we must use (these would allow the IC to use his own rules and restrictions after joining the unit)... Therefore, if we are allowing additional rules and restrictions beyond just those of the unit itself, then you have to allow all of the rules and restrictions in the BRB... And the BB rules are included in that...

Edit spelling and grammar...

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry boys but you can't ahve your cake and eat it too... Nobody has ever managed it so to keep trying is folly... lol...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You guys are obviously not understanding the failure of your line of reasoning... So I'll leave you to your games... Have fun with them... The other 85% of the people out here will play "our way" with "ALL" of the rules... lol Cheers and no hard feelings...

Gotcha; you are of the willfully negligent camp.

I bolded and Capped my statement. If you cannot grasp the rules from such a blatant statement then you are also in the "Shouldn't be in YMDC" camp as well.

I never said the IC(BB or otherwise) Gains the rules of the models in the unit(although certain ICs joining Certain squads would be fricken awesome were this the case). Special rules, stas, and wargear in a unit entry only apply to the specified models.

rigeld2 wrote:

Beast wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Beast wrote:
If we take your line of reasoning, then logically the IC would be disallowed from using his own rules because they are a part of the "unit" "for ALL rules purposes" are they...

A statement which you've completely failed to supply rules support for. Please stop trolling and follow the tenets of YMDC.

Repeatedly claiming someone is trolling you when they are just arguing against your POV is a form of trolling rigeld... Just so you know....

At this point you have two options:

1) Provide rules support for your assertions.
2) Fail to provide rules support and instead keep saying "ALL rules purposes" "lol", etc. like it helps your argument. If you pick this one you're failing to contribute and choosing to do nothing but "poke" other people. That's pretty much the definition of trolling.

I have many more options that just the two you lsited here. The relevant rules have been posted ad naseum, so repeatedly reposting them is annoying to everyone... We all know what "for ALL rules purposes" refers to here... and lol is a term used to denote humor and levity in case you didn't know that.... So maybe you should try to be less emotional about this and more open to what other people are trying to tell you about your argument...??? So quit falsely accusing me of trolling you when I have repeatedly said I'm not and when my posts are aimed at your argument and not at your person...

Really done this time, no matter who trolls me with stupid gak.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Gotcha; you are of the willfully negligent camp.

I bolded and Capped my statement. If you cannot grasp the rules from such a blatant statement then you are also in the "Shouldn't be in YMDC" camp as well.

I never said the IC(BB or otherwise) Gains the rules of the models in the unit(although certain ICs joining Certain squads would be fricken awesome were this the case). Special rules, stas, and wargear in a unit entry only apply to the specified models.

Saying I am "willfully negligent" doesn't prove anything about your argument. It is merely inflamatory and I think you are a better debater than that Kel... Your posts here and in the original thread show that you want the IC to retain all of the benefits (rules) that he normally follows when he would join a unit from his allied detachment, but none of the restrictions... Sorry but most people (86% now...) see through your inherently inconsistent application of the rules... I can see how you might twist a loose reading of the rules to become what you desire, but the VAST majority of us out here happen to see the RAW as well... RAW....

But like I told rigeld, have fun (cuz that's what all this is about) and enjoy your games. I have no hard feelings after debating you over this... I hope you feel the same...

Edit for continued spelling silliness

Basically, the IC either becomes a part of the unit for all rules purposes or it does not. It either keeps its own rules (including Battle Brother which specifies no bording allied transports) or it loses its rules (including Battle Brother which is the rule that allows the model to join the unit in the first place). You can't pick and choose which rules it keeps and which it loseses.

So, either the IC remains a Battle Brother and can not board an Allied Transport or it loses Battle Brother and is no longer a valid member of the unit.

Or, you can stop and think about what is meant by being a member of a unit for all rules purposes. In 6th Edition there is a significant emphasis on individual models having individual rules within units but still needing to follow restrictions based on the unit. For example, units can have different movement rates, but still move at the speed of the slowest member. Likewise I can attach a model in terminator armour to a squad of Tactical Marines and the Tactical Marines could not Sweeping Advance or board a Rhino.

So based on precedent it is logical to determine that being a member of the unit for all rules purposes means that the IC still has all of its rules (including Battle Brother and its transport restrictions) but is subject to the rules of being a member of a unit with the other models (ie things like moving in coherrancy, targeting the same unit as the other models in the unit, not being targeted seperately from the unit and unit wound allocation) as modified by any individual rules held by the unit or the model.

The argument that the IC loses some of its rules (ie Battle Brother) by joining the unit goes against the precedent laid out in the system and so is clearly an incorrect interpretation of the phrasing of the statement about ICs becoming a member of the unit for all rules purposes.

As I and others have pointed out above, if joining the unit does remove rules, then it needs to remove them all as per the phrasing. Specific to this argument, as the BB rules are the ones that allow models chosen from an Allied Detachment to become members of the units of another detachment, then removing the rule would make the IC Ineligible to be a part of that unit.

So, the logical conclusion that an allied IC can board the transport of his allies just because he is joined to a squad is actually not that logical.

Obviously sergeants don't actually get to use that higher leadership - they're a member of a Tac Squad for all rules purposes, not a Tactical Sergeant Squad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jefffar wrote:
Basically, the IC either becomes a part of the unit for all rules purposes or it does not. It either keeps its own rules (including Battle Brother which specifies no bording allied transports) or it loses its rules (including Battle Brother which is the rule that allows the model to join the unit in the first place). You can't pick and choose which rules it keeps and which it loseses.

I'm not. Jesus tapdancing Christ - how about trying to understand the argument?!

What is the BB restriction on - a model or a unit? Answer that question before posting anything else please.

Beast wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Gotcha; you are of the willfully negligent camp.

I bolded and Capped my statement. If you cannot grasp the rules from such a blatant statement then you are also in the "Shouldn't be in YMDC" camp as well.

I never said the IC(BB or otherwise) Gains the rules of the models in the unit(although certain ICs joining Certain squads would be fricken awesome were this the case). Special rules, stas, and wargear in a unit entry only apply to the specified models.

Saying I am "willfully negligent" doesn't prove anything about your argument. It is merely inflamatory and I think you are a better debater than that Kel... Your posts here and in the original thread show that you want the IC to retain all of the benefits (rules) that he normally follows when he would join a unit from his allied detachment, but none of the restrictions... Sorry but most people (86% now...) see through your inherently inconsistent application of the rules... I can see how you might twist a loose reading of the rules to become what you desire, but the VAST majority of us out here happen to see the RAW as well... RAW....

But like I told rigeld, have fun (cuz that's what all this is about) and enjoy your games. I have no hard feelings after debating you over this... I hope you feel the same...

Edit for continued spelling silliness

So your position is that an Ethereal who joins a FW squad no longer has the IC, Invocation of the Elements, Failure is not an option, or stubborn rules; but instead has the supporting fire rule? He also no longer has the wargear purchased for him, but instead has Combat armour, Pulse rifle and Photon grenades right? Finally; what are his stats? WS2, BS3, S3, T3, W1, I2, A1, or 2? LD7, or 8? Sv 4+?

The Battle Brothers restriction on transport use is on all Battle Brothers. It never specifies if it applies unit by unit or model by model.

But I don't think that is the question you meant to ask. The Battle Brothers rule applies to all units in the Primary and Allied Detachments of an army that qualifies for the Battle Brothers level of alliance.

The battle brothers rules where you find that restriction specifies units.

If it does not fit the definition within those rules, those rules do not apply.

Read the thread.

That's what I said, I just gave a more complete answer.

No, you did not.

Battle brothers is defined as "Friendly units", those are what battle brothers in the rules contained refer to.

Is the IC a "Friendly unit" while joined to a squad?

Jefffar wrote:
The Battle Brothers restriction on transport use is on all Battle Brothers. It never specifies if it applies unit by unit or model by model.

The actual rules that have been repeatedly quoted disagree. Read the thread please and argue citing actual rules instead of what you want to pretend they say.

OK, it is time to start begging.

Will a Mod, please, please, PLEASE lock this thread. Just like before it going nowhere. Both sides have made their arguments. Whether or not a person believes the rules allow it, I don't see anyone actually claiming they play it that way let alone it is the intent of the authors. It also appears that people need to step back take a breath and remember It is a game of plastic (or metal/resin) soldiers.

I play it and claim it as intent.

But then all my armies are story-based.

 Happyjew wrote:
OK, it is time to start begging.

Will a Mod, please, please, PLEASE lock this thread. Just like before it going nowhere. Both sides have made their arguments. Whether or not a person believes the rules allow it, I don't see anyone actually claiming they play it that way let alone it is the intent of the authors. It also appears that people need to step back take a breath and remember It is a game of plastic (or metal/resin) soldiers.

Now that's a sentiment I can get behind... lol...

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No, you did not.

Battle brothers is defined as "Friendly units", those are what battle brothers in the rules contained refer to.

Is the IC a "Friendly unit" while joined to a squad?

Battle Brothers are also defined as a Level of Alliance.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No, you did not.

Battle brothers is defined as "Friendly units", those are what battle brothers in the rules contained refer to.

Is the IC a "Friendly unit" while joined to a squad?

Battle Brothers are also defined as a Level of Alliance.

And that definition has no relevant rules. The rule at question is tied to a "friendly unit".

I can't remember the exact wording on the rule for battle brothers and don't have my book with me at the moment, but doesn't it actually say that Battle brothers are treated as friendly units for the purposes of targeting and psychic powers? how does that part apply to them being "friendly units" for any other purpose?

FlyerMM wrote:
I can't remember the exact wording on the rule for battle brothers and don't have my book with me at the moment, but doesn't it actually say that Battle brothers are treated as friendly units for the purposes of targeting and psychic powers? how does that part apply to them being "friendly units" for any other purpose?

No, it doesn't say that.
It's been quoted before.

Until this is decided, don't put your ICs with battle brothers in a transport. You're only doing it because it helps you. So if you don't want to be TFG, don't do it until a FAQ miraculously says you can.

It is rarely all that beneficial.

II do it because it fits the narrative(Generally having Marines and guard allied).

If you're doing narrative based fluffy games then who cares really? By that I mean why not bend the rules, in multiple ways?

Otherwise, no. Don't do it. Wait for the snails at GW to get around to answering it in a FAQ.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No, you did not.

Battle brothers is defined as "Friendly units", those are what battle brothers in the rules contained refer to.

Is the IC a "Friendly unit" while joined to a squad?

Battle Brothers are also defined as a Level of Alliance.

And that definition has no relevant rules. The rule at question is tied to a "friendly unit".

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view" (112) The attached IC is still a BB...

rigeld2 wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
The Battle Brothers restriction on transport use is on all Battle Brothers. It never specifies if it applies unit by unit or model by model.

The actual rules that have been repeatedly quoted disagree. Read the thread please and argue citing actual rules instead of what you want to pretend they say.

The actual post that you quoted had more in it. Please read my post and argue citing what I actually said instead of what you want to pretend I said.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No, you did not.

Battle brothers is defined as "Friendly units", those are what battle brothers in the rules contained refer to.

Is the IC a "Friendly unit" while joined to a squad?

Battle Brothers are also defined as a Level of Alliance.

And that definition has no relevant rules. The rule at question is tied to a "friendly unit".

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view" (112) The attached IC is still a BB...

SO you are saying that the Attached IC is still a separate unit?

SuperNewb: Because I play by the rules. You can do both, especially in 6th edition.

Jefffar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
The Battle Brothers restriction on transport use is on all Battle Brothers. It never specifies if it applies unit by unit or model by model.

The actual rules that have been repeatedly quoted disagree. Read the thread please and argue citing actual rules instead of what you want to pretend they say.

The actual post that you quoted had more in it. Please read my post and argue citing what I actually said instead of what you want to pretend I said.

Jefffar wrote:
But I don't think that is the question you meant to ask. The Battle Brothers rule applies to all units in the Primary and Allied Detachments of an army that qualifies for the Battle Brothers level of alliance.

I ignored it because it was the question I meant to ask, and you answered it incorrectly.
To the rest of your post - pleas cite an actual rule saying that. You'd be the first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No, you did not.

Battle brothers is defined as "Friendly units", those are what battle brothers in the rules contained refer to.

Is the IC a "Friendly unit" while joined to a squad?

Battle Brothers are also defined as a Level of Alliance.

And that definition has no relevant rules. The rule at question is tied to a "friendly unit".

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view" (112) The attached IC is still a BB...

Citation required. If he's still a friendly unit I can target him independent of the unit he joined.
That's what you're asserting.

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view" (112)

Interesting.. That would mean I cannot shoot at my opponent his Battle Brothers since they count as friendly units 'from all points of view'. :(

 Kommissar Kel wrote:


SuperNewb: Because I play by the rules. You can do both, especially in 6th edition.

But this is massively in dispute right now. So unless you want to be TFG, perhaps you shouldn't try to get your opponents to go along with this?