So I have been thinking about the battle brothers and transports situation and decided to write out my thoughts to get things organized.
This is how I see this happening rules-wise:

During the pre-deployment phase of a battle you check if your army list(s) is legal. At this point several actions take place/rules trigger simultaneously.
All these events have the same time stamp(they all technically occur within the same micro-second. Humans can't physically do this of course, but rules are not restricted by these limitations)

- You declare whether or not you are using allies and what their relative status on the ally chart is(2nd part is an automated passive ability).

- You declare whether or not that an independent character is joining another unit and which one (within legal boundaries).
The battle brothers status allows an independent character to join a unit from an allied detachment
with the battle brothers rule on the allies chart (passive rules ability, allows for this situation to exist).

- The moment an independent character joins a unit it is considered part of this unit for ALL rules intents and purposes(passive ability).
This makes the independent character part of the unit(for better or for worse) until that character leaves the unit.
The independent character does not register as an independent unit as far as the rules are concerned and is as such absorbed into the host unit(for want of a better term). This does not create a new unit
but changes the status of the host unit to now exist with the IC as a joined model with it's own characteristics, special rules, status and wargear. The status of the IC at this point is checked at the model
level, not the unit level(he checks his status in regard to the other models in his host unit, not outside his unit as would any other model in his unit). (passive triggered rule).
This is [independent character] +[unit] = unit.. This applies to both allied and codex independent characters. This writing is for easy of reading alone, it does not suggest the creation of a new unit in
any way as explained below.

- At this point two sub unit realities exists: the unit with the character in it exists as one unit for all rules intents and purposes and within this unit also exists the sublayer [independent character,
battle brother] + [unit, battle brother]. Remember that the independent character rule states that the character is part of the unit for all rules intents and purposes.

- At the exact same moment(we are still within the same micro-second) you declare which independent characters join which unit(if any) you also
declare whether or not a unit will be embarked on their (dedicated)transport or not. This declaration is mandatory for the deployment process to be able to continue.

- When checking if a unit is allowed to embark a vehicle or be embarked on a vehicle the rules check whether or not this is a legal situation. The unit is allowed to embark when the following applies:
1. the unit is legally from the same force organisation chart/codex
2. there are no restrictions preventing the unit from entering such as equipment, size or special rules


- At this point the [independent character] +[unit] exists as unit. The independent character is subsumed in the sub universe of the unit and does not exist as a whole entity, but only as a subpart of
the bigger unit. It is legal for unit to be embarked upon/embark the transport vehicle.

This would conclude that the unit with the battle brother independent character is allowed to be embarked the transport.

Some notes
The moment this situation ceases to exist, for example the unit disembarks the vehicle but the independent character stays embarked, ergo the situation [independent character] +[unit] = unit seizes to exist, the independent character becomes a unit on its own again with all its rules including battle brothers, which triggers the rules that battle brothers can never be embarked om allied vehicles and thus creates an illegal situation.

This does not work the other way around as the unit would still have the status battlebrother in relation to the transport(so no daemons in rhino's for example)

In relation to gear and embarkation, remember that it is the gear that does not allow entry, not the character(for example, the character abaddon would be allowed to enter a rhino, the terminator armor that he is wearing as part of his wargear isn't. Theoretically an Abaddon in power armor would be allowed entry into the rhino after all)

Battle brothers is not a special rule such as say infiltrate. The independent character section is quite clear about special rules. Special rules are in the special rules section of the rulebook and in the special rules entry of the unit. Battle brothers is in a completely different part of the book.

I believe the rule was meant to prevent stuff like jain zar alone in a land raider from happening, not to prevent independent characters from somehow joining units(if they trust them enough to lead them into battle, why wouldn't they be allowed on their vehicle)

I do hope there will be an official faq for this soon and I won't have to ruleslawyer this much. Updated for clarity.

This has been discussed at grievous length way back when.

Don't care to read through fourteen pages of debate? There's a related poll to gauge community reaction here.

While there is intense debate about whether you are technically correct (I believe you are), 88% of the community disagrees. (Only 64% of 'no' respondents bothered to read the thread that started the issue, it should be pointed out.) It also bears mentioning that the arguments may have been persuasive, since the people who think allied ICs can NOT get on Battle Brother transports is 2.8 times as high as those who think they can, among people who didn't read the original thread, but among those who DID read the original thread, the people who voted no on ICs in BB transports rose to 5.4 times as high as their counterparts who voted yes.

Bottom line: even if you are correct on the way that the rule was intended, the community at large doesn't support such an interpretation.

You are incorrect. While the IC is part of the unit, it does possess a rule which prevents it from embarking on the transport, i.e a BB IC in the unit. It is no different than a 20-man unit with a transport that only holds 10 or a bike IC joined to the unit. There is a rule within the unit that doesn't allow it to embark while the IC is joined.

Aas has been stated... this has been discussed at length and ..... well....... ummm no.

 quickfuze wrote:
Aas has been stated... this has been discussed at length and ..... well....... ummm no.

An absolutely amazing and convincing rules based argument. I really love the way you cited support for your argument. Well done.


Yes, it's RAW legal, no I don't think it's intended (but it could be).

First of all, thanks for the reply's so far. As I said, this is primary because it has been bugging me for quite some time now

Jimsolo wrote:This has been discussed at grievous length way back when.

Don't care to read through fourteen pages of debate? There's a related poll to gauge community reaction here.

While there is intense debate about whether you are technically correct (I believe you are), 88% of the community disagrees. (Only 64% of 'no' respondents bothered to read the thread that started the issue, it should be pointed out.) It also bears mentioning that the arguments may have been persuasive, since the people who think allied ICs can NOT get on Battle Brother transports is 2.8 times as high as those who think they can, among people who didn't read the original thread, but among those who DID read the original thread, the people who voted no on ICs in BB transports rose to 5.4 times as high as their counterparts who voted yes.

Bottom line: even if you are correct on the way that the rule was intended, the community at large doesn't support such an interpretation.

The way I see it, this is what is says in the rulebook. I don't think certain power combo's were thought of when writing these rules, but that is not the issue here. I believe the community is actually wrong here on a technical level because their interpretation can not be found in the rulebook, while this is not an interpretation but RAW in the rulebook. I get that people don't want it, but the rules are the rules and until there is an official faq shouldn't we be following whats in the book, rather then an interpretation of the "spirit of the rules" (which is an abstract concept anyway and different for everyone)

I did read several forums considering this topic before figuring out my opinion but could not really find a proper worked out analysis of the rules so I made this and thought I'd share it.

Angelic wrote:You are incorrect. While the IC is part of the unit, it does possess a rule which prevents it from embarking on the transport, i.e a BB IC in the unit. It is no different than a 20-man unit with a transport that only holds 10 or a bike IC joined to the unit. There is a rule within the unit that doesn't allow it to embark while the IC is joined.

I edited my first post to reflect this, but in your examples it is not the character that prevents the situation from happening.

Problem people have are BB are specifically disallowed from embarking, and we are not given and guidance on how Allies rules are shared between a mix occupancy units etc. Some people feel BB 'status' is lost, some people feel BB 'status' remains, either way RAW is not clear, as no one know how this is handled either by the rules or how it is intended (which may have changed anyway with all the new rules…). Some people are adamant RAW is very clear that you cannot embark;
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/09/independent-characters-embarking-into.html

Personally, I don't like the idea of someone using a rule which allows them to join a unit, and then ignoring that same rule when trying to embark. The rule says IC's can join, blah blah, however not even BB embark on transport, while the rule is bulleted it is all one rule. but I wouldn’t be surprised if a FAQ came out either way, not sure even GW knows how they want to handle this atm.

-edit-
If the IC indeed retains his BB status, then the unit could not embark. If one model in a unit is restricted from entering the transport for any reason then a unit cannot embark - IC BB is not the only situation this can be an issue, some special characters are disallowed from entering certain vehicles and joining another unit does not then allow that unit to embark.

 Nem wrote:
Problem people have are BB are specifically disallowed from embarking, and we are not given and guidance on how Allies rules are shared between a mix occupancy units etc. Some people feel BB 'status' is lost, some people feel BB 'status' remains, either way RAW is not clear, as no one know how this is handled either by the rules or how it is intended (which may have changed anyway with all the new rules…). Some people are adamant RAW is very clear that you cannot embark;
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/09/independent-characters-embarking-into.html

Personally, I don't like the idea of someone using a rule which allows them to join a unit, and then ignoring that same rule when trying to embark. The rule says IC's can join, blah blah, however not even BB embark on transport, while the rule is bulleted it is all one rule. but I wouldn’t be surprised if a FAQ came out either way, not sure even GW knows how they want to handle this atm.

Although I completely agree that it might seem a bit weird, it really isn't. The IC and the unit never lose the battlebrothers status in regard to one another, but the rules clearly state the the IC becomes part of the unit for all rules intents and purposes. These rules are triggered at exactly the same moment(they have the same timestamp). The unit does not have the battle brother status in regard to the transport(and the transport does not have the battle brothers status in regard to the unit) and therefor is allowed to embark. Battle brothers is not a special rule and thus not conferred unto the unit when the IC joins it.

 Xarin wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Problem people have are BB are specifically disallowed from embarking, and we are not given and guidance on how Allies rules are shared between a mix occupancy units etc. Some people feel BB 'status' is lost, some people feel BB 'status' remains, either way RAW is not clear, as no one know how this is handled either by the rules or how it is intended (which may have changed anyway with all the new rules…). Some people are adamant RAW is very clear that you cannot embark;
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/09/independent-characters-embarking-into.html

Personally, I don't like the idea of someone using a rule which allows them to join a unit, and then ignoring that same rule when trying to embark. The rule says IC's can join, blah blah, however not even BB embark on transport, while the rule is bulleted it is all one rule. but I wouldn’t be surprised if a FAQ came out either way, not sure even GW knows how they want to handle this atm.

Although I completely agree that it might seem a bit weird, it really isn't. The IC and the unit never lose the battlebrothers status in regard to one another, but the rules clearly state the the IC becomes part of the unit for all rules intents and purposes. These rules are triggered at exactly the same moment(they have the same timestamp). The unit does not have the battle brother status in regard to the transport(and the transport does not have the battle brothers status in regard to the unit) and therefor is allowed to embark. Battle brothers is not a special rule and thus not conferred unto the unit when the IC joins it.

I'm not saying I find it weird, I am saying when looking at RAW, people have very different views on this subject- maybe more venomously split than most rule debates and everyone makes good arguments either way.

For example, I agree it’s not a special rule and not conferred, but where does anything say you ignore the restrictions the IC has? If the IC still has BB status then the unit cannot embark as one model is restricted (see edit in my last post).

like I've said several times now, you actually don't ignore the bb status of the ic, but it is not part of the check for embarkation as the IC is part of the unit for ALL rules purposes at that point, this is in the book.

 Xarin wrote:
like I've said several times now, you actually don't ignore the bb status of the ic, but it is not part of the check for embarkation as the IC is part of the unit for ALL rules purposes at that point, this is in the book.

Right, as he is part of the unit, and when the unit checks if it can embark, how can you ignore the IC as he is part of the unit?

As I have said this issue has come up previously with a character before who could not embark on a specific transport, and joining a unit which was not restricted did not change the fact he could not embark, as a result the unit could not embark... When checking if the unit can or cannot take an action, every part of that unit and the rules on each model are included, he is part of the unit for all rule purposes - and the unit accounts for rules on all models which are part of it when taking a unit related action, another instance might be charging, if the IC has a different charge speed it can potentionally slow the charge down - the IC does not just charge at the same pace as the rest of the unit... Models can have different rules, and the IC's rules for movement etc do not disappear because he joined a unit where the models have a different movement speed to him. If you need more examples, the link and other posts on Dakka put forward a multitude of examples where a unit can't do something, becuase the IC that just joined can't. Being part of the unit means you must use the IC's rules and restrictions, rather than meaning you can ignore them.

Which is why I suggest the main point is whether a BB loses his status or not, if the status and restrictions remain RAW we know the unit cannot embark. There is conflict in the rule as to what the allied status is attached to, the first is the BRB is relationship is determined by detachment, the rules for alliances in the BRB mostly mention 'units of', but not in all circumstances. Codex Inq says allies relationships are between models, which is inconsistent wording throughout the current rule set.

The rules are so inconsistant you will find a home brew FAQ at all tournaments on this subject - and this was before INQ and formations came a muddied the water further.

The IC can't lose his BB status, because then it would be ineligible to join the unit. It must be a BB to be part of the unit. Besides, there are no rules saying that anything the IC has is lost when joining he unit. It just happens to gain additional rules. In any event, it seems a new discussion would be pointless.

Might I ask which character this was as I have no idea who you are referring to(and such, how relevant he is to this situation). Also, I just hope for a faq at some point, but so far GW doesn't seem to have the need to change the wording of the book

and I feel you are missing the point here a bit. Nothing is ignored, it simply does not apply to the situation as the triggers for the situations never occur(I am running out of ways to explain this by now). You don't check for what is not there and the rules say that it is not. The unit does not have battle brothers in regards to the vehicle so the situation does not occur because at that point the IC does not exist as a seperate entity because he is completely part of the unit at that point.

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters. That's characters, so no different within in unit perspective then a veteran sergeant, his status as an IC only triggers when additional rules like "look out sir", or certain weaponry ask for it and only apply to that trigger, otherwise you could always snipe an IC in the middle of a unit)

 Xarin wrote:
Might I ask which character this was as I have no idea who you are referring to(and such, how relevant he is to this situation)

and I feel you are missing the point here a bit. Nothing is ignored, it simply does not apply to the situation as the triggers for the situations never occur(I am running out of ways to explain this by now). You don't check for what is not there and the rules say that it is not. The unit does not have battle brothers in regards to the vehicle so the situation does not occur because at that point the IC does not exist as a seperate entity because he is completely part of the unit at that point.

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters. That's characters, so no different within in unit perspective then a veteran sergeant, his status as an IC only triggers when additional rules like "look out sir", or certain weaponry ask for it and only apply to that trigger, otherwise you could always snipe an IC in the middle a unit)

I get your point 100%. Your saying the unit can, so the IC rules as the unit would have, and that alliances are unit based rules.

I can't remember which character it is now at this spercific point in time, but there are other examples such as...

-A IC pops from a Rhino, and joins a unit of Assault Marines which have not yet moved, they later wish to assault - While the 'unit' has not disembarked and are able to assault - actually they can not. As that IC can not charge, the unit can not charge. It doesn't remove the restriction from the model.
-You can attach a Terminator IC to a squad of power armor. If the unit wants to embark on a Rhino, it can't unless the IC leaves, even though the 'unit' can.

You get the idea, a IC which can't do something will prevent a unit which can from performing that action.


As for BB unit, the restriction on transports is...

not even battle brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles

. Nothing about units or models or detachments in that part.... As per my last post we have RAW examples of Alliance relationships being between Detachments, Units and Models, which is where the problem lies.

I get your point 100%. Your saying the unit can, so the IC rules as the unit would have, and that alliances are unit based rules.

Actually, that's not what I'm saying

actually both situations are completely different.

-A IC pops from a Rhino, and joins a unit of Assault Marines which have not yet moved, they later wish to assault - While the 'unit' has not disembarked and are able to assault - actually they can not. As that IC can not charge, the unit can not charge. It doesn't remove the restriction from the model.

The IC joining in has, by his previous actions, triggered a situation which prevents the charge from happening. This is a completely different check(and happens under completely different circumstances) then checking the "allied"status of a unit


-You can attach a Terminator IC to a squad of power armor. If the unit wants to embark on a Rhino, it can't unless the IC leaves, even though the 'unit' can.
As said, it is the gear that prevents it, not the character

You get the idea, a IC which can't do something will prevent a unit which can from performing that action.


As for BB unit, the restriction on transports is...

not even battle brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles

. Nothing about units or models or detachments in that part.... As per my last post we have RAW examples of Alliance relationships being between Detachments, Units and Models, which is where the problem lies.

Angelic wrote:
The IC can't lose his BB status, because then it would be ineligible to join the unit.

No, it wouldn't.

Ignore the BB rules. Now, cite denial to join a unit - I can cite permission on page 39.

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
The IC can't lose his BB status, because then it would be ineligible to join the unit.

No, it wouldn't.

Ignore the BB rules. Now, cite denial to join a unit - I can cite permission on page 39.

If you ignore Alliance rules then you don't know if that detachment is friendly or not - and a IC can only join by ''moving within 2'' unit coherency distance of a friendly unit'', without BB rules he doesn't have permission by page 39, as it's the BB rules which state they are friendly units.

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
The IC can't lose his BB status, because then it would be ineligible to join the unit.

No, it wouldn't.

Ignore the BB rules. Now, cite denial to join a unit - I can cite permission on page 39.

If you ignore Alliance rules then you don't know if that detachment is friendly or not - and a IC can only join by ''moving within 2'' unit coherency distance of a friendly unit'', without BB rules he doesn't have permission by page 39, as it's the BB rules which state they are friendly units.

Please define a friendly unit using the rules.

Restrictions are restrictions and are not ignored unless specifically stated. Here's a simple example I think someone already gave.

If a Lord in Terminator armor joins a unit in power armor the unit cannot embark in a Rhino. Even though he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

The rules say models in terminator armor cannot embark in a rhino/razorback.

The rules say Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transports.

So while he does count as part of the unit for all rules purposes at no time does he not count also as a Battle Brother, or not in terminator armor, etc.

So no, no, and no.

The confusion comes from the counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes. That means exactly what is written he counts (all of his rules, rules applied to him, wargear, restrictions, etc) as part of the unit.

It does not give permission in any way to then ignore the independent characters rules because he has joined a squad.

Wagguy80 wrote:
Restrictions are restrictions and are not ignored unless specifically stated.

Absolutely agreed.

If a Lord in Terminator armor joins a unit in power armor the unit cannot embark in a Rhino. Even though he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

The rules say models in terminator armor cannot embark in a rhino/razorback.

Right. The individual model has a rule that forbids the entire unit from embarking. Not a relevant example.

The rules say Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transports.

So while he does count as part of the unit for all rules purposes at no time does he not count also as a Battle Brother.

Demonstrably false. I've proven it before and been told "NUH UH" as evidence I'm wrong. Sorry - you'll need more than that.

BB status is tied to units.

p112 wrote:Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view.

An IC is no longer a unit by himself when he joins a unit.
If the IC is no longer a unit he cannot be a BB.

So no, no, and no.

Another well cited post in this thread. Well done.

No he "counts as" part of the unit. He is not however discounted. IE special rules, etc that affect him are not ignored because he is now part of another unit.

So by your logic...

If I allied Space marines with Tau, and Eldar. I could attach a Farseer which is a battle brother to Tau and he becomes "part of that unit". And since now he's a Tau unit and not an Eldar unit since he has joined a Tau unit.

Any farseer powers that "affect friendly units" would also affect the Space Marines because they are battle brothers to Tau, and the Eldar Farseer has joined a Tau squad so he no longer counts as being Eldar since he has become part of a Tau unit not.

Wagguy80 wrote:
No he "counts as" part of the unit. He is not however discounted. IE special rules, etc that affect him are not ignored because he is now part of another unit.

He is part of the unit. I've never said to discount him for anything. Perhaps you'd like to actually read and respond to what I'm saying rather than what you think I'm saying?

Only a unit can be a BB. An IC joined to a unit is not himself a unit and therefore cannot be a BB. I've cited evidence - I expect the same respect.

Wagguy80 wrote:
No he "counts as" part of the unit. He is not however discounted. IE special rules, etc that affect him are not ignored because he is now part of another unit.

So by your logic...

If I allied Space marines with Tau, and Eldar. I could attach a Farseer which is a battle brother to Tau and he becomes "part of that unit". And since now he's a Tau unit and not an Eldar unit since he has joined a Tau unit.

Any farseer powers that "affect friendly units" would also affect the Space Marines because they are battle brothers to Tau, and the Eldar Farseer has joined a Tau squad so he no longer counts as being Eldar since he has become part of a Tau unit not.

"counts as", so as far as the rules are concerned he is part of the unit an not seen as separate. The unit "IC" does not exist at the point of checking restrictions as has been thoroughly described in my first post

the second part of your post doesn't make any sense, please read what is said before replying.

Your discounting that he is from a allied detachment.

Neither of us are, again please read before replying

Wagguy80 wrote:
Your discounting that he is from a allied detachment.

You've failed to actually understand the argument. Please re-read and try again.

Well if your not discounting he is an ally then he cannot embark on the transport.

Because in order to do that he would no longer count as a unit from the detachment he came from.

So my example was accurate. By your rules reasoning If an Eldar Farseer joins a Tau Firewarrior squad he no longer counts as an ally. He counts as Tau and can get on their transport.

Otherwise he can't get on their transport.

Also since he counts as Tau now and not Eldar his psychic powers that affect "friendly" models will affect Space Marines .
Since Space Marines and Tau are battle brothers. Even though Space Marines, and Eldar are not battle brothers.

Edit and I see your arguement your trying to pretend like this is some computer program with specific checks and it's not. It's a tabletop game, and they either meet all requirements or they cannot do it.

IF he is a battle brother he can't get on the transport. Can the unit get on the transport? Yes Is there anything preventing them from getting on the transport? YES THERE IS A BATTLE BROTHER WITH THEM

Wagguy80 wrote:
Well if your not discounting he is an ally then he cannot embark on the transport.

You need to word your statements more precisely.

Because in order to do that he would no longer count as a unit from the detachment he came from.

Correct - he does not.

So my example was accurate. By your rules reasoning If an Eldar Farseer joins a Tau Firewarrior squad he no longer counts as an ally. He counts as Tau and can get on their transport.

He doesn't "count as Tau" - he's a member of a Tau unit for all rules purposes and can therefore embark.

Also since he counts as Tau now and not Eldar his psychic powers that affect "friendly" models will affect Space Marines .
Since Space Marines and Tau are battle brothers. Even though Space Marines, and Eldar are not battle brothers.

Correct - once he joins any unit the BB restrictions are lifted.

Wow just wow.

Try it at a tournament and see what happens. I'm out. lol

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
The IC can't lose his BB status, because then it would be ineligible to join the unit.

No, it wouldn't.

Ignore the BB rules. Now, cite denial to join a unit - I can cite permission on page 39.

If you ignore Alliance rules then you don't know if that detachment is friendly or not - and a IC can only join by ''moving within 2'' unit coherency distance of a friendly unit'', without BB rules he doesn't have permission by page 39, as it's the BB rules which state they are friendly units.

Please define a friendly unit using the rules.

There is no neat definition in the rule book, best I could do is 'as opposed to your enemy'. (As far as I know). The point is if you ignore the rules for allies the situation doesn't exist - you don't have allies to be able to join.

rigeld2 wrote:

Wagguy80 wrote:
No he "counts as" part of the unit. He is not however discounted. IE special rules, etc that affect him are not ignored because he is now part of another unit.

He is part of the unit. I've never said to discount him for anything. Perhaps you'd like to actually read and respond to what I'm saying rather than what you think I'm saying?

Only a unit can be a BB. An IC joined to a unit is not himself a unit and therefore cannot be a BB. I've cited evidence - I expect the same respect.

--

I understand some areas of the rule's for allies mention units. In the all the levels of alliance some area's mention units (Notably, for items which can only be 'unit' such as shooting etc) and some don't, the particular check for embarking doesn't mention units at all - that particular rule in itself does not require it to be a unit of BB's (and a lot of them do), only that BB's cannot embark, not a unit of BB's cannot embark. We know what a Battle Brother is, using the Allies matrix. Just because we are told we treat the detachment like friendly units, does not mean every single rule then listed must be unit based, this is especially true as all a unit is - is a group of models.

I would be inclined to agree quicker 'Unit' was the only way GW has written rules for Allies, and Allied relationships, but they have not. We are told we know what level of alliance they are by detachment in the BRB, and in Codex; INQ the rules say allied relationships are between models. This leaves us at three levels how Allies act, by Detachment, Unit and Model. Really if you say detachment, that covers all three, detachments are comprised of units, and units are comprised of models. With these many rules, it's not illogical to say being it's own unit has nothing to do with this particular rule, as this rule only requires that a Battle Brother does not embark on an allied transport.

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
The IC can't lose his BB status, because then it would be ineligible to join the unit.

No, it wouldn't.

Ignore the BB rules. Now, cite denial to join a unit - I can cite permission on page 39.

If you ignore Alliance rules then you don't know if that detachment is friendly or not - and a IC can only join by ''moving within 2'' unit coherency distance of a friendly unit'', without BB rules he doesn't have permission by page 39, as it's the BB rules which state they are friendly units.

Please define a friendly unit using the rules.

There is no neat definition in the rule book, best I could do is 'as opposed to your enemy'. (As far as I know). The point is if you ignore the rules for allies the situation doesn't exist - you don't have allies to be able to join.

Correct - there isn't a neat definition, and "as opposed to your enemy" is the best we can do. A model that you selected as part of your army list is not your enemy and is therefore ... ?
If you remove the BB rules from the model it's still a friendly model, meaning it can join units just fine.

rigeld2 wrote:

Wagguy80 wrote:
No he "counts as" part of the unit. He is not however discounted. IE special rules, etc that affect him are not ignored because he is now part of another unit.

He is part of the unit. I've never said to discount him for anything. Perhaps you'd like to actually read and respond to what I'm saying rather than what you think I'm saying?

Only a unit can be a BB. An IC joined to a unit is not himself a unit and therefore cannot be a BB. I've cited evidence - I expect the same respect.

I understand some areas of the rule's for allies mention units. In the all the levels of alliance some area's mention units (Notably, for items which can only be 'unit' such as shooting etc) and some don't, the particular check for embarking doesn't mention units at all - that particular rule in itself does not require it to be a unit of BB's (and a lot of them do), only that BB's cannot embark, not a unit of BB's cannot embark. We know what a Battle Brother is, using the Allies matrix. Just because we are told we treat the detachment like friendly units, does not mean every single rule then listed must be unit based, this is especially true as all a unit is - is a group of models.

You must have misread the rule - "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view." This means that Battle Brothers are friendly units. This means that things that are not friendly units cannot be Battle Brothers. If an IC is not a unit, can he be a friendly unit?
The bullet points below that sentence define what the sentence means - meaning they apply to Battle Brothers that are friendly units.

I would be inclined to agree quicker 'Unit' was the only way GW has written rules for Allies, and Allied relationships, but they have not. We are told we know what level of alliance they are by detachment in the BRB, and in Codex; INQ the rules say allied relationships are between models. This leaves us at three levels how Allies act, by Detachment, Unit and Model. Really if you say detachment, that covers all three, detachments are comprised of units, and units are comprised of models.

Great! Now - the Battle Brother rule in question... does it apply to units specifically or not? According to my BRB, it applies solely to Battle Brother friendly units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wagguy80 wrote:Wow just wow.

Try it at a tournament and see what happens. I'm out. lol

You really did fail to read the thread.

rigeld2 wrote:Yes, it's RAW legal, no I don't think it's intended (but it could be).

Wagguy80 wrote:

Edit and I see your arguement your trying to pretend like this is some computer program with specific checks and it's not. It's a tabletop game, and they either meet all requirements or they cannot do it.

IF he is a battle brother he can't get on the transport. Can the unit get on the transport? Yes Is there anything preventing them from getting on the transport? YES THERE IS A BATTLE BROTHER WITH THEM

Actually that is the way all rule systems work in this universe, from poker to Catan to soccer and to anything else. I've just described it in more detail then is in normal rulebooks. Also your sentences after that actually confirm this seeing as whether or not the requirements are checked means there must be moments where this check happens. Seeing as situations can change constantly, these checks actually happen every moment of the game. As an example for the difference in rulebooks give the "normal" magic rulebook and the complete magic rulebook, same rules, just way more detailed.

I had been thinking of rehashing this subject since Codex inquisition came out.

An IG unit, a Tau IC and an inquisitor all can be joined because the the IG unit is BB to both Tau IC and Inquisitor.

It is the nature of the unit not being changed when a Desperate Ally has joined to it.

In a similar manner the IG unit with an inquisitor attached is not an allied unit to the Vendetta they are trying to embark upon(or more accurately, the vendetta is not an allied transport to the IG unit)

It is a shame that there is no clear definition on friendly unit, so we must use the process of exclusion instead, but "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view." This means that Battle Brothers are friendly units. This means that things that are not friendly units cannot be Battle Brothers. If an IC is not a unit, can he be a friendly unit? sums it up.

Also don't forget that IC are units in their codex descriptions. However, they are not this unit when they join another unit(BB or not) but are instead part of the other unit.

Also, it would make the most sense to have the rules from codex:inquistion only apply to those units mentioned there, as it is part of the codex and not the BRB. If the wording is different in there, I don't know as I don't own that codex, then that is a completely different situation only applying when that codex is used. The rules discussion for this codex probably requires a whole topic of its own as it is a new and, at least for the moment, stand alone situation

Ok I have looked at several scenario's because GW's rules are so blurry.

I'm now going to agree with you. IC's that are battle brothers can embark or be deployed in allied transports.

Why not if GW allows the riptide thing. This allows for all sorts of craziness however.

I'm going to assume the reason for the rules is a Farseer could join some Firewarriors and embark on a Devilfish.
However they could not Embark on a Wave Serpent.

Luckily for psychic powers, and orders most of them now state the specific codex they affect.

side note:

At a tournament your still open for a rules debate and still at the whim of whatever just comes over to make the call. So I wouldn't try anything debate worthy in a tournament. I've had some of the dumbest rules calls ever come from official GW redshirts.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
The IC can't lose his BB status, because then it would be ineligible to join the unit.

No, it wouldn't.

Ignore the BB rules. Now, cite denial to join a unit - I can cite permission on page 39.

If you ignore Alliance rules then you don't know if that detachment is friendly or not - and a IC can only join by ''moving within 2'' unit coherency distance of a friendly unit'', without BB rules he doesn't have permission by page 39, as it's the BB rules which state they are friendly units.

Please define a friendly unit using the rules.

There is no neat definition in the rule book, best I could do is 'as opposed to your enemy'. (As far as I know). The point is if you ignore the rules for allies the situation doesn't exist - you don't have allies to be able to join.

Correct - there isn't a neat definition, and "as opposed to your enemy" is the best we can do. A model that you selected as part of your army list is not your enemy and is therefore ... ?
If you remove the BB rules from the model it's still a friendly model, meaning it can join units just fine.

rigeld2 wrote:

Wagguy80 wrote:
No he "counts as" part of the unit. He is not however discounted. IE special rules, etc that affect him are not ignored because he is now part of another unit.

He is part of the unit. I've never said to discount him for anything. Perhaps you'd like to actually read and respond to what I'm saying rather than what you think I'm saying?

Only a unit can be a BB. An IC joined to a unit is not himself a unit and therefore cannot be a BB. I've cited evidence - I expect the same respect.

I understand some areas of the rule's for allies mention units. In the all the levels of alliance some area's mention units (Notably, for items which can only be 'unit' such as shooting etc) and some don't, the particular check for embarking doesn't mention units at all - that particular rule in itself does not require it to be a unit of BB's (and a lot of them do), only that BB's cannot embark, not a unit of BB's cannot embark. We know what a Battle Brother is, using the Allies matrix. Just because we are told we treat the detachment like friendly units, does not mean every single rule then listed must be unit based, this is especially true as all a unit is - is a group of models.

You must have misread the rule - "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view." This means that Battle Brothers are friendly units. This means that things that are not friendly units cannot be Battle Brothers. If an IC is not a unit, can he be a friendly unit?
The bullet points below that sentence define what the sentence means - meaning they apply to Battle Brothers that are friendly units.

I would be inclined to agree quicker 'Unit' was the only way GW has written rules for Allies, and Allied relationships, but they have not. We are told we know what level of alliance they are by detachment in the BRB, and in Codex; INQ the rules say allied relationships are between models. This leaves us at three levels how Allies act, by Detachment, Unit and Model. Really if you say detachment, that covers all three, detachments are comprised of units, and units are comprised of models.

Great! Now - the Battle Brother rule in question... does it apply to units specifically or not? According to my BRB, it applies solely to Battle Brother friendly units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wagguy80 wrote:Wow just wow.

Try it at a tournament and see what happens. I'm out. lol

You really did fail to read the thread.

rigeld2 wrote:Yes, it's RAW legal, no I don't think it's intended (but it could be).

My BRB says levels of alliance are by detachment.

... Codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix, then find the column for the codex of your potential allies at the top of the matrix. You'll find the levels of alliance....

So Space Marine and Tau are Battle Brothers. The detachment of Space Marines, and the detachment of Tau are Battle Brothers. Everything in that detachment is a BB to the other. NOw we know they are BB we move on to what this means...

Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units'

OK fine, As you said, its not a full unit of Battle Brothers so we have no need to further know we need to treat them as friendly units.... This really isn't defining what a BB is, its defining how the detachments treat BB's in the game. BB has already been determined by this point by detachment.

This means;
Can be joined by IC's
Counted as friendly units for powers ect.

However, not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles

Now, it doesn't say a unit of BB can not embark. It says Battle Brothers, we know a they are Battle Brothers because the rules tell us so. The bit about units does not say your only a BB if your in a BB unit. It says BB's are treated as friendly units. We can even go on to say in context that means Units of BB are friendly units, you don't treat a whole detachment like one big friendly unit. This part of the rule doesn't care what unit you are in, or if your units friendly, enemy, purple. A Battle Brother can not embark in an allied transport. That SM man is still a Battle Brother, and the Tau vehicle is still an allied transport.

Yet another case of a rules loophole where the 'core rules' both disallow (BBs can't embark) and allow (ICs count as the unit) in a vicious circle....and they refuse to FAQ it.

RAW, I think it is a circle jerk.

RAI, I think it is demonstrably no.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I had been thinking of rehashing this subject since Codex inquisition came out.

An IG unit, a Tau IC and an inquisitor all can be joined because the the IG unit is BB to both Tau IC and Inquisitor.

It is the nature of the unit not being changed when a Desperate Ally has joined to it.

In a similar manner the IG unit with an inquisitor attached is not an allied unit to the Vendetta they are trying to embark upon(or more accurately, the vendetta is not an allied transport to the IG unit)

Again there are a few problems here, mainly that INQ goes further than the rule book and explains (at least their own) alliance levels are between models - In which case they can not as this destroys the 'unit' based alliances altogether. Intended or not? IDK. It just seems to be further in a list of inconsistencies and trying to write new rules in, especially a third detachment which is not supported by the basic rules in the first place. The whole section needs some rework. (6.5 anyone?)

I like you Nem for the simple reason your the only person who caught that RAW it says "Battle Brothers" and not units of battle brothers.

I read it like 5 times at least digging to see one way or the other. Initially being against because it seems so broken (not necessarily transports but because of other possible combinations).

 Nem wrote:

My BRB says levels of alliance are by detachment.

... Codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix, then find the column for the codex of your potential allies at the top of the matrix. You'll find the levels of alliance....

So Space Marine and Tau are Battle Brothers. The detachment of Space Marines, and the detachment of Tau are Battle Brothers. Everything in that detachment is a BB to the other. NOw we know they are BB we move on to what this means...

Great - so we agree that they are allies to each other and that what this means is defined later on - by itself it means nothing.

Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units'

OK fine, As you said, its not a full unit of Battle Brothers so we have no need to further know we need to treat them as friendly units.... This really isn't defining what a BB is, its defining how the detachments treat BB's in the game. BB has already been determined by this point by detachment.

It's defining, using rules, what being a BB means.

However, not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles

Now, it doesn't say a unit of BB can not embark.

Oops - that's where you're wrong. It says, and I'll quote the entire thing so I'm not accused of taking things out of context,

Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:
• Can be joined by allied Independent Characters.
• Are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of
psychic powers,abilities and so on.
• However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in
allied transport vehicles.

Now - we know that the 3 bullet points are consequences/definitions of what it means, rules wise, to be a Battle Brother.
We also know that Battle Brothers are friendly units.
Which means that an entity that is not a unit cannot be held to those rules. Just like a Bike model is not held to the rules of Infantry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wagguy80 wrote:
I like you Nem for the simple reason your the only person who caught that RAW it says "Battle Brothers" and not units of battle brothers.

It does say units of Battle Brothers by defining BB as a friendly unit. A = B. If you cannot be B you cannot be A. Simple fact.

Initially being against because it seems so broken (not necessarily transports but because of other possible combinations).

Never a good way to look at a rules argument.

Here is a simple question to consider: I join my Tau Commander to a unit of Space Marine Centurions. Which detachment do they now count as part of, the primary, the allied, both or neither? Without knowing which detachment the mixed unit is part of, we cannot determine what constitutes an "allied transport vehicle." Hence, RAW I think you end up at a stale mate as RAW never defines the relationship of a mixed unit to the remainder of the army.

Correction: Does not define the relationship of the mixed unit beyond friendly, but not with enough specificity to determine what constitutes an "allied" vehicle.

PanzerLeader wrote:
Here is a simple question to consider: I join my Tau Commander to a unit of Space Marine Centurions. Which detachment do they now count as part of, the primary, the allied, both or neither? Without knowing which detachment the mixed unit is part of, we cannot determine what constitutes an "allied transport vehicle." Hence, RAW I think you end up at a stale mate as RAW never defines the relationship of a mixed unit to the remainder of the army.

The Commander joins the Centurion unit. Meaning the unit (as a whole) is a Space Marine unit for all rules purposes.

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:
Here is a simple question to consider: I join my Tau Commander to a unit of Space Marine Centurions. Which detachment do they now count as part of, the primary, the allied, both or neither? Without knowing which detachment the mixed unit is part of, we cannot determine what constitutes an "allied transport vehicle." Hence, RAW I think you end up at a stale mate as RAW never defines the relationship of a mixed unit to the remainder of the army.

The Commander joins the Centurion unit. Meaning the unit (as a whole) is a Space Marine unit for all rules purposes.

I want to agree with you because it makes intuitive sense, but where is this actually defined? Using the Battle Brothers frame work, I had a friendly Tau unit that joined a friendly Space Marine unit to create a new "friendly" unit. The friendly unit consists of models from both my primary and allied detachment. Nowhere in RAW does it explicitly define which detachment the new unit belongs to. The unit consists of models chosen from Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Tau and nowhere are we told which takes precedence for determing how to treat it.

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:
Here is a simple question to consider: I join my Tau Commander to a unit of Space Marine Centurions. Which detachment do they now count as part of, the primary, the allied, both or neither? Without knowing which detachment the mixed unit is part of, we cannot determine what constitutes an "allied transport vehicle." Hence, RAW I think you end up at a stale mate as RAW never defines the relationship of a mixed unit to the remainder of the army.

The Commander joins the Centurion unit. Meaning the unit (as a whole) is a Space Marine unit for all rules purposes.

I want to agree with you because it makes intuitive sense, but where is this actually defined? Using the Battle Brothers frame work, I had a friendly Tau unit that joined a friendly Space Marine unit to create a new "friendly" unit. The friendly unit consists of models from both my primary and allied detachment. Nowhere in RAW does it explicitly define which detachment the new unit belongs to. The unit consists of models chosen from Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Tau and nowhere are we told which takes precedence for determing how to treat it.

We are told on page 39 that the IC joins the unit and is a member of the unit for all rules purposes.
All. Not most. So treating the unit as anything but a Centurion unit would not be treating the IC as a member of the unit for all rules purposes, ie breaking a rule.

RAW its illegal, the UNIT does not have permission to embark, the MODELS in the unit, not including the BB, do

now when you join the IC, who is part of the unit for ALL rules purploses, you have a unit with 10 MODELS that are allowed to embark, and one modell NOT allowed to embark by the BB rules.

bering part of the UNIT for all purposes, is NOT the permission you keep insisting it is rigel, it is in fact just further supportive that the IC cannot embark.

since the IC is part of the UNIT for ALL purposes, and the IC cannot embark, then for the purpose of embarking, its part of the unit, so the unit may not embark.


mainly because the UNIT has no permission to embark, the models do, when a unit has 10 models with permission to embark, and one model that is by name a BB and NOT allowed to embark, you cannot embark.

that is being part of the unit for all rules purposes, there is no RAW that agrees with putting BB into transports,

just people who desparately WANT to put a BB into a transport, despite the CLEAR RAW from BRB

not even BB can embark in allied transports

they are called out by name as unable to embark, by model,

being part of a unit, in no way changes the status of the model, nor does being part of a unit grant models that are banned from embarkation, permission to embark.

 easysauce wrote:
RAW its illegal, the UNIT does not have permission to embark, the MODELS in the unit, not including the BB, do

It's obvious you haven't actually read the thread. I'll decline to respond until you do.

just people who desparately WANT to put a BB into a transport, despite the CLEAR RAW from BRB

Insinuating bias is quite rude, doubly so when I play Tyranids who have neither allies nor transports.

RAW is 100% BB cannot embark in allied transports.

RAW is 100% that a biker cannot embark in transports.


so if a BIker IC joins a unit, for ALL purposes, it still cannot embark, because now PART OF THE UNIT FOR ALL PURPOSES cannot embark.

nothing about being"part of" the unit, over rides the specific restriction on bikes in transports

so if a BB IC joins a unit, for ALL purposes, it still cannot embark, because now PART OF THE UNIT FOR ALL PURPOSES cannot embark.

nothing about being"part of" the unit, over rides the specific restriction on BB's in transports

a unit may only embark if all the models in that unit have permission to embark, so when a model, added to a unit, has a specific restriction on embarking, it is now part of that unit for all purposes, including determining embarkation privileges. and as with bikers and BB's, since one model in the unit cannot embark, the whole unit cannot embark.

the BRB

BB cannot embark in allied transports

is in no way over ridded by the IC rule, you are completely mis interpreting/reading the IC rule and giving it powers it just does not have.

by your "logic" that biker can now embark as well, despite the specific restriction on the model, simply because its "part of a unit"...

 easysauce wrote:
by your "logic" that biker can now embark as well, despite the specific restriction on the model, simply because its "part of a unit"...

This statement proves you either have not read the thread or you are misunderstanding the argument.

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:
Here is a simple question to consider: I join my Tau Commander to a unit of Space Marine Centurions. Which detachment do they now count as part of, the primary, the allied, both or neither? Without knowing which detachment the mixed unit is part of, we cannot determine what constitutes an "allied transport vehicle." Hence, RAW I think you end up at a stale mate as RAW never defines the relationship of a mixed unit to the remainder of the army.

The Commander joins the Centurion unit. Meaning the unit (as a whole) is a Space Marine unit for all rules purposes.

I want to agree with you because it makes intuitive sense, but where is this actually defined? Using the Battle Brothers frame work, I had a friendly Tau unit that joined a friendly Space Marine unit to create a new "friendly" unit. The friendly unit consists of models from both my primary and allied detachment. Nowhere in RAW does it explicitly define which detachment the new unit belongs to. The unit consists of models chosen from Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Tau and nowhere are we told which takes precedence for determing how to treat it.

We are told on page 39 that the IC joins the unit and is a member of the unit for all rules purposes.
All. Not most. So treating the unit as anything but a Centurion unit would not be treating the IC as a member of the unit for all rules purposes, ie breaking a rule.

You are making an assumption RAW does not support. Per page 175 of the SM codex, a unit of centurions is an infantry unit composed of three models with the option of adding up to three more models. By joining an IC, you are adding models to an infantry unit. There is no RAW supporting a unit type as "centurion" or "space marine." A unit is defined by type per the BRB and has models composing it.

no, it proves that you will ignore any evidence that does not agree with your position,

and that you do not understand my argument at all rigel

you are hand waiving away one BB rule with the IC rule, with no real backing at all, just lots of tangential things that dont really make a rule to overrule an ACTUAL written rule

namely the actual, written rule, that no BB's in allied transports.

your assumptions about how the BB/IC rules work, in no way over rules the very SIMPLE and straightforward rule, that is actually a written rule,

the BRB says, "BB cannot embark in allied transports"

yet rigel says "BB can embark in alllied transports"

you have no RAW that is above the level of the BRB restriction on BB's in transports at all, despite your claims.

PanzerLeader wrote:
You are making an assumption RAW does not support. Per page 175 of the SM codex, a unit of centurions is an infantry unit composed of three models with the option of adding up to three more models. By joining an IC, you are adding models to an infantry unit. There is no RAW supporting a unit type as "centurion" or "space marine." A unit is defined by type per the BRB and has models composing it.

Page 39 support the fact that the model is a member of the unit for all rules purposes. Have a rules purpose? It's a member of the unit.
Cite something that denies this.

I never said that the unit "type" is Centurion. That'd be foolish and incorrect.
I said that the Commander is a member of the Centurion unit. We know that because the IC rule allows him to become a member for all rules purposes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
you are hand waiving away one BB rule with the IC rule, with no real backing at all, just lots of tangential things that dont really make a rule to overrule an ACTUAL written rule

Really? Then you haven't read my posts.

you have no RAW that is above the level of the BRB restriction on BB's in transports at all, despite your claims.

Please, read the thread. The restriction doesn't apply in this case. I've shown why. Your statements do not apply to my argument whatsoever.

@ Rigeld: I'm not disagreeing on that point. I'm asking you to cite rules showing which detachment a unit composed of models drawn from the primary and allied detachment belongs to. In our example, there now exists an infantry unit with space marine and tau models. What constitutes an allied transport for such a unit? A land raider would theoretically be an allied transport to the tau commander but not the centurions and vice versa for a devilfish. You can create rules wise a "friendly" unit that is not inherently part of either detachment when you mix factions and ICs. Page 39 does not support an assumption that because an IC from army X joins a unit from army Y that the mixed unit counts as being from army Y.

PanzerLeader wrote:
@ Rigeld: I'm not disagreeing on that point. I'm asking you to cite rules showing which detachment a unit composed of models drawn from the primary and allied detachment belongs to. In our example, there now exists an infantry unit with space marine and tau models. What constitutes an allied transport for such a unit? A land raider would theoretically be an allied transport to the tau commander but not the centurions and vice versa for a devilfish. You can create rules wise a "friendly" unit that is not inherently part of either detachment when you mix factions and ICs. Page 39 does not support an assumption that because an IC from army X joins a unit from army Y that the mixed unit counts as being from army Y.

Why is the answer to that question relevant?

What unit is embarking on the Land Raider? The Centurions. Are there any rules forbidding this? None. Embark away!
What unit is embarking on the Devilfish? The Centurions. Are there any rules forbidding this? Yes - BB units can't embark. Stay out nonfishies!

edit:
The IC is a member of the unit for all rules purposes. Is this a rules purpose? Why are you not treating it as a member of the unit? By calling it a mixed unit and trying to find rules that deal with it, you're not treating him as a member of the unit. IC is sad. :(

I suggest you read the first post of the topic as it is all explained there, even with examples(and again elsewhere in the topic)

but for your example, in this whole debeate it has been clearly stated that the transport to be embarked belongs to the codex of the unit joined, not of the IC. So(and this is the extremely simplified version of my complete analysis) when the unit consisting of (marines+tau ic) wants to embark on a rhino, permission for this action is automatically checked(are they allowed to enter yes or no). The unit does not have the battle brothers rule towards the rhino, neither does the rhino have the battlebrothers rule toward the unit. Thus they can embark. The unit "independent character" does not exist at this point for the check as he has been absorbed by the unit marines(because he is is a part of the unit for all rule intents and purposes). Were this not the case then you could target him while he is in a unit(so you could sniper an IC out of the unit he joined). This rule clearly applies when shooting at the unit, so why should it not apply the rest of the time.

note that if either the ic or the unit joined had some form of restriction( for example disembarked so cannot charge) this still applies . This is because Battle brothers is an overall static status granted at the start of the battle and can only dissapear or re-appear when the unit seizes to exist as an independent unit and becomes part of another unit. In other situations these are dynamic effects(the amount of wounds on a model can change, leadership tests are passed, etc) due to actions during the game

Except you're making a mistake by calling the unit of tau commander plus centurions a "centurion" unit. It is still an infantry unit, treated as one infantry unit for all rules purposes, but you can no longer define what detachment that infantry unit belongs to because it is now composed of models from multiple detachments. Hence, you can't define what an "allied" transport is for that unit.

PanzerLeader wrote:
Except you're making a mistake by calling the unit of tau commander plus centurions a "centurion" unit. It is still an infantry unit, treated as one infantry unit for all rules purposes, but you can no longer define what detachment that infantry unit belongs to because it is now composed of models from multiple detachments. Hence, you can't define what an "allied" transport is for that unit.

Sure you can. I have 3 Centurions. That's a SM unit of Centurions. I join the Commander to them. Since we know the commander is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, as far as the rules are concerned it's a SM unit of Centurions with 4 models - 3 Centurions and a Commander.

By looking for an exception and treating the unit as "mixed" you're not treating the Commander as a member of the unit for all rules purposes.

Xarin: I read it initially. I actually like the position you outlined. My only argument is that by RAW, there is no such thing as a "unit of marines." A unit has a type and is composed of models. When you add an IC to a unit, you essentially get a unit of (type x) composed of models a and b. There is no permission granted to treat a unit composed of models from both detachments as part of either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Rigeld: and as I pointed out, by RAW on page 175 of the SM codex that is an infantry unit composed of three models (2 centurions and 1 sergeant). By strict RAW, that is not a "unit of centurions" but an infantry unit composed of three models. Please cite any rule referencing how a unit of centurions acts on the battle field.

actually it says Unit type: infantry. What this unit consists of is described in the codex entry. When you field this entry in your armylist you are fielding 1 unit with a specified type, stats, members, wargear and optional wargear. It is easier to refer to this unit by the name described in the codex, but the actual name does not matter, you could call your unit banana if you want to as long as it's clear what's in it.
A unit of space marines consists of space marines models, unit type infantry, has x models with y wargear and x special rules, with possibly z upgrades
and independent character consists of an independent character model, unit type infantry(character), has 1 model with y wargear and x special rules, with possibly z special upgrades

When an independent character joins another unit he becomes part of that unit as outlined by the independent character rules. Part of the unit does not create a new unit, just a new situation for the existing unit. This new unit has the same qualities as before, only now with the IC added to its roster and models. it is simply a new situation for an old unit, not a whole new unit(in which case your argument would be entirely valid). They are still part of the same detachment as they were before, otherwise they would be an enemy unit to all other units around them that were friendly before the merger. Not to mention an illegal unit as they are on the table without being part of an armylist or scenariorule

PanzerLeader wrote:
@ Rigeld: and as I pointed out, by RAW on page 175 of the SM codex that is an infantry unit composed of three models (2 centurions and 1 sergeant). By strict RAW, that is not a "unit of centurions" but an infantry unit composed of three models. Please cite any rule referencing how a unit of centurions acts on the battle field.

There's no requirement to.

I have to prove that the unit came from the SM codex. That's trivial. You referenced page C SM 175.
I have to prove that the Commander is a member of the unit. He is, for [b]all[/b rules purposes. BRB 39.

We know what detachment the unit is from. We know that everyone in the unit is eligible to board the transport (because it's a transport from the same codex the unit is from).

Rigeld, has any one ever debated the idea that while inside a transport the IC is not part of the unit? We know that transports can carry one unit and any number of ICs (within transport capacity) and one could argue that embarking into a transport, a move action, takes the IC out of coherency because it is no longer within 2" of another model in that unit. Its impossible as the unit is no longer being represented by models. So using that logic the IC has to leave the unit as part of embarking and has returned to being a BB and is would not be allowed to complete the embarking action with the rest of the unit.

Ok, funny (to me) related question. Where in the RAW does it say models cannot embark onto non-dedicated enemy transports? I see permission for 'a unit' to embark if it is entirely within 2" of an access point and I see that dedicated transports can transport any friendly unit after the start of the game, but I don't see anything that actually stops me from climbing my Chaos Marines into an empty Iron Hands Land Raider. I've got to have missed it right?

 DJGietzen wrote:
Rigeld, has any one ever debated the idea that while inside a transport the IC is not part of the unit?

Can't happen. The character automatically joins any unit they're embarked with. See page 79.

Ah, that plus the realization that if embarking was movement that took you out of coherency no units would ever be allowed to embark snuff that idea out.

 DJGietzen wrote:


Ok, funny (to me) related question. Where in the RAW does it say models cannot embark onto non-dedicated enemy transports? I see permission for 'a unit' to embark if it is entirely within 2" of an access point and I see that dedicated transports can transport any friendly unit after the start of the game, but I don't see anything that actually stops me from climbing my Chaos Marines into an empty Iron Hands Land Raider. I've got to have missed it right?

Edit: okay, I mixed up iron hands and iron warriors. The vehicle could actually not be entered due to the battlebrothers rule

That's funny about the transports. And I think it's technically any enemy vehicle with a transport capacity to boot.

Back on topic, here's my hangup. Page 21 of the eBook says the following: "In Warhammer 40,000, we represent thus by grouping models together into units. A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine, or a rampaging monster is also considered to be a unit in its own right."

A unit is defined as a grouping of models. When you have a unit of marines and attach a tau IC, you change the grouping of models to create a situational unit of marines and tau. The IC rule gives permission for this to occur as does the battle brothers rule. We also know that it is a friendly unit in all aspects to other units based on the battle brothers rule. It is certainly not an illegal unit because the IC rule gives permission for the creation and dissolution of ad hoc units at will.

We do not have permission to assume that an IC from one faction loses it's faction identity when joining an allied unit. The most accurate description of the new unit is "a unit of x and y" because that is the grouping of models involved.

That said, I still say RAW does not let you decide that "a unit of tau and marines" counts as either a unit of "tau" or a unit of "marines" because nowhere are we given permission to do so. However, because it is a unit of both I think I'd lean towards saying it would count all friendly transport vehicles as embark able because you can no longer make a clean distinction between allied/non-allied.

 Xarin wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:


Ok, funny (to me) related question. Where in the RAW does it say models cannot embark onto non-dedicated enemy transports? I see permission for 'a unit' to embark if it is entirely within 2" of an access point and I see that dedicated transports can transport any friendly unit after the start of the game, but I don't see anything that actually stops me from climbing my Chaos Marines into an empty Iron Hands Land Raider. I've got to have missed it right?

you are correct in assuming that it doesn't say that anywhere in the brb so it is a legal action

BRB pg 112 for BattleBrothers and friendly transports.

As for enemies jumping into transports, you assume that the door is down for the enemy to get into the transport in the first place. The only way to get into it would be to damage it right?

Also you can't get into base contact to get into the enemy vehicle in the first place. You either have to keep 1'' away or be in assault. Scratch that, it's 2'' in order to embark. Still, not even BB can embark on to allied transports, so i do not imagine that any other army could.

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Also you can't get into base contact to get into the enemy vehicle in the first place. You either have to keep 1'' away or be in assault.

You need to be within 2" of an access point to Embark.

Xarin wrote:It is a shame that there is no clear definition on friendly unit...

It's a shame they do not clearly define a 'unit'.

PanzerLeader wrote:Here is a simple question to consider: I join my Tau Commander to a unit of Space Marine Centurions. Which detachment do they now count as part of, the primary, the allied, both or neither? Without knowing which detachment the mixed unit is part of, we cannot determine what constitutes an "allied transport vehicle." Hence, RAW I think you end up at a stale mate as RAW never defines the relationship of a mixed unit to the remainder of the army.

Correction: Does not define the relationship of the mixed unit beyond friendly, but not with enough specificity to determine what constitutes an "allied" vehicle.

I would say they count as both. The codex source of both units remains unchanged and I see no permission to ignore either. as the unit consists of models from both they have both types.

rigeld2 wrote:
The Commander joins the Centurion unit. Meaning the unit (as a whole) is a Space Marine unit for all rules purposes.

These two things to not equal each other. If A joins B that does not mean A disappears into B. The most basic assessment would be that when unit A joins unit B we get a unit of A and B. We are not told to do anything more complex then that. Add them together. Not, whatever you are doing to cause A to cease to exist.

rigeld2 wrote:By looking for an exception and treating the unit as "mixed" you're not treating the Commander as a member of the unit for all rules purposes.

Actually he is. You are in fact the one who is not treating the commander as part of the unit. You are treating the unit as gaining a model but not considering that models attributes such as it's source codex. You are essentially not treating the member as a Tau Commander.

Xarin wrote:actually it says Unit type: infantry. What this unit consists of is described in the codex entry. When you field this entry in your armylist you are fielding 1 unit with a specified type, stats, members, wargear and optional wargear. It is easier to refer to this unit by the name described in the codex, but the actual name does not matter, you could call your unit banana if you want to as long as it's clear what's in it.
A unit of space marines consists of space marines models, unit type infantry, has x models with y wargear and x special rules, with possibly z upgrades
and independent character consists of an independent character model, unit type infantry(character), has 1 model with y wargear and x special rules, with possibly z special upgrades

When an independent character joins another unit he becomes part of that unit as outlined by the independent character rules. Part of the unit does not create a new unit, just a new situation for the existing unit. This new unit has the same qualities as before, only now with the IC added to its roster and models. it is simply a new situation for an old unit, not a whole new unit(in which case your argument would be entirely valid). They are still part of the same detachment as they were before, otherwise they would be an enemy unit to all other units around them that were friendly before the merger. Not to mention an illegal unit as they are on the table without being part of an armylist or scenariorule

Unit types are granted to models, not to units.

"In most cases, it will be fairly obvious which unit type category a model falls into, but as unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile, you'll be able to find that information in the relevant codex." page 44, BRB (emphasis mine)

The core question here extends beyond allied ICs and transports and goes to the basic nature of what a unit is. The same basic question exists surrounding mixed unit types, source codices and PE. A Riptide is part of a unit along with it drones. Is it a MC or a drone unit? Does PE(MC) work against the unit? If a IG IC then joins the unit. Does it count as IG or Tau or both? If two IG ICs join and the Riptide and drones subsequently die are the two IG still part of a Tau unit? If so can they embark into a Tau transport?

All this because they have failed hard at defining one of the most basic part of the game. What is a unit? The BRB tells us a unit is a 'group of warriors that have banded together'.... Great! That makes sense... wtf does that mean from a rules perspective?

IMO as we are only given a vague concept the the simplest and least assuming of the possible meanings should be derived. That would make a unit a group of models. No more no less. In that case every other attribute would have to come from the models that compose the unit. That would include source codex, unit type, etc. Along those lines a unit comprised of only Space Marines is a unit of Space Marines.

Attempting to look at it the other way, that a unit itself has a codex affiliation, type, etc would lead to a Space Marine Unit. A unit that it is not generic but specifically labels the entire unit and every model therein as Space Marine... I understand where this perspective comes from as everyone has gotten rather used to treating units as specific and static but I do not find any rules support for it. Where are the rules for a Space Marine Unit? I see rules for a unit of Space Marines... Yes, please note the grammatical difference where unit is non-specific and only the Space Marine part is.

A unit is generic, only affiliated with the label 'Space Marine' when it has models with that characteristic composing it. By that reasoning, the characteristics of all models in the unit should be accounted for when determining the attributes associated with that unit.

If battle brothers can not join an allied transport, then having an IC join them will not change that fact. It says no where in any of the rule books that adding a unit changes it's army affiliation.

Unit A tries to join Transport B.

Is Unit A a Battle Brother to Transport B?

If yes, unit A CANNOT join Transport B. Unit A still cannot join Transport B even with an IC from Transport B's codex.

Think of it like this. Only Tau Empire Codex units can benefit from marker lights. Adding a Tau Codex HQ to a SM squad does not change the fact that those SM models can not benefit from the marker lights.

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
If battle brothers can not join an allied transport, then having an IC join them will not change that fact. It says no where in any of the rule books that adding a unit changes it's army affiliation.

Unit A tries to join Transport B.

Is Unit A a Battle Brother to Transport B?

If yes, unit A CANNOT join Transport B. Unit A still cannot join Transport B even with an IC from Transport B's codex.

Think of it like this. Only Tau Empire Codex units can benefit from marker lights. Adding a Tau Codex HQ to a SM squad does not change the fact that those SM models can not benefit from the marker lights.

That's not what's being discussed.
To use your example, Unit A is from the same Codex as Transport B.
Not allies. Same codex.
Attached to Unit A is an allied character from another codex.

 grendel083 wrote:

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
If battle brothers can not join an allied transport, then having an IC join them will not change that fact. It says no where in any of the rule books that adding a unit changes it's army affiliation.

Unit A tries to join Transport B.

Is Unit A a Battle Brother to Transport B?

If yes, unit A CANNOT join Transport B. Unit A still cannot join Transport B even with an IC from Transport B's codex.

Think of it like this. Only Tau Empire Codex units can benefit from marker lights. Adding a Tau Codex HQ to a SM squad does not change the fact that those SM models can not benefit from the marker lights.

That's not what's being discussed.
To use your example, Unit A is from the same Codex as Transport B.
Not allies. Same codex.
Attached to Unit A is an allied character from another codex.

That's the same line of reasoning though. The problem is that you have a unit from one codex getting into a transport from another codex. Not even battle brothers can get into transports as it is clearly stated in the BRB.

Having another model join that unit doesn't change that outcome, similar to how having a Crisis commander join a squad of SM doesnt suddenly allow that squad to use markerlights.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Rigeld, has any one ever debated the idea that while inside a transport the IC is not part of the unit? We know that transports can carry one unit and any number of ICs (within transport capacity) and one could argue that embarking into a transport, a move action, takes the IC out of coherency because it is no longer within 2" of another model in that unit. Its impossible as the unit is no longer being represented by models. So using that logic the IC has to leave the unit as part of embarking and has returned to being a BB and is would not be allowed to complete the embarking action with the rest of the unit.

That would mean an IC (BB or not) can never embark with a unit as a transport can only hold one unit.
No, there's no actual rules reason to assume that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:The Commander joins the Centurion unit. Meaning the unit (as a whole) is a Space Marine unit for all rules purposes.

These two things to not equal each other. If A joins B that does not mean A disappears into B. The most basic assessment would be that when unit A joins unit B we get a unit of A and B. We are not told to do anything more complex then that. Add them together. Not, whatever you are doing to cause A to cease to exist.

A doesn't cease to exist? You do realize A stand for the Tau IC unit, right?
If the unit still exists it can be targeted by shooting.

rigeld2 wrote:By looking for an exception and treating the unit as "mixed" you're not treating the Commander as a member of the unit for all rules purposes.

Actually he is. You are in fact the one who is not treating the commander as part of the unit. You are treating the unit as gaining a model but not considering that models attributes such as it's source codex. You are essentially not treating the member as a Tau Commander.

Yes, I am. It's source codex is irrelevant as far as the rules are concerned. Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

rigeld2 wrote:
Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

so this excludes a IC from using any/all wargear, special abilities, ect that the unit it now has joined does not have access too right ?

Sure it joins the unit. By definition the unit is also gaining a Tau commander. They are connected together, linked, not one absorbed into the other. I don't know why you keep insisting on such a thing.

Joining. Please look the word up.
Unit A does not disappear. It links up with unit B forming a single unit out of both. It is a two way relationship and in no stated rule does this allow you to ignore any characteristics of any of the models nor does it state the IC somehow hides its Tau-ness under a blanket of Space Marine.

Connected ≠ Absorbed into

Nem nailed it. BRB says Battle Brother not "unit of Battle Brothers".

Joining a unit neither changes him from being a IC. Nor does it change him from being a Battle Brother. He simply counts as part of the unit, and a IC, and a Battle Brother, and whatever else he is IE space marine, Eldar, Tau, etc.

BRB specifically says a battle brother can't hitch rides in allied transports.

Kambien,
Special Rules and war-gear are found at the 'model level,' so any Special Rules or War-gear that the Independent Character begins with will still be retained. This also explains why the Independent Character doesn't gain access to the default war-gear found on these models, as they begun the game with these. This information can be found in any of the Army List Explained section of the codex where it states these are what the individuals models begin with.

Now you could be trying to say that 'for all rule purposes' would mean to be considered part of the unit for the entries as well, which is a curious line of thought which needs further exploration. To begin with we will need to figure out if these entries are considered 'rules of the game.' These guidelines and reference information is refereed to at the list building stage of things, so it could be stated that they are Rules informing us how to construct legal 'units.' It could also be argued that this section of the book is only refereed to during List Building, something which doesn't occur as part of the 'game proper.' So are the guidelines found in the Army List 'game Rules; or not?

I'll leave the floor open to that line of thought, if people want to deal with it.

JinxDragon wrote:
Special Rules and war-gear are found at the 'model level' so the IC's do not lose them. This information can be found in any of the Army List Explained section of the codex.

the models only gain access to them through the unit listing in the codexs

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

so this excludes a IC from using any/all wargear, special abilities, ect that the unit it now has joined does not have access too right ?

From past threads I can tell you that rigeld believes that any rule interaction with the 'unit' will occur strictly with the unit that was joined by the IC but individual models are somehow still of their own type and have their own rules.

Is this still an accurate description of your stance on this issue rigeld? I don't want to put words in your mouth but last time it took several pages to pry this much out of you

kambien wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Special Rules and war-gear are found at the 'model level' so the IC's do not lose them. This information can be found in any of the Army List Explained section of the codex.

the models only gain access to them through the unit listing in the codexs

What he is saying is that a Crisis commander that has tank hunter confers it to all models because of the wording in the BRB under the Tank Hunter section. He doesn't cease to have it.

Tau Commander A and Space Marine Squad B form a unit. They do not become Unit C. They are unit AB. They have characteristics of both armies in that unit. With all the benefits and penalties that come with it. IE, Battle Brothers cannot ride in the transports of their allies.

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

so this excludes a IC from using any/all wargear, special abilities, ect that the unit it now has joined does not have access too right ?

No. Not at all. Drop the Strawman please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

so this excludes a IC from using any/all wargear, special abilities, ect that the unit it now has joined does not have access too right ?

From past threads I can tell you that rigeld believes that any rule interaction with the 'unit' will occur strictly with the unit that was joined by the IC but individual models are somehow still of their own type and have their own rules.

Is this still an accurate description of your stance on this issue rigeld? I don't want to put words in your mouth but last time it took several pages to pry this much out of you

No, it took several pages for you to stop strawmaning and actually read what I wrote. My stance never changed.

And it's not a belief, it's fact. When a biker joins a unit, he doesn't cease being a biker. He ceases being a unit by himself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:
Sure it joins the unit. By definition the unit is also gaining a Tau commander. They are connected together, linked, not one absorbed into the other. I don't know why you keep insisting on such a thing.

Joining. Please look the word up.
Unit A does not disappear. It links up with unit B forming a single unit out of both. It is a two way relationship and in no stated rule does this allow you to ignore any characteristics of any of the models nor does it state the IC somehow hides its Tau-ness under a blanket of Space Marine.

Connected ≠ Absorbed into

Right, so according to your argument the Tau IC unit continues to exist?
So I can target it with shooting, right? After all, it's still a unit. Cite denial of permission to target said unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

so this excludes a IC from using any/all wargear, special abilities, ect that the unit it now has joined does not have access too right ?

No. Not at all. Drop the Strawman please.

its not a strawman , its following RAW . It does say all rules purposes . How is FOC/Wargear/Special Abilites/Unit composition somehow not rules now ?

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

so this excludes a IC from using any/all wargear, special abilities, ect that the unit it now has joined does not have access too right ?

No. Not at all. Drop the Strawman please.

its not a strawman , its following RAW . It does say all rules purposes . How is FOC/Wargear/Special Abilites/Unit composition somehow not rules now ?

Because wargear/special abilities are tied to the model. FOC does change - an HQ that joins a Troop can score if he's the only one in range.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

so this excludes a IC from using any/all wargear, special abilities, ect that the unit it now has joined does not have access too right ?

No. Not at all. Drop the Strawman please.

its not a strawman , its following RAW . It does say all rules purposes . How is FOC/Wargear/Special Abilites/Unit composition somehow not rules now ?

Because wargear/special abilities are tied to the model. FOC does change - an HQ that joins a Troop can score if he's the only one in range.

isn't the permission to assign wagrear to the model under the unit entry , not the model entry ? that's how it is in my codex

rigeld2 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:
Sure it joins the unit. By definition the unit is also gaining a Tau commander. They are connected together, linked, not one absorbed into the other. I don't know why you keep insisting on such a thing.

Joining. Please look the word up.
Unit A does not disappear. It links up with unit B forming a single unit out of both. It is a two way relationship and in no stated rule does this allow you to ignore any characteristics of any of the models nor does it state the IC somehow hides its Tau-ness under a blanket of Space Marine.

Connected ≠ Absorbed into

Right, so according to your argument the Tau IC unit continues to exist?
So I can target it with shooting, right? After all, it's still a unit. Cite denial of permission to target said unit.

Actually if Abandon's argument is valid as such with rigeld's interpretation, you could argue that Battle Brothers must still continue to be understood as a "friendly unit" even if an IC attaches to a Battle Brother unit.

Using page 112 in ascertaining the status of Battle Brothers and their definition as a friendly unit even when an IC attaches to an allied BB unit would mean that the IC and the BB unit have to follow the permissive rule set such that...

Page 39-
"While an IC is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."

Special Rules (Page 39)-

Paraphrased a bit-

"When an Independent Character joins a unit, (explanation of having different special rules), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the the IC", and vice versa.

And-

Page 112-

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units.'"

while also keeping in mind-

Page 4 reading the definition of units while citing that units normally consist of several models (but no explanation if units can be groups of units and units) however stating a single, powerful model, such as a lone character,....is also considered to be a unit in its own right.

Leads to the following interpretation-

A BB IC can join a BB allied unit.
The BB IC can still be his own unit, even if attached to another unit.
The IC BB is still a BB until a rule specifically removes that status.
He cannot ride the transport as per BB ICs attached to an allied BB unit as per rules of page 112.

Joining another unit while making him count as part of that unit does not make him lose his BB status. He counts as a part of that unit for all rules purposes, but does that mean we are given explicit permission to ignore his other rule sets such as being a BB or being a unit unto himself?

Now would I play this as RAW? Nope. But I think rigeld's point is is that the rules break down at several levels due to the rule makers not being careful about the wording of their rule interactions. RAW may allow certain actions to occur with a strict interpretation, but should we really play it that way?

wow, I go to sleep and people stop reading what is posted altogether and just spam randomly. Abandon, anything you have said so far has been both said and countered several times already. People please read before getting on your soapbox.

Also, it seems to me that there is a lack of understanding of how rules actually work. Again I refer to the very first post of this topic. I know it involves an actual effort but still, all is explained and countered there if you read it properly.

a unit is a band of warriors fighting together seems a pretty clear definition of a unit, also the rest of the brb and the codexes are pretty clear on what units are and what is in a specific unit. A band of warriors joined by another warrior is still a band of warriors. As said before the exact name doesn't matter, if you replace the word unit with spoon it still works, it is just a word that is agreed upon to define something.

It seems to me that people want to somehow ignore that the IC is part of the unit for all rules intents and purposes in this particular case. If you want to do that, exactly what is stopping me from letting my devastators snipe your IC out of the unit he joined with their lascannons? You want to ignore a rule, fine but then it always gets ignored. I wonder what the whole point of the targeting rules in the brb is then, but I eagerly await your reply on that one. If you want to change the meta of the game by ignoring the rules as you see fit go ahead, but stop pretending your playing official warhammer 40.000 then.

I will say this once again: the character joins the unit for ALL rules intents and purposes. Eligibility to enter a transport is checked at the moment of embarkation. The vehicle checks whether or not the unit can enter, the character is not checked because it is not his unit that is checking for eligibility but the unit he has joined. The check does not apply to him because he does not exist as a seperate entity at that point. It does not matter whether or not he has the bb status because it is never asked for. He does not lose it(as seems to be the most repeated argument, this is actually never said and even denied by me and several others) but it does not apply to this situation.

If you were to follow your rules logic, then the character joining the unit would create a new unit on the spot with members from different detachments while belonging to neither. This is an illegal move as this unit is not allowed to exist on the battlefield and units from your army list are not present while an illegal unit(owned by no one because nobody that counts as a player created this unit) exists on your side of the table, resulting in an illegal situation which constitutes a game loss(at best) on most tournaments. In fact this would create an illegal unit every time an IC joins a unit because a unit that you did not make(nobody did as the rules are not considered to be a player), not the player and the unit is not on his armylist(while an unit he is supposed to field is not there) and orcs merging units due to their special rules would have to be considered as illegal play.


Before you start, as explained before gear and special rules are independently checked from the status of the unit towards the transport.

.

 Xarin wrote:
wow, I go to sleep and people stop reading what is posted altogether and just spam randomly. Abandon, anything you have said so far has been both said and countered several times already. People please read before getting on your soapbox.

Also, it seems to me that there is a lack of understanding of how rules actually work. Again I refer to the very first post of this topic. I know it involves an actual effort but still, all is explained and countered there if you read it properly.

a unit is a band of warriors fighting together seems a pretty clear definition of a unit, also the rest of the brb and the codexes are pretty clear on what units are and what is in a specific unit. A band of warriors joined by another warrior is still a band of warriors. As said before the exact name doesn't matter, if you replace the word unit with spoon it still works, it is just a word that is agreed upon to define something.

It seems to me that people want to somehow ignore that the IC is part of the unit for all rules intents and purposes in this particular case. If you want to do that, exactly what is stopping me from letting my devastators snipe your IC out of the unit he joined with their lascannons? You want to ignore a rule, fine but then it always gets ignored. I wonder what the whole point of the targeting rules in the brb is then, but I eagerly await your reply on that one. If you want to change the meta of the game by ignoring the rules as you see fit go ahead, but stop pretending your playing official warhammer 40.000 then.

I will say this once again: the character joins the unit for ALL rules intents and purposes. Eligibility to enter a transport is checked at the moment of embarkation. The vehicle checks whether or not the unit can enter, the character is not checked because it is not his unit that is checking for eligibility but the unit he has joined. The check does not apply to him because he does not exist as a seperate entity at that point. It does not matter whether or not he has the bb status because it is never asked for. He does not lose it(as seems to be the most repeated argument, this is actually never said and even denied by me and several others) but it does not apply to this situation.

If you were to follow your rules logic, then the character joining the unit would create a new unit on the spot with members from different detachments while belonging to neither. This is an illegal move as this unit is not allowed to exist on the battlefield and units from your army list are not present while an illegal unit(owned by no one because nobody that counts as a player created this unit) exists on your side of the table, resulting in an illegal situation which constitutes a game loss(at best) on most tournaments. In fact this would create an illegal unit every time an IC joins a unit because a unit that you did not make(nobody did as the rules are not considered to be a player), not the player and the unit is not on his armylist(while an unit he is supposed to field is not there) and orcs merging units due to their special rules would have to be considered as illegal play.


Before you start, as explained before gear and special rules are independently checked from the status of the unit towards the transport.

.

That is not what we are saying. Following our logic, there is nothing illegal. The rules give you permission to create ad hoc units once the game has started (to include deployment). The IC rule explicitly gives you that permission as does the example you gave from the Orc book. The lists were legal at the start of the game, which is what is required, and have been used in a legal manner. Our interpretation is quite consistent with the IC rules: when an IC joins a unit, he ceases to be a unit of one and instead merges into another unit. Now in most cases, this is not an issue. If both choices (unit + IC unit) are from the same codex, there are no issues with the rules. The ad hoc unit is still clearly part of the same detachment.

If you join an IC from one detachment to a unit from another, you generate a situation in which the "grouping of models" is now best described as "x + y." This unit is still clearly friendly in regards to other units, but by RAW you cannot determine what constitutes an "allied" unit to it. Because of that, I think you cannot trigger the restriction and may embark but I haven't yet seen permission cited anywhere to treat a group of tau and marines AS solely marines.

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

so this excludes a IC from using any/all wargear, special abilities, ect that the unit it now has joined does not have access too right ?

No. Not at all. Drop the Strawman please.

its not a strawman , its following RAW . It does say all rules purposes . How is FOC/Wargear/Special Abilites/Unit composition somehow not rules now ?

Because wargear/special abilities are tied to the model. FOC does change - an HQ that joins a Troop can score if he's the only one in range.

isn't the permission to assign wagrear to the model under the unit entry , not the model entry ? that's how it is in my codex

Are you sure? Really? Or does your codex say something to the effect of "The army list at the back of the books how's all the standard and optional wargear available to a particular model." (C:BA p23)
I checked Spqce Wolves, Necrons, and Tyranids and that rule exists in all of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PanzerLeader wrote:

That is not what we are saying. Following our logic, there is nothing illegal. The rules give you permission to create ad hoc units once the game has started (to include deployment). The IC rule explicitly gives you that permission as does the example you gave from the Orc book. The lists were legal at the start of the game, which is what is required, and have been used in a legal manner. Our interpretation is quite consistent with the IC rules: when an IC joins a unit, he ceases to be a unit of one and instead merges into another unit. Now in most cases, this is not an issue. If both choices (unit + IC unit) are from the same codex, there are no issues with the rules. The ad hoc unit is still clearly part of the same detachment.

If you join an IC from one detachment to a unit from another, you generate a situation in which the "grouping of models" is now best described as "x + y." This unit is still clearly friendly in regards to other units, but by RAW you cannot determine what constitutes an "allied" unit to it. Because of that, I think you cannot trigger the restriction and may embark but I haven't yet seen permission cited anywhere to treat a group of tau and marines AS solely marines.

What unit is the IC joining?
Cite permission for mixed units to exist.
Cite permission to change the detachment a unit is in.

You're inventing rules and the. Creating an argument that fits them. I've cited support for my stance, I'd appreciate the same courtesy (as required by the tenets of the sub forum).

rigeld2 wrote:

Are you sure? Really? Or does your codex say something to the effect of "The army list at the back of the books how's all the standard and optional wargear available to a particular model." (C:BA p23)
I checked Spqce Wolves, Necrons, and Tyranids and that rule exists in all of them.

"These list detail the points values of carious items of wargear available to units in your army. Many unit entries in the army list that follows may include wargear options from one or more of these lists - in each instance, the armor list entry will tell you (in bold) exactly whico of these list you may use."

also stated is :

Options: This section list all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so, alongside the associated points costs for each. where an option states that you may exchange one weapon 'and/or' another , you may replace either or both, provided you pay the points cost for each. The abbreviation 'pts' stand for "points" and 'pts/model' stand for "points per model"

Wargear : This section details the weapons and equipment the models in the unit are armed with. The cost for all these models and their equipment is included in the points cost listed next to the unit name

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Are you sure? Really? Or does your codex say something to the effect of "The army list at the back of the books how's all the standard and optional wargear available to a particular model." (C:BA p23)
I checked Spqce Wolves, Necrons, and Tyranids and that rule exists in all of them.

"These list detail the points values of carious items of wargear available to units in your army. Many unit entries in the army list that follows may include wargear options from one or more of these lists - in each instance, the armor list entry will tell you (in bold) exactly whico of these list you may use."

Which codex? What page? Citations are cool bro.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Are you sure? Really? Or does your codex say something to the effect of "The army list at the back of the books how's all the standard and optional wargear available to a particular model." (C:BA p23)
I checked Spqce Wolves, Necrons, and Tyranids and that rule exists in all of them.

"These list detail the points values of carious items of wargear available to units in your army. Many unit entries in the army list that follows may include wargear options from one or more of these lists - in each instance, the armor list entry will tell you (in bold) exactly whico of these list you may use."

Which codex? What page? Citations are cool bro.

tau pg 94.

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Are you sure? Really? Or does your codex say something to the effect of "The army list at the back of the books how's all the standard and optional wargear available to a particular model." (C:BA p23)
I checked Spqce Wolves, Necrons, and Tyranids and that rule exists in all of them.

"These list detail the points values of carious items of wargear available to units in your army. Many unit entries in the army list that follows may include wargear options from one or more of these lists - in each instance, the armor list entry will tell you (in bold) exactly whico of these list you may use."

Which codex? What page? Citations are cool bro.

tau pg 94.

Look before the fluff for all the units - that's where the one I cited is. Along with army special rules (ie, what everliving does)

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Are you sure? Really? Or does your codex say something to the effect of "The army list at the back of the books how's all the standard and optional wargear available to a particular model." (C:BA p23)
I checked Spqce Wolves, Necrons, and Tyranids and that rule exists in all of them.

"These list detail the points values of carious items of wargear available to units in your army. Many unit entries in the army list that follows may include wargear options from one or more of these lists - in each instance, the armor list entry will tell you (in bold) exactly whico of these list you may use."

Which codex? What page? Citations are cool bro.

tau pg 94.

Look before the fluff for all the units - that's where the one I cited is. Along with army special rules (ie, what everliving does)

pg 32. "The second part of this section, know as the Arsenal of expansion. details the armor of weapons and equipment available to eac Tau unit"

I still don't see any permission to remove the Battle Brother status from the IC though. Joining something for 'all rules purposes' does not give permission to remove other rules attached to the IC. I haven't seen any other rules removal take place, so why does BB suddenly disappear?

Rigeld, I read through and can't see a clear statement as to how you grant permission to remove Battle Brother other than the ambigious ruling of 'for all rules purposes' you draw from attaching an IC. I can see how you can allow him to keep Battle Brother or remove it by simply the wording of that rule, no clear distinction that the removal of BB is part of the 'for all rules purposes'.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I still don't see any permission to remove the Battle Brother status from the IC though. Joining something for 'all rules purposes' does not give permission to remove other rules attached to the IC. I haven't seen any other rules removal take place, so why does BB suddenly disappear?

Rigeld, I read through and can't see a clear statement as to how you grant permission to remove Battle Brother other than the ambigious ruling of 'for all rules purposes' you draw from attaching an IC. I can see how you can allow him to keep Battle Brother or remove it by simply the wording of that rule, no clear distinction that the removal of BB is part of the 'for all rules purposes'.

Then you've failed to read. I'll post it - again. Third time this thread if I'm counting right.

Battle Brothers is defined as being a friendly unit.
An IC that joins a unit is no longer a unit on his own.
If something is not a unit, it cannot be a friendly unit.
Therefore if an IC joins a unit it cannot be a Battle Brother.

It has literally nothing to do with the fact that he is a member of th unit for all rules purposes - that's something else people are getting hung up on and is tangential (at best).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:
pg 32. "The second part of this section, know as the Arsenal of expansion. details the armor of weapons and equipment available to eac Tau unit"

Checking the GK codex it has similar wording.
However, on page 54 it says "Weapons and equipment that can be used by more than one type of model or unit are detailed here..."
Wargear is model based. Again, unless 15 Fire Warriors have a single Pulse Rifle for them all to share.

rigeld2 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:
pg 32. "The second part of this section, know as the Arsenal of expansion. details the armor of weapons and equipment available to eac Tau unit"

Checking the GK codex it has similar wording.
However, on page 54 it says "Weapons and equipment that can be used by more than one type of model or unit are detailed here..."
Wargear is model based. Again, unless 15 Fire Warriors have a single Pulse Rifle for them all to share.

Permission for model count and what wargear available is unit based.

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:
pg 32. "The second part of this section, know as the Arsenal of expansion. details the armor of weapons and equipment available to eac Tau unit"

Checking the GK codex it has similar wording.
However, on page 54 it says "Weapons and equipment that can be used by more than one type of model or unit are detailed here..."
Wargear is model based. Again, unless 15 Fire Warriors have a single Pulse Rifle for them all to share.

Permission for model count and what wargear available is unit based.

What wargear is available to each model.
Or does the Tau Codex list 1 Pulse Rifle per Fire Warrior?

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:
pg 32. "The second part of this section, know as the Arsenal of expansion. details the armor of weapons and equipment available to eac Tau unit"

Checking the GK codex it has similar wording.
However, on page 54 it says "Weapons and equipment that can be used by more than one type of model or unit are detailed here..."
Wargear is model based. Again, unless 15 Fire Warriors have a single Pulse Rifle for them all to share.

Permission for model count and what wargear available is unit based.

What wargear is available to each model.
Or does the Tau Codex list 1 Pulse Rifle per Fire Warrior?

what wargear available to each model is still determined by the unit. base permission is still unit based with exceptions given to specific models to have specific wargear

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:
pg 32. "The second part of this section, know as the Arsenal of expansion. details the armor of weapons and equipment available to eac Tau unit"

Checking the GK codex it has similar wording.
However, on page 54 it says "Weapons and equipment that can be used by more than one type of model or unit are detailed here..."
Wargear is model based. Again, unless 15 Fire Warriors have a single Pulse Rifle for them all to share.

Permission for model count and what wargear available is unit based.

What wargear is available to each model.
Or does the Tau Codex list 1 Pulse Rifle per Fire Warrior?

what wargear available to each model is still determined by the unit. base permission is still unit based with exceptions given to specific models to have specific wargear

Right - and when can you change that wargear? List creation. Does an IC join a unit during list creation or after?

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:
pg 32. "The second part of this section, know as the Arsenal of expansion. details the armor of weapons and equipment available to eac Tau unit"

Checking the GK codex it has similar wording.
However, on page 54 it says "Weapons and equipment that can be used by more than one type of model or unit are detailed here..."
Wargear is model based. Again, unless 15 Fire Warriors have a single Pulse Rifle for them all to share.

Permission for model count and what wargear available is unit based.

What wargear is available to each model.
Or does the Tau Codex list 1 Pulse Rifle per Fire Warrior?

what wargear available to each model is still determined by the unit. base permission is still unit based with exceptions given to specific models to have specific wargear

Right - and when can you change that wargear? List creation. Does an IC join a unit during list creation or after?

after , i am failing to see your point

kambien wrote:
after , i am failing to see your point

Find permission to modify a model's wargear post list creation. You've asserted it changes during the game, cite permission.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:
after , i am failing to see your point

Find permission to modify a model's wargear post list creation. You've asserted it changes during the game, cite permission.

pg 39 brb "while a independent Character is part of the unit, he counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for charaters"
All is a blanket statement encompassing every rule that effects a unit , which would include unit creation
You misunderstand , i am not modifying the model's wargear , he would be free to use what ever wargear is available to him outside of the unit he joins. The restriction to him using said wargear in a newly joined unit falls directly to the units allowed weaponry/wargear/rules.
This would also apply to model count since you are never given permission to go over said count for any reason ( including joining a IC )
IE a space marine captain cannot join a unit of 12 firewarriors because the model count is now 13 and the max allowed in the unit is 12 and 2 drones ( specified in the units text )
But is acceptable that a IC can join a unit of 11 firewarriors

So wargear is rules now? Does that mean a model can no longer benefit from 2 power weapons?

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:
after , i am failing to see your point

Find permission to modify a model's wargear post list creation. You've asserted it changes during the game, cite permission.

pg 39 brb "while a independent Character is part of the unit, he counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for charaters"
All is a blanket statement encompassing every rule that effects a unit , which would include unit creation

No, it wouldn't. Creation is past. You're never given permission to revisit it.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:
after , i am failing to see your point

Find permission to modify a model's wargear post list creation. You've asserted it changes during the game, cite permission.

pg 39 brb "while a independent Character is part of the unit, he counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for charaters"
All is a blanket statement encompassing every rule that effects a unit , which would include unit creation

No, it wouldn't. Creation is past. You're never given permission to revisit it.

so creation is now no longer rules ?

kambien wrote:
so creation is now no longer rules ?

Did I say that? I'm pretty sure I didn't. Could you quote me?

It is rules. Cite the rule that changes a model's wargear based on what unit he's in.
The rules say that the army lists are default and optional wargear. We know that wargear is defined by the unit, but is model based. We know that we have no permission to change a model's wargear during the game.

So... can you stop with this line of questioning yet? Or are you trolling me to get me to stop arguing it?

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:
so creation is now no longer rules ?

Did I say that? I'm pretty sure I didn't. Could you quote me?

It is rules. Cite the rule that changes a model's wargear based on what unit he's in.
The rules say that the army lists are default and optional wargear. We know that wargear is defined by the unit, but is model based. We know that we have no permission to change a model's wargear during the game.

So... can you stop with this line of questioning yet? Or are you trolling me to get me to stop arguing it?

i never said the wargear was changed
just because you don like my line of reasoning , while providing rules quotes, even asked for by you specifically in areas of a codex mean that i am trolling .
i am simply using RAW and when it says all rules i am applying it to all rules.

kambien wrote:
i never said the wargear was changed

Really?

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

so this excludes a IC from using any/all wargear, special abilities, ect that the unit it now has joined does not have access too right ?

kambien wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Special Rules and war-gear are found at the 'model level' so the IC's do not lose them. This information can be found in any of the Army List Explained section of the codex.

the models only gain access to them through the unit listing in the codexs

kambien wrote:its not a strawman , its following RAW . It does say all rules purposes . How is FOC/Wargear/Special Abilites/Unit composition somehow not rules now ?

kambien wrote:isn't the permission to assign wagrear to the model under the unit entry , not the model entry ? that's how it is in my codex

Those never happened? I must be missing your point then. Could you post - clearly - what your point is?

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:
i never said the wargear was changed

Really?

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

so this excludes a IC from using any/all wargear, special abilities, ect that the unit it now has joined does not have access too right ?

kambien wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Special Rules and war-gear are found at the 'model level' so the IC's do not lose them. This information can be found in any of the Army List Explained section of the codex.

the models only gain access to them through the unit listing in the codexs

kambien wrote:its not a strawman , its following RAW . It does say all rules purposes . How is FOC/Wargear/Special Abilites/Unit composition somehow not rules now ?

kambien wrote:isn't the permission to assign wagrear to the model under the unit entry , not the model entry ? that's how it is in my codex

Those never happened? I must be missing your point then. Could you post - clearly - what your point is?

at no point in any of those quotes did i change wargear ,

So you can't clearly state your point? Because I'm confused and I'd rather not put words in your mouth - that'd be rude.

rigeld2 wrote:

Battle Brothers is defined as being a friendly unit.

That is incorrect. They are, in fact, not defined as being a friendly unit. First they are "treated" as friendly units. Second, that is merely 1 characteristic of Battle Brothers. While there may be an argument as to whether "friendly unit" disappears, the remaining characteristics of Battle Brothers persist. Chief among them, is the fact that it is an ally from a different detachment (if not from an entirely different codex). The rest of your conclusions stem from a faulty premise.

rigeld2 wrote:
So you can't clearly state your point? Because I'm confused and I'd rather not put words in your mouth - that'd be rude.

My point ?
sure , you are selecting only certain rules and applying them in specific ways to validate your point while using the text pg 39 brb "while a independent Character is part of the unit, he counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters"

I am taking the RAW from above and they way you are applying to to defraud your argument entirely by applying to every rule possible since the "all" text of that above encompass everything , specifically the unit and its rules governing model count , access to what wargear and special rules abilities within

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Battle Brothers is defined as being a friendly unit.

That is incorrect. They are, in fact, not defined as being a friendly unit. First they are "treated" as friendly units. Second, that is merely 1 characteristic of Battle Brothers. While there may be an argument as to whether "friendly unit" disappears, the remaining characteristics of Battle Brothers persist. Chief among them, is the fact that it is an ally from a different detachment (if not from an entirely different codex). The rest of your conclusions stem from a faulty premise.

treated as must mean the same as "is".

Sure - they are an ally from a different detachment. I don't dispute that.
Now - what rules govern that?

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

so this excludes a IC from using any/all wargear, special abilities, ect that the unit it now has joined does not have access too right ?

No. Not at all. Drop the Strawman please.

its not a strawman , its following RAW . It does say all rules purposes . How is FOC/Wargear/Special Abilites/Unit composition somehow not rules now ?

Because wargear/special abilities are tied to the model. FOC does change - an HQ that joins a Troop can score if he's the only one in range.

isn't the permission to assign wagrear to the model under the unit entry , not the model entry ? that's how it is in my codex

Are you sure? Really? Or does your codex say something to the effect of "The army list at the back of the books how's all the standard and optional wargear available to a particular model." (C:BA p23)
I checked Spqce Wolves, Necrons, and Tyranids and that rule exists in all of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PanzerLeader wrote:

That is not what we are saying. Following our logic, there is nothing illegal. The rules give you permission to create ad hoc units once the game has started (to include deployment). The IC rule explicitly gives you that permission as does the example you gave from the Orc book. The lists were legal at the start of the game, which is what is required, and have been used in a legal manner. Our interpretation is quite consistent with the IC rules: when an IC joins a unit, he ceases to be a unit of one and instead merges into another unit. Now in most cases, this is not an issue. If both choices (unit + IC unit) are from the same codex, there are no issues with the rules. The ad hoc unit is still clearly part of the same detachment.

If you join an IC from one detachment to a unit from another, you generate a situation in which the "grouping of models" is now best described as "x + y." This unit is still clearly friendly in regards to other units, but by RAW you cannot determine what constitutes an "allied" unit to it. Because of that, I think you cannot trigger the restriction and may embark but I haven't yet seen permission cited anywhere to treat a group of tau and marines AS solely marines.

What unit is the IC joining?
Cite permission for mixed units to exist.
Cite permission to change the detachment a unit is in.

You're inventing rules and the. Creating an argument that fits them. I've cited support for my stance, I'd appreciate the same courtesy (as required by the tenets of the sub forum).

I'm not inventing anything. Please reread my posts. I've cited that the IC rule (page 39) gives permission for ICs to join eligible units (normally from the same Codex/detachment, but if battle brothers this can also be from a different codex/detachment). The IC rule therefore also gives permission for mixed units to exist, as a unit is simply a grouping of models and the IC rule permits one "grouping of models"/unit (the IC) to join a second "grouping of models"/unit (i.e. any eligible unit of your choice that the IC is capable of joining). You have not cited any rule that defines or delineates what detachment a unit composed of models from two normally seperate detachments counts as. I stand by the fact that such a rule does not exist. I'm not claiming that units change detachments. The IC rule and BB rule allow you to create a single, legal unit that contains models from two detachments (primary unit + allied IC or allied unit + primary IC). You have failed to cite any rule that gives you permission to count such a unit as part of either detachment for the purposes of embarking.

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you can't clearly state your point? Because I'm confused and I'd rather not put words in your mouth - that'd be rude.

My point ?
sure , you are selecting only certain rules and applying them in specific ways to validate your point while using the text pg 39 brb "while a independent Character is part of the unit, he counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters"

No, I'm not. Perhaps you should read the thread. This is a tangent that was started by someone who misunderstood my argument completely and you continue to harp on it.
Since it has literally nothing to do with the point of the thread I'll stop responding.

I am taking the RAW from above and they way you are applying to to defraud your argument entirely by applying to every rule possible since the "all" text of that above encompass everything , specifically the unit and its rules governing model count , access to what wargear and special rules abilities within

So you're not saying that wargear changes, but you're saying wargear changes.
Is that about right?

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you can't clearly state your point? Because I'm confused and I'd rather not put words in your mouth - that'd be rude.

My point ?
sure , you are selecting only certain rules and applying them in specific ways to validate your point while using the text pg 39 brb "while a independent Character is part of the unit, he counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters"

No, I'm not. Perhaps you should read the thread. This is a tangent that was started by someone who misunderstood my argument completely and you continue to harp on it.
Since it has literally nothing to do with the point of the thread I'll stop responding.

I am taking the RAW from above and they way you are applying to to defraud your argument entirely by applying to every rule possible since the "all" text of that above encompass everything , specifically the unit and its rules governing model count , access to what wargear and special rules abilities within

So you're not saying that wargear changes, but you're saying wargear changes.
Is that about right?

where do you even see me mention change of wargear ? I don't believe i have , you haven't quoted me saying such either

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Battle Brothers is defined as being a friendly unit.

That is incorrect. They are, in fact, not defined as being a friendly unit. First they are "treated" as friendly units. Second, that is merely 1 characteristic of Battle Brothers. While there may be an argument as to whether "friendly unit" disappears, the remaining characteristics of Battle Brothers persist. Chief among them, is the fact that it is an ally from a different detachment (if not from an entirely different codex). The rest of your conclusions stem from a faulty premise.

treated as must mean the same as "is".

Sure - they are an ally from a different detachment. I don't dispute that.
Now - what rules govern that?

"Treated as" does not mean is. In fact it is the exact opposite, otherwise it would say "is". In order to be "treated as" it must be a different object that will be treated as the same object. But it is still a different object. Rules? English. You would never say, "My BMW is treated as my BMW." You would say, "Your car will be treated as if it were my own." Doesn't mean the car is yours. But again, it's not the sole characteristic. Everything else persists even if that doesn't. How do you get rid of the fact that is an ally from a different detachment? If ally remains, Battle Brother must remain because they go hand in hand.

kambien wrote:
where do you even see me mention change of wargear ? I don't believe i have , you haven't quoted me saying such either

When you ask why wargear doesn't change, that to me is saying that wargear changes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Angelic wrote:
"Treated as" does not mean is. In fact it is the exact opposite, otherwise it would say "is". In order to be "treated as" it must be a different object that will be treated as the same object. But it is still a different object. Rules? English. You would never say, "My BMW is treated as my BMW." You would say, "Your car will be treated as if it were my own." Doesn't mean the car is yours.

As far as GW's rules are concerned they must be the same. Go through your BRB and find every occurrence of "treated as" and pretend it isn't actually that thing. The rules break every time. Here, I'll help:

Accordingly, all vehicles are treated as being Weapon Skill 1, provided that they moved in the previous turn - otherwise they are treated as being Weapon Skill 0.

But they aren't actually WS1 or 0 - they don't have a WS. So what number do I need to roll in CC to hit them? Does it matter if they moved?

They don't have to use the Skyfire special rule, but if they do, all weapons they fire that turn are treated as having the Skyfire special rule.

But they don't actually have it, so I guess Flyers have to Snap Shot at other Flyers.

There's dozens more. It's the same as "counts as" being the same as "is".

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:
where do you even see me mention change of wargear ? I don't believe i have , you haven't quoted me saying such either

When you ask why wargear doesn't change, that to me is saying that wargear changes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Angelic wrote:
"Treated as" does not mean is. In fact it is the exact opposite, otherwise it would say "is". In order to be "treated as" it must be a different object that will be treated as the same object. But it is still a different object. Rules? English. You would never say, "My BMW is treated as my BMW." You would say, "Your car will be treated as if it were my own." Doesn't mean the car is yours.

As far as GW's rules are concerned they must be the same. Go through your BRB and find every occurrence of "treated as" and pretend it isn't actually that thing. The rules break every time. Here, I'll help:

Accordingly, all vehicles are treated as being Weapon Skill 1, provided that they moved in the previous turn - otherwise they are treated as being Weapon Skill 0.

But they aren't actually WS1 or 0 - they don't have a WS. So what number do I need to roll in CC to hit them? Does it matter if they moved?

Proves my point. Vehicles are not "defined as" WS1 or WS 0. Vehicles are defined as having a non-existent WS, which will then be "treated as" having differing values based upon the situation. Analogizing to the Battle Brothers, when whether being a friendly or enemy unit is relevant to the situation, they are friendly to said unit. Allies-Battle Brothers persists throughout in relation to that army.

Angelic wrote:
Proves my point. Vehicles are not "defined as" WS1 or WS 0. Vehicles are defined as having a non-existent WS, which will then be "treated as" having differing values based upon the situation. Analogizing to the Battle Brothers situation, when whether being a friendly or enemy unit is relevant to the situation, they are friendly. Allies-Battle Brothers persists throughout.

No - they aren't defined as having WS1 or WS0. They simply do. If they didn't, there would be a question as to what you need to hit them in CC. Correct?
It doesn't prove your point at all actually - I'm not sure why you say that. "treat as" must equal "is".

This topic has kinda strayed from the OP's original topic. As has been stated in the 1st few post MOST players agree this is not allowed. Take what you can from all the information posted here and decide what is RAW for your gaming group. The most important point I think is that almost all (not all of course) agree the RAI is that it should not be allowed. again lots of great information and insights here though.

Angelic wrote:
"Treated as" does not mean is. In fact it is the exact opposite, otherwise it would say "is". In order to be "treated as" it must be a different object that will be treated as the same object. But it is still a different object. Rules? English. You would never say, "My BMW is treated as my BMW." You would say, "Your car will be treated as if it were my own." Doesn't mean the car is yours. But again, it's not the sole characteristic. Everything else persists even if that doesn't. How do you get rid of the fact that is an ally from a different detachment? If ally remains, Battle Brother must remain because they go hand in hand.

I do agree the understanding of the English Language and Grammar is cause to so many of the issues here.

"Your car will be treated as if it were my own." Doesn't mean the car is yours.

Indeed.

rigeld2 wrote:
Go through your BRB and find every occurrence of "treated as" and pretend it isn't actually that thing. The rules break every time. Here, I'll help:

Accordingly, all vehicles are treated as being Weapon Skill 1, provided that they moved in the previous turn - otherwise they are treated as being Weapon Skill 0.

But they aren't actually WS1 or 0 - they don't have a WS. So what number do I need to roll in CC to hit them? Does it matter if they moved?

You agree they do not have it? But get it as soon as the "treated as" appears?

rigeld2 wrote:

They don't have to use the Skyfire special rule, but if they do, all weapons they fire that turn are treated as having the Skyfire special rule.

But they don't actually have it, so I guess Flyers have to Snap Shot at other Flyers.

You agree they do not have it? But get it as soon as the "treated as" appears?

So if a Rule such as:

All vehicles with WS:1 blow up.
Assign 3 Hits to any Flyer with the Skyfire Special Rule.

appears, they would obviously not apply, right?

Angelic wrote:They are, in fact, not defined as being a friendly unit. First they are "treated" as friendly units.

All friendly units blow up: These guys don't, they're only "treated as", not "is"




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Between this thread and the VSG Blast Rules:
This is me: http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/111/795/Image1.png

Lol

 BlackTalos wrote:

You agree they do not have it? But get it as soon as the "treated as" appears?

Yes. They have a WS when the rule says they are treated as having one.

All vehicles with WS:1 blow up.
Assign 3 Hits to any Flyer with the Skyfire Special Rule.

appears, they would obviously not apply, right?

Correct. Because vehicles are only WS0/1 when they're being attacked in CC.

Between this thread and the VSG Blast Rules:
This is me: http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/111/795/Image1.png

Lol

Yeah - it's funny how badly people are wrong when they think they know the language and how things interact.

PanzerLeader wrote:


That is not what we are saying. Following our logic, there is nothing illegal. The rules give you permission to create ad hoc units once the game has started (to include deployment).

and this is in the rulebook where exactly? The rest of your argument has been countered by proper arguments so many times now that I'm not even gonna bother

Well, if IC magically loses their status, then i guess this means that joining a Tau Commander to a SM squad gives those SM's the ability to use markerlights. If it can go one way, (Tau Commander now part of the squad of SM for transport purposes), then it can go the other way too.

 Xarin wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:


That is not what we are saying. Following our logic, there is nothing illegal. The rules give you permission to create ad hoc units once the game has started (to include deployment).

and this is in the rulebook where exactly? The rest of your argument has been countered by proper arguments so many times now that I'm not even gonna bother

The legality, or illegality of either side of that particular item is stated no where in the rule book.

The first thing I posted on here was that this is a highly contested area and, everyone knows they are right no matter which one of the 4 or 5 angles they are coming from. I also stated the lack of rules on the subject will always cause an issue until answered one way or another. I really don't think RAW lends enough on this subject for anyone here to make a watertight argument, every angle depends on some degree of unwritten assumption - assumptions around rule sets surrounding this aspect which in themselves do not cater well.

Don't take things personally but if you produce a counter argument which that person disagrees with then they might not come back to you, but mention it again when replying to someone else. For example I disagree with the notes you entered on the OP surrounding wargear and transports etc, also mentioned in your later posts, however I don't believe it to be an issue which makes or breaks this, it is one of many, and after posting a few times on that subject particular I knew I wasn't going to change your mind. It's not particular I think your wrong, I just don't think anyone is 'right'. Plus I'm too busy sorting my finances for impending Nid preorders (soon my precious).

On this issue, many people have dissected this way and that way, people disagree on the governing rules as well in them themselves. My meta don't really play with allies at all, and when we do there are so few vehicles, and were so chilled it doesn't really matter to us. Big Tournaments will always be able to tell you beforehand as they have there own rulES to compensate the lack of in the rule book.

I mean, like digital editions say, the rule book is more like guidelines anyway yeah? ( couldn't help it, saw it on one of there posts and it just cracked me up, I do not advocate that view in competitive play ).

Now, less than a hour before hope pre orders are up.

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Well, if IC magically loses their status, then i guess this means that joining a Tau Commander to a SM squad gives those SM's the ability to use markerlights. If it can go one way, (Tau Commander now part of the squad of SM for transport purposes), then it can go the other way too.

If only the SM unit was a unit chosen from the Tau codex like the marker light rule requires...

rigeld2 wrote:

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Well, if IC magically loses their status, then i guess this means that joining a Tau Commander to a SM squad gives those SM's the ability to use markerlights. If it can go one way, (Tau Commander now part of the squad of SM for transport purposes), then it can go the other way too.

If only the SM unit was a unit chosen from the Tau codex like the marker light rule requires...

But would you agree a Chaplain in a squad of fire warriors able to do so then?

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Well, if IC magically loses their status, then i guess this means that joining a Tau Commander to a SM squad gives those SM's the ability to use markerlights. If it can go one way, (Tau Commander now part of the squad of SM for transport purposes), then it can go the other way too.

If only the SM unit was a unit chosen from the Tau codex like the marker light rule requires...

But would you agree a Chaplain in a squad of fire warriors able to do so then?

I don't remember if the marker light rule is specific enough or not. So... Maybe?

Immediately before a unit from Codex: Tau Empire shoots at
a target that has one or more markerlight counters, it can
declare it is using one or more of the markerlight abilities
listed below.

Unless I missed something, then yes a Battle Brother Independent Character in a Tau unit can benefit from that unit's use of a markerlight counter.

 DJGietzen wrote:

Immediately before a unit from Codex: Tau Empire shoots at
a target that has one or more markerlight counters, it can
declare it is using one or more of the markerlight abilities
listed below.

Unless I missed something, then yes a Battle Brother Independent Character in a Tau unit can benefit from that unit's use of a markerlight counter.

Thanks for the rule quote - yes, absolutely.

rigeld2 wrote:
Right, so according to your argument the Tau IC unit continues to exist?
So I can target it with shooting, right? After all, it's still a unit. Cite denial of permission to target said unit.

The Tau IC is always a part of a unit. Whether he is the only part or a part of a larger unit. When the IC joins a SM unit, by definition that means he is connecting with or linking to that unit. No loss of anything is indicated by that statement. Neither does being a member of a unit indicate such. They are now one unit formed out of both. In a manner of speaking you could say the Tau Commander unit still exists but only as part of a larger unit.

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes"

This does not say 'when he joins a unit he becomes part of that unit' though that is what you seem to keep reading into it. Remember the IC is always part of a unit, even when it is the only part. So this line does not even create a rule but instead reminds and reinforces that the rules for units need to be observed no matter the unit composition.

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Right, so according to your argument the Tau IC unit continues to exist?
So I can target it with shooting, right? After all, it's still a unit. Cite denial of permission to target said unit.

The Tau IC is always a part of a unit. Whether he is the only part or a part of a larger unit. When the IC joins a SM unit, by definition that means he is connecting with or linking to that unit. No loss of anything is indicated by that statement. Neither does being a member of a unit indicate such. They are now one unit formed out of both. In a manner of speaking you could say the Tau Commander unit still exists but only as part of a larger unit.

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes"

This does not say 'when he joins a unit he becomes part of that unit' though that is what you seem to keep reading into it. Remember the IC is always part of a unit, even when it is the only part. So this line does not even create a rule but instead reminds and reinforces that the rules for units need to be observed no matter the unit composition.

So you're advocating the creation of a wholly new mixed unit?
Of course you'll be able to support that idea with rules.

 Xarin wrote:

a unit is a band of warriors fighting together seems a pretty clear definition of a unit, also the rest of the brb and the codexes are pretty clear on what units are and what is in a specific unit. A band of warriors joined by another warrior is still a band of warriors. As said before the exact name doesn't matter, if you replace the word unit with spoon it still works, it is just a word that is agreed upon to define something.

'A band of warriors' does not define a unit as a static entity of a particular type purchased from a specific codex that will never be anything else. That is pure assumption.

Unless of course there you have some rules backing for that assertion.

 Xarin wrote:

It seems to me that people want to somehow ignore that the IC is part of the unit for all rules intents and purposes in this particular case. If you want to do that, exactly what is stopping me from letting my devastators snipe your IC out of the unit he joined with their lascannons? You want to ignore a rule, fine but then it always gets ignored. I wonder what the whole point of the targeting rules in the brb is then, but I eagerly await your reply on that one. If you want to change the meta of the game by ignoring the rules as you see fit go ahead, but stop pretending your playing official warhammer 40.000 then.

Never in my posts have a ever claimed an IC is not part of the unit for all purposes. Not once. I do claim however that you are ignoring the fact that the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes. The IC is a member like every other. That means it's own abilities, attributes and characteristics matter as much as any other members for all rules purposes.

Without such characteristics from a units models the unit would never have a type of any sort.

 Xarin wrote:

I will say this once again: the character joins the unit for ALL rules intents and purposes. Eligibility to enter a transport is checked at the moment of embarkation. The vehicle checks whether or not the unit can enter, the character is not checked because it is not his unit that is checking for eligibility but the unit he has joined. The check does not apply to him because he does not exist as a seperate entity at that point. It does not matter whether or not he has the bb status because it is never asked for. He does not lose it(as seems to be the most repeated argument, this is actually never said and even denied by me and several others) but it does not apply to this situation.

By your definition of unit this would work. If you can show me where it says the ICs characteristic do not matter in regards to the characteristics of the unit as a whole I go along with this. This has not yet been shown though nor does even the basic premise that units have any characteristics of their own aside from their models have any textual basis that has been demonstrated.

 Xarin wrote:

If you were to follow your rules logic, then the character joining the unit would create a new unit on the spot with members from different detachments while belonging to neither. This is an illegal move as this unit is not allowed to exist on the battlefield and units from your army list are not present while an illegal unit(owned by no one because nobody that counts as a player created this unit) exists on your side of the table, resulting in an illegal situation which constitutes a game loss(at best) on most tournaments. In fact this would create an illegal unit every time an IC joins a unit because a unit that you did not make(nobody did as the rules are not considered to be a player), not the player and the unit is not on his armylist(while an unit he is supposed to field is not there) and orcs merging units due to their special rules would have to be considered as illegal play.
.

If something is allowed and not denied it is legal.

The Tau IC(a unit by himself)
is allowed to join(connect with)
A unit of Space Marines

The simplest and least assuming way to do this is to just connect them together. One is not lost into the other they are simply linked together AKA, joined. As this is exactly the basic idea you are told and no extra complications are stated the end result is a unit that is both Tau and SM. Why would you read any more into it then that? If you are truly treating the IC as part of the unit for all rules purposes you do not have permission to ignore its characteristics any more then you are permitted to ignore any other models characteristics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Right, so according to your argument the Tau IC unit continues to exist?
So I can target it with shooting, right? After all, it's still a unit. Cite denial of permission to target said unit.

The Tau IC is always a part of a unit. Whether he is the only part or a part of a larger unit. When the IC joins a SM unit, by definition that means he is connecting with or linking to that unit. No loss of anything is indicated by that statement. Neither does being a member of a unit indicate such. They are now one unit formed out of both. In a manner of speaking you could say the Tau Commander unit still exists but only as part of a larger unit.

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes"

This does not say 'when he joins a unit he becomes part of that unit' though that is what you seem to keep reading into it. Remember the IC is always part of a unit, even when it is the only part. So this line does not even create a rule but instead reminds and reinforces that the rules for units need to be observed no matter the unit composition.

So you're advocating the creation of a wholly new mixed unit?
Of course you'll be able to support that idea with rules.

It is what you are told to do.

The Tau IC(a unit by himself)
is allowed to join(connect with)
A unit of Space Marines

What happens when two entities become joined? Does one simply disappear? No, both continue to exist as part of a whole. That is what you are, by the text, instructed to do. You have read the supporting text over and over again but don't seem to have seen it for what it is.

Here is what rule summations look like with what Abandon is supporting (via my interpretation of what the rules look like)-

Using page 112 in ascertaining the status of Battle Brothers and their definition as a friendly unit even when an IC attaches to an allied BB unit would mean that the IC and the BB unit have to follow the permissive rule set such that...

Page 39-
"While an IC is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."

Special Rules (Page 39)-

Paraphrased a bit-

"When an Independent Character joins a unit, (explanation of having different special rules), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the the IC", and vice versa.

And-

Page 112-

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units.'"

while also keeping in mind-

Page 4 reading the definition of units while citing that units normally consist of several models (but no explanation if units can be groups of units and units) however stating a single, powerful model, such as a lone character,....is also considered to be a unit in its own right.

Leads to the following interpretation-

A BB IC can join a BB allied unit.
The BB IC can still be his own unit, even if attached to another unit.
The IC BB is still a BB until a rule specifically removes that status.
He cannot ride the transport as per BB ICs attached to an allied BB unit as per rules of page 112.

Joining another unit while making him count as part of that unit does not make him lose his BB status. He counts as a part of that unit for all rules purposes, but does that mean we are given explicit permission to ignore his other rule sets such as being a BB or being a unit unto himself?

You're seriously asserting he's still a unit unto himself?
Really?

So you're okay with me shooting your IC and not the unit he's with?
And forbidding him from using Look Out sir! Of course because that only applies to models in the same unit.
Want more places that fails?

Well that was not my claim. I was getting towards the line of thought that as a mixed unit, the unit as a whole would have to be considered BB. As it is both SM and Tau the unit would be subject to the pros and cons of both.

 Abandon wrote:
Well that was not my claim. I was getting towards the line of thought that as a mixed unit, the unit as a whole would have to be considered BB. As it is both SM and Tau the unit would be subject to the pros and cons of both.

If they both continue to exist as part of the whole, surely you're asserting that the Tau IC unit continues to exist.

 Xarin wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:


That is not what we are saying. Following our logic, there is nothing illegal. The rules give you permission to create ad hoc units once the game has started (to include deployment).

and this is in the rulebook where exactly? The rest of your argument has been countered by proper arguments so many times now that I'm not even gonna bother

Better reread your own original post. You refered to it as creating a new unit yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xarin wrote:


- The moment an independent character joins a unit it is considered part of this unit for ALL rules intents and purposes(passive ability).
This makes the independent character part of the unit(for better or for worse) until that character leaves the unit.
The independent character seizes to exist as an independent unit and is as such absorbed into the joined unit, creating a new unit (passive triggered rule).
This is [independent character] +[unit] = unit.. This applies to both allied and codex independent characters.

I brought the relevant part of the OP down for you. You refer to the creation of new units explicitly and in the same terms I do. You assume the IC + unit combination remains in the same detachment as the base unit. I say the rules don't give you permission to make that assumption. We have applied the same rules and come to two different end points as my conclusion is that a unit consisting of models from both detachments cannot be determined to be part of either by RAW.

Nem wrote:

 Xarin wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:


That is not what we are saying. Following our logic, there is nothing illegal. The rules give you permission to create ad hoc units once the game has started (to include deployment).

and this is in the rulebook where exactly? The rest of your argument has been countered by proper arguments so many times now that I'm not even gonna bother

The legality, or illegality of either side of that particular item is stated no where in the rule book.

The first thing I posted on here was that this is a highly contested area and, everyone knows they are right no matter which one of the 4 or 5 angles they are coming from. I also stated the lack of rules on the subject will always cause an issue until answered one way or another. I really don't think RAW lends enough on this subject for anyone here to make a watertight argument, every angle depends on some degree of unwritten assumption - assumptions around rule sets surrounding this aspect which in themselves do not cater well.

Don't take things personally but if you produce a counter argument which that person disagrees with then they might not come back to you, but mention it again when replying to someone else. For example I disagree with the notes you entered on the OP surrounding wargear and transports etc, also mentioned in your later posts, however I don't believe it to be an issue which makes or breaks this, it is one of many, and after posting a few times on that subject particular I knew I wasn't going to change your mind. It's not particular I think your wrong, I just don't think anyone is 'right'. Plus I'm too busy sorting my finances for impending Nid preorders (soon my precious).

On this issue, many people have dissected this way and that way, people disagree on the governing rules as well in them themselves. My meta don't really play with allies at all, and when we do there are so few vehicles, and were so chilled it doesn't really matter to us. Big Tournaments will always be able to tell you beforehand as they have there own rulES to compensate the lack of in the rule book.

I mean, like digital editions say, the rule book is more like guidelines anyway yeah? ( couldn't help it, saw it on one of there posts and it just cracked me up, I do not advocate that view in competitive play ).

Now, less than a hour before hope pre orders are up.

No personal offense taken or anything, don't worry, I posted this because it made the most sense to me and I wanted feedback on it from others(no idea or care whether I'll ever actually use these rules at all, it has just been bugging the hell out of me). Also, it is your right to disagree with the part of the wargear etc, but I really don't see why as those restrictions are literally in the wargear section of a codex and not the unit description. Have fun with your nids btw

More to the point, you now say that a rule that is by your own words not in the book should be governed while you ignore a rule that is in the book. And this does not seem weird to you at all?

Nem wrote:

 Xarin wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:


That is not what we are saying. Following our logic, there is nothing illegal. The rules give you permission to create ad hoc units once the game has started (to include deployment).

and this is in the rulebook where exactly? The rest of your argument has been countered by proper arguments so many times now that I'm not even gonna bother

The legality, or illegality of either side of that particular item is stated no where in the rule book.

The first thing I posted on here was that this is a highly contested area and, everyone knows they are right no matter which one of the 4 or 5 angles they are coming from. I also stated the lack of rules on the subject will always cause an issue until answered one way or another. I really don't think RAW lends enough on this subject for anyone here to make a watertight argument, every angle depends on some degree of unwritten assumption - assumptions around rule sets surrounding this aspect which in themselves do not cater well.

Don't take things personally but if you produce a counter argument which that person disagrees with then they might not come back to you, but mention it again when replying to someone else. For example I disagree with the notes you entered on the OP surrounding wargear and transports etc, also mentioned in your later posts, however I don't believe it to be an issue which makes or breaks this, it is one of many, and after posting a few times on that subject particular I knew I wasn't going to change your mind. It's not particular I think your wrong, I just don't think anyone is 'right'. Plus I'm too busy sorting my finances for impending Nid preorders (soon my precious).

On this issue, many people have dissected this way and that way, people disagree on the governing rules as well in them themselves. My meta don't really play with allies at all, and when we do there are so few vehicles, and were so chilled it doesn't really matter to us. Big Tournaments will always be able to tell you beforehand as they have there own rulES to compensate the lack of in the rule book.

I mean, like digital editions say, the rule book is more like guidelines anyway yeah? ( couldn't help it, saw it on one of there posts and it just cracked me up, I do not advocate that view in competitive play ).

Now, less than a hour before hope pre orders are up.

Abandon wrote:

 Xarin wrote:

a unit is a band of warriors fighting together seems a pretty clear definition of a unit, also the rest of the brb and the codexes are pretty clear on what units are and what is in a specific unit. A band of warriors joined by another warrior is still a band of warriors. As said before the exact name doesn't matter, if you replace the word unit with spoon it still works, it is just a word that is agreed upon to define something.

'A band of warriors' does not define a unit as a static entity of a particular type purchased from a specific codex that will never be anything else. That is pure assumption.

Unless of course there you have some rules backing for that assertion.

Well, there is the dictionary of course, but the rest of your argument does not even matter for these rules. The codex describes what is in the unit, the armylist you make as a player describes what is in the unit, the rules look the status of the unit as defined at that moment when they apply, all of these are simple facts.

 Xarin wrote:

It seems to me that people want to somehow ignore that the IC is part of the unit for all rules intents and purposes in this particular case. If you want to do that, exactly what is stopping me from letting my devastators snipe your IC out of the unit he joined with their lascannons? You want to ignore a rule, fine but then it always gets ignored. I wonder what the whole point of the targeting rules in the brb is then, but I eagerly await your reply on that one. If you want to change the meta of the game by ignoring the rules as you see fit go ahead, but stop pretending your playing official warhammer 40.000 then.

Never in my posts have a ever claimed an IC is not part of the unit for all purposes. Not once. I do claim however that you are ignoring the fact that the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes. The IC is a member like every other. That means it's own abilities, attributes and characteristics matter as much as any other members for all rules purposes.

Well actually you do every time you insist on a rulescheck that is separate from the rest of the unit. At that moment you demand that the IC is, for whatever reason, not a complete part of the unit as a whole.

Without such characteristics from a units models the unit would never have a type of any sort.

 Xarin wrote:

I will say this once again: the character joins the unit for ALL rules intents and purposes. Eligibility to enter a transport is checked at the moment of embarkation. The vehicle checks whether or not the unit can enter, the character is not checked because it is not his unit that is checking for eligibility but the unit he has joined. The check does not apply to him because he does not exist as a seperate entity at that point. It does not matter whether or not he has the bb status because it is never asked for. He does not lose it(as seems to be the most repeated argument, this is actually never said and even denied by me and several others) but it does not apply to this situation.

By your definition of unit this would work. If you can show me where it says the ICs characteristic do not matter in regards to the characteristics of the unit as a whole I go along with this. This has not yet been shown though nor does even the basic premise that units have any characteristics of their own aside from their models have any textual basis that has been demonstrated.

Because the characteristic of the IC is not relevant for the situation. It is because the IC is part of the unit for ALL rule rules intents and purposes. Everything in this game is checked at the unit level first, aka before all other rules apply, because everything is a unit. The transport unit checks whether or not the unit can embark, the unit IC does not exist as a separate entity at this point so the transport does not check for him.

 Xarin wrote:

If you were to follow your rules logic, then the character joining the unit would create a new unit on the spot with members from different detachments while belonging to neither. This is an illegal move as this unit is not allowed to exist on the battlefield and units from your army list are not present while an illegal unit(owned by no one because nobody that counts as a player created this unit) exists on your side of the table, resulting in an illegal situation which constitutes a game loss(at best) on most tournaments. In fact this would create an illegal unit every time an IC joins a unit because a unit that you did not make(nobody did as the rules are not considered to be a player), not the player and the unit is not on his armylist(while an unit he is supposed to field is not there) and orcs merging units due to their special rules would have to be considered as illegal play.
.

If something is allowed and not denied it is legal.
True, however how does this prevent an illegal situation from existing exactly? Because the rules pretty clearly deny illegal units

The Tau IC(a unit by himself)
is allowed to join(connect with)
A unit of Space Marines

The simplest and least assuming way to do this is to just connect them together. One is not lost into the other they are simply linked together AKA, joined. As this is exactly the basic idea you are told and no extra complications are stated the end result is a unit that is both Tau and SM. Why would you read any more into it then that? If you are truly treating the IC as part of the unit for all rules purposes you do not have permission to ignore its characteristics any more then you are permitted to ignore any other models characteristics.

Expect this whole linking together is nowhere in the rulebook. And BB is a dynamic characteristic, which means it can change and start or stop to apply at any moment. Why is it dynamic? Because it is granted from the game, not from the codex(BB is not in his unit entry in the codex)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Right, so according to your argument the Tau IC unit continues to exist?
So I can target it with shooting, right? After all, it's still a unit. Cite denial of permission to target said unit.

The Tau IC is always a part of a unit. Whether he is the only part or a part of a larger unit. When the IC joins a SM unit, by definition that means he is connecting with or linking to that unit. No loss of anything is indicated by that statement. Neither does being a member of a unit indicate such. They are now one unit formed out of both. In a manner of speaking you could say the Tau Commander unit still exists but only as part of a larger unit.

Again, this whole linking and connecting is never mentioned anywhere in the rulebook and again, nothing is lost and that is not relevant to the situation at all. And yes, the IC still exists but only as part of the larger unit, which is the whole point of the rulesdebate.

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes"

This does not say 'when he joins a unit he becomes part of that unit' though that is what you seem to keep reading into it. Actually, that is exactly what is says Remember the IC is always part of a unit, even when it is the only part. Which then supports our argument, not deny it. So this line does not even create a rule but instead reminds and reinforces that the rules for units need to be observed no matter the unit composition.

Really? Who is talking about about creating rules and where do you find the part that it needs to be observed no matter the costs? This is an addition that is not in the rulebook
So you're advocating the creation of a wholly new mixed unit? Which would be illegal as stated before
Of course you'll be able to support that idea with rules.

It is what you are told to do.

The Tau IC(a unit by himself)
is allowed to join(connect with)
A unit of Space Marines

What happens when two entities become joined? Does one simply disappear? No, both continue to exist as part of a whole. That is what you are, by the text, instructed to do. You have read the supporting text over and over again but don't seem to have seen it for what it is.

And your point here is? Because I could say exactly the same thing the other way around, but that's just mud flinging and not rules debate.

WarOne wrote:Here is what rule summations look like with what Abandon is supporting (via my interpretation of what the rules look like)-

Using page 112 in ascertaining the status of Battle Brothers and their definition as a friendly unit even when an IC attaches to an allied BB unit would mean that the IC and the BB unit have to follow the permissive rule set such that...Stop right there. The flaw in your logic is that the the IC and the unit need to check, this is not neccesary as he is part of the unit and the IC is not doing the checking anyway(the transport is)

Page 39-
"While an IC is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."

Special Rules (Page 39)-

Paraphrased a bit-

"When an Independent Character joins a unit, (explanation of having different special rules), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the the IC", and vice versa. [i]Note the SPECIAL rules part of this, BB is not a special rule

And-

Page 112-

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units.'"

while also keeping in mind-

Page 4 reading the definition of units while citing that units normally consist of several models (but no explanation if units can be groups of units and units) however stating a single, powerful model, such as a lone character,....is also considered to be a unit in its own right. Yet not denying that he can be completely part of the unit when he joins it, nor that the rules somehow need to check for his unit state when neccesary.

Leads to the following interpretation-

A BB IC can join a BB allied unit. true
The BB IC can still be his own unit, even if attached to another unit. true, but not excluding other situations
The IC BB is still a BB until a rule specifically removes that status. true, but non applicable to the situation at hand
He cannot ride the transport as per BB ICs attached to an allied BB unit as per rules of page 112. Not true and a sudden leap in reasoning without showing how you got to this point

Joining another unit while making him count as part of that unit does not make him lose his BB status. He counts as a part of that unit for all rules purposes, but does that mean we are given explicit permission to ignore his other rule sets such as being a BB or being a unit unto himself?

The BB status is not lost, this is never said. We are given permission by the fact that the check is made at the unit level and not the individual squad member. Is it explicit? no. Does it need to be? well, no.

PanzerLeader wrote:

 Xarin wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:


That is not what we are saying. Following our logic, there is nothing illegal. Well, except that your logic contradicts and ignores large parts of the rulebook. The rules give you permission to create ad hoc units once the game has started (to include deployment).

Oh really, and where is this in the rulebook? It is denied but no permission is given.

and this is in the rulebook where exactly? The rest of your argument has been countered by proper arguments so many times now that I'm not even gonna bother

Better reread your own original post. You refered to it as creating a new unit yourself.

No I do not and sorry if my explanation is somehow unclear on this. I create a new status for an existing unit. Never, ever do I say a new unit is created. I gave it a different name in the explanation because it is necessary for the explanation, not because it somehow creates a new unit


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xarin wrote:


- The moment an independent character joins a unit it is considered part of this unit for ALL rules intents and purposes(passive ability).
This makes the independent character part of the unit(for better or for worse) until that character leaves the unit.
The independent character seizes to exist as an independent unit and is as such absorbed into the joined unit, creating a new unit (passive triggered rule).
This is [independent character] +[unit] = unit.. This applies to both allied and codex independent characters.

I brought the relevant part of the OP down for you. You refer to the creation of new units explicitly and in the same terms I do. You assume the IC + unit combination remains in the same detachment as the base unit. I say the rules don't give you permission to make that assumption. We have applied the same rules and come to two different end points as my conclusion is that a unit consisting of models from both detachments cannot be determined to be part of either by RAW.

Okay, I see what you mean and how you can interpret my post in this way. This is exactly why I posted this, to see the flaws and this is one of wording, thank you for that.
Let me rephrase it then. The independent character does not register as an independent unit as far as the rules are concerned and is as such absorbed into the host unit(for want of a better term). This does not create a new unit but changes the status of the host unit to now exist with the IC as a joined model with it's own characteristics, special rules, status and wargear. The status of the IC at this point is checked at the model level, not the unit level(he checks his status in regard to the other models in his host unit, not outside his unit as would any other model in his unit).

I hope this clears it up

rigeld2 wrote:
You're seriously asserting he's still a unit unto himself?
Really?

So you're okay with me shooting your IC and not the unit he's with?
And forbidding him from using Look Out sir! Of course because that only applies to models in the same unit.
Want more places that fails?

Also keep in mind that he can still join the other unit, but he is a unit unto himself as well as outlined on Page 3 indicating that powerful individual models can be units unto themselves.

And unfortunately, the rules would not explicitly forbid him Look Out Sir rolls because while he is a unit unto himself, he is also apart of the unit he attaches to as well. But yes, you would be able to shoot him if you are able to target a unique unit.

But then again, I'm going with a strict interpretation of the permissive rule set given me. Under no circumstances does it deny me able to make multi-unit units by "grouping models together into units."

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You're seriously asserting he's still a unit unto himself?
Really?

So you're okay with me shooting your IC and not the unit he's with?
And forbidding him from using Look Out sir! Of course because that only applies to models in the same unit.
Want more places that fails?

Also keep in mind that he can still join the other unit, but he is a unit unto himself as well as outlined on Page 3 indicating that powerful individual models can be units unto themselves.

And unfortunately, the rules would not explicitly forbid him Look Out Sir rolls because while he is a unit unto himself, he is also apart of the unit he attaches to as well. But yes, you would be able to shoot him if you are able to target a unique unit.

But then again, I'm going with a strict interpretation of the permissive rule set given me. Under no circumstances does it deny me able to make multi-unit units by "grouping models together into units."

"can be" being the primary issue here, not "must be" or "always are". And if you want to treat him as a separate unit in one situation, he must therefor be treated as a separate unit in all other situations as well, which means that following that logic(not that it is not mine) you can target an IC in a unit and then still use look out sir because both unit exist separately and independent at the same time.

The existence of an newly created unit not owned by any player nor present on any army list(which is what creating a multi unit does, it makes something new)seems like an illegal state of game to me(I'm not saying cheating, but the game itself is in a situation it is not allowed to be in by it's own definitions)

In short, pick a version of the IC is a part of the unit situation and stick to it, don't use it one way or the other whenever it is most suited for you.

 Xarin wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You're seriously asserting he's still a unit unto himself?
Really?

So you're okay with me shooting your IC and not the unit he's with?
And forbidding him from using Look Out sir! Of course because that only applies to models in the same unit.
Want more places that fails?

Also keep in mind that he can still join the other unit, but he is a unit unto himself as well as outlined on Page 3 indicating that powerful individual models can be units unto themselves.

And unfortunately, the rules would not explicitly forbid him Look Out Sir rolls because while he is a unit unto himself, he is also apart of the unit he attaches to as well. But yes, you would be able to shoot him if you are able to target a unique unit.

But then again, I'm going with a strict interpretation of the permissive rule set given me. Under no circumstances does it deny me able to make multi-unit units by "grouping models together into units."

"can be" being the primary issue here, not "must be" or "always are". And if you want to treat him as a separate unit in one situation, he must therefor be treated as a separate unit in all other situations as well, which means that following that logic(not that it is not mine) you can target an IC in a unit and then still use look out sir because both unit exist separately and independent at the same time.

In short, pick a version of the IC is a part of the unit situation and stick to it, don't use it one way or the other whenever it is most suited for you.

Correct, you assume all the positives and negatives of the situation due to a RAW interpretation.

true and seeing as I can not peer into the heads of the games designers RAW is what I have to work with. Whether or not RAW is a good thing is another discussion completely, but it's been here since GW decided it to be in 3,75 so not much we can do about that. However without RAW you leave the door open for as much own interpretation of the rules as the player sees fit at that moment and that is not a situation that I believe we should strive for as it means we would be playing ruleshammer instead of warhammer.

In general I really try to be as neutral as possible in the rules, I want a fair game not an easy win. If that means pointing out a rule to my opponent that makes me lose, but would otherwise make me win by ignoring that rule, I will point it out. I want to understand the rules for myself first and foremost so that I can have the most fun during the battle itself and not get bogged down by the rules(after all, it is no fun to have a 3 hour match consist of 2 hours rules debate, I want to have fun playing the game with my opponent, not argue with him/her)

I think though once you accept RAW gets absurd, you then have to consider How I Would Play It (HIWPI).

If you cannot guess RAI, you have to make a logical assumption at what the RAI was meant to do.

Looking at page 112 of Allies, it tells you that each army has a potential alliance level, one of which is Battle Brothers.

Battle Brothers as a special rule tells you that Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. But what does that mean?

Can a single IC model in a unit from another army still be a Battle Brother when attached to an allied unit even if the rules tell you to treat the IC model as a member of that unit from all rule purposes (Page 39)?

But does that mean the IC loses his Battle Brother status? Page 39 says that special rules or ongoing effects cannot be conferred from the IC to an allied unit and vice versa. While Battle Brother is not a special rule, it is an overarching special effect conferred to an allied IC when his army is a Battle Brother to another army (unless you want to treat being a Battle Brother as a special rule). Given that Page 112 considers Alliances an effect on the second paragraph. This effect does not expire (else the Alliance would not exist anymore), it is an ongoing effect and even if the IC joins a BB unit, this effect does not get shared per the rules on Page 39.

Does that mean that even if the IC joins a BB unit, is he still a Battle Brother? Page 112 tells you that a Battle Brother is treated as an allied unit from all points of view but page 39 tells you he is a part of that unit for all rule purposes.

In short, can a singular model in a unit be considered a friendly unit unto itself? Do the rules tell you to disregard Battle Brother status or the fact that he is an allied unit from all points of view?

In super short, the rules fail to clarify the situation as we can have any number of interpretations through reading all the rules given to us by GW.

The risk with playing RAI or (HIWPI) of course being that it leaves a lot open to the interpretation of the moment, that is why, in my opinion, we need to rely on raw as much as possible in this rules set until things are clarified to make sure both players are playing the same game. It just seems to me like very thing ice to be standing on.

So as far as I see it, RAW says that techically my interpretation is correct but RAI suggests that it possible might not have been intended to be(the why of this does not matter). I think that for my personal situation I'll just consult with my opponent/tournament organiser beforehand if I possibly want to use this rule in my army. After all the game should feel as fair to both players.

Thanks everyone for your imput so far, I have seen both sides of the argument and can see both points of view, as well as having seen the flaw in my original post and having corrected it to be correct. I personally have not seen any true reason for my reasoning to be wrong so far, although several side-notes are to be made(especially considering RAI) but RAW or RAI ruling is to be decided on a local level by players and Tournament organisers, not a global one.

 Xarin wrote:
The risk with playing RAI of course being that it leaves a lot open to the interpretation of the moment, that is why, in my opinion, we need to rely on raw as much as possible in this rules set until things are clarified to make sure both players are playing the same game.

YMDC is actually a good source of finding common ground once a discussion finds that yes there is an issue with RAW, so then the most logical assumption should be is how can we make it work. The fewest deviations from RAW would suffice, but it also has personal investment in how the idea is implemented. Some people consider a Space Marine captain wearing a Tau mask and jumping in a Devilfish with his best buddies something unfathomably unfluffy/wierd they wouldn't accept it in any event for example.

 WarOne wrote:
Also keep in mind that he can still join the other unit, but he is a unit unto himself as well as outlined on Page 3 indicating that powerful individual models can be units unto themselves.

So, I'm looking at page 3 and I don't see anything defining a multiple unit unit. Could you show me where it is? I'm sure I'm just missing it.

But then again, I'm going with a strict interpretation of the permissive rule set given me. Under no circumstances does it deny me able to make multi-unit units by "grouping models together into units."

Yes, you can group models into units. You have no permission to group multiple units into units. You have no permission to treat the IC as a separate hint even after he joins a unit. Unless you'd care to cite something that supports your extraordinary statements?

Page 3 cites that models can be grouped into units. Further they only give one definition of a usual composition of a unit composed of several models, again leaving the door open to various interpretations of unit composition. A second definition included individual models being a unit all to themselves as well.

 WarOne wrote:
Page 3 cites that models can be grouped into units. Further they only give one definition of a usual composition of a unit composed of several models, again leaving the door open to various interpretations of unit composition. A second definition included individual models being a unit all to themselves as well.

Models are grouped into units. Not can.
They don't "leave the door open" in a permissive rule set - you're making assumptions without rules support.

Models are grouped into units, correct. And a model such as powerful individuals can be a unit in and of themselves. Which would also allow a Battle Brother IC to retain his BBC status even when attached to an allied unit.

gonna have to agree with rigel on this one.

 WarOne wrote:
Models are grouped into units, correct. And a model such as powerful individuals can be a unit in and of themselves. Which would also allow a Battle Brother IC to retain his BBC status even when attached to an allied unit.

the first two sentences are correct and can be found in the rulebook. The second one has the word 'can' in it , not "must" or "is". Can means possibility, not mandatory state of being. This makes your third sentence invalid

 WarOne wrote:
Models are grouped into units, correct. And a model such as powerful individuals can be a unit in and of themselves. Which would also allow a Battle Brother IC to retain his BBC status even when attached to an allied unit.

And you've still failed to cite permission for this "super unit".

Suffice to say at this point the argument I made I've done what I could referencing the relevant pages for information and asserted my position. Nothing more can be done.

Remember though this is something I would not play RAW. I would wonder how can the Battle Brother effect be lost when ICs
join an allied unit as these models must be considered BBS from all points of view.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
Models are grouped into units, correct. And a model such as powerful individuals can be a unit in and of themselves. Which would also allow a Battle Brother IC to retain his BBC status even when attached to an allied unit.

And you've still failed to cite permission for this "super unit".

Page 3 where models are grouped into units.

Ok, rigeld and Xarin, IF you are correct, can a BB board a DT or a transport while in reserve? I'm going to pitch this to my club and I want the full implications before I do.

 WarOne wrote:
Suffice to say at this point the argument I made I've done what I could referencing the relevant pages for information and asserted my position. Nothing more can be done.

Remember though this is something I would not play RAW. I would wonder how can the Battle Brother effect be lost when ICs
join an allied unit as these models must be considered BBS from all points of view.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
Models are grouped into units, correct. And a model such as powerful individuals can be a unit in and of themselves. Which would also allow a Battle Brother IC to retain his BBC status even when attached to an allied unit.

And you've still failed to cite permission for this "super unit".

Page 3 where models are grouped into units.

The part that most people don't seem to grasp is that nothing is ignored, lost or whatever. It simply does not apply to the situation.

Also the all points of view perspective in this context is quite debatable because where does it say we have to do this?

@kambien, you are the reading comprehension poster boy

 Lobukia wrote:
@kambien, you are the reading comprehension poster boy

?

 Lobukia wrote:
Ok, rigeld and Xarin, IF you are correct, can a BB board a DT or a transport while in reserve? I'm going to pitch this to my club and I want the full implications before I do.

please treat this answer as an IF we are correct situation then

if your IC has joined the unit(you have declared he becomes part of the unit during pre-battle setup or deployment as normal) and you have declared that the unit is in a transport during deployment he can be on board the transport with the rest of the unit while all are in reserve. As long as it is declared before the unit comes out of reserves I don't see any restrictions just as with an IC from the same detachment.

Hope this helps

 Lobukia wrote:
Ok, rigeld and Xarin, IF you are correct, can a BB board a DT or a transport while in reserve? I'm going to pitch this to my club and I want the full implications before I do.

Thanks to page 121 we know that IC will join units in reserve before the choice to deploy that unit in a transport (dedicated or otherwise) is made. The allowance for an BB IC attached to a unit to be deployed in the same transport as that unit would be no different to allowing that IC to embark after the start of the game.

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
Models are grouped into units, correct. And a model such as powerful individuals can be a unit in and of themselves. Which would also allow a Battle Brother IC to retain his BBC status even when attached to an allied unit.

And you've still failed to cite permission for this "super unit".

Page 3 where models are grouped into units.

Yup. That's what it talks about on that page.

Nothing about models belonging to more than one unit, or a unit of units though. And since there's no permission for it...

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
Models are grouped into units, correct. And a model such as powerful individuals can be a unit in and of themselves. Which would also allow a Battle Brother IC to retain his BBC status even when attached to an allied unit.

And you've still failed to cite permission for this "super unit".

Page 3 where models are grouped into units.

Yup. That's what it talks about on that page.

Nothing about models belonging to more than one unit, or a unit of units though. And since there's no permission for it...

And that is where the permission lies in that statement.

Except there isnt permission to be a member of two units, at all. Or youc ould cite the specific allowance to be a member of 2+ units.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except there isnt permission to be a member of two units, at all. Or youc ould cite the specific allowance to be a member of 2+ units.

Gladly. Page 3- "In Warhammer 40k, we represent this by grouping models together into units."

Now with that said, they cite one example of a usual example of a model formation composed of several models in a unit- "A unit usually consists of several models that have banded togther."

However, they also say "but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is considered to be a unit in its own right."

Page 39 under Independent Character rules-

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

Ongoing Effects Page 39-
explains the nature of effects staying or leaving when an IC leaves or joins a unit.

Page 112- Levels of Alliance- "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 alliances between each army."

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

"Can be joined by allied Independent Characters."

Given that BB is an effect that continues to influence ICs and that under page 3 that asserts grouping models together into units, if we allow a BB IC to join with a BB allied unit, he counts as a 'friendly unit' from all points of view, attaching as a 'friendly unit' to an allied BB unit for that particular alliance level.

I hope this helps with clarity on the matter.

 WarOne wrote:
However, they also say "but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is considered to be a unit in its own right."

A character in a unit isn't "lone", now is it?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Well that was not my claim. I was getting towards the line of thought that as a mixed unit, the unit as a whole would have to be considered BB. As it is both SM and Tau the unit would be subject to the pros and cons of both.

If they both continue to exist as part of the whole, surely you're asserting that the Tau IC unit continues to exist.

Not as a separate unit.


(when single shines the triple sun)
The two are made one.

 grendel083 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
However, they also say "but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is considered to be a unit in its own right."

A character in a unit isn't "lone", now is it?

You are correct and hence the difference between regular characters (normally considered a part of a unit of models) and Independent Characters, the latter of which is what I have argued represents their own unique unit.

 Xarin wrote:
And your point here is? Because I could say exactly the same thing the other way around, but that's just mud flinging and not rules debate.

Or you could just dismiss points out of hand without any real argument. Is that how rules debates go?

I have made my claims based on the rules and all you an say is 'well I could say the opposite'. I'm starting to doubt you are really interested in a rules debate.

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Well that was not my claim. I was getting towards the line of thought that as a mixed unit, the unit as a whole would have to be considered BB. As it is both SM and Tau the unit would be subject to the pros and cons of both.

If they both continue to exist as part of the whole, surely you're asserting that the Tau IC unit continues to exist.

Not as a separate unit.


(when single shines the triple sun)
The two are made one.

... Which is literally what I've said. Repeatedly. Thanks for agreeing.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Well that was not my claim. I was getting towards the line of thought that as a mixed unit, the unit as a whole would have to be considered BB. As it is both SM and Tau the unit would be subject to the pros and cons of both.

If they both continue to exist as part of the whole, surely you're asserting that the Tau IC unit continues to exist.

Not as a separate unit.


(when single shines the triple sun)
The two are made one.

... Which is literally what I've said. Repeatedly. Thanks for agreeing.

That is not the part I disagreed on so... your welcome

I'm saying that everything that made the Tau IC unit a Tau IC unit (which is the Tau IC model) is now attributed to the unit it joins effectively adding the two units together into one unit that has all the same characteristics each had independently.

 Abandon wrote:
I'm saying that everything that made the Tau IC unit a Tau IC unit (which is the Tau IC model) is now attributed to the unit it joins effectively adding the two units together into one unit that has all the same characteristics each had independently.

And you've also been unable to cite rules supporting that statement. So...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarOne wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except there isnt permission to be a member of two units, at all. Or youc ould cite the specific allowance to be a member of 2+ units.

Gladly. Page 3- "In Warhammer 40k, we represent this by grouping models together into units."

Now with that said, they cite one example of a usual example of a model formation composed of several models in a unit- "A unit usually consists of several models that have banded togther."

However, they also say "but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is considered to be a unit in its own right."

Page 39 under Independent Character rules-

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

Ongoing Effects Page 39-
explains the nature of effects staying or leaving when an IC leaves or joins a unit.

Page 112- Levels of Alliance- "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 alliances between each army."

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

"Can be joined by allied Independent Characters."

Given that BB is an effect that continues to influence ICs and that under page 3 that asserts grouping models together into units, if we allow a BB IC to join with a BB allied unit, he counts as a 'friendly unit' from all points of view, attaching as a 'friendly unit' to an allied BB unit for that particular alliance level.

I hope this helps with clarity on the matter.

All of those rules quotes and not a single one allowing a model to be a member of two units at the same time. Wow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarOne wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
However, they also say "but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is considered to be a unit in its own right."

A character in a unit isn't "lone", now is it?

You are correct and hence the difference between regular characters (normally considered a part of a unit of models) and Independent Characters, the latter of which is what I have argued represents their own unique unit.

When they're alone, yes they're a unique unit.
Whe. They've joined another unit they aren't alone. (Hint - that's what joined means)

rigeld2 wrote:

All of those rules quotes and not a single one allowing a model to be a member of two units at the same time. Wow.

It starts with Page 3 as the rulebook allows grouping models together into units, not a unit, but units.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Well, if IC magically loses their status, then i guess this means that joining a Tau Commander to a SM squad gives those SM's the ability to use markerlights. If it can go one way, (Tau Commander now part of the squad of SM for transport purposes), then it can go the other way too.

If only the SM unit was a unit chosen from the Tau codex like the marker light rule requires...

But would you agree a Chaplain in a squad of fire warriors able to do so then?

I don't remember if the marker light rule is specific enough or not. So... Maybe?

Battle Brothers can never embark on transports. Ever. There's no rule exception here anywhere that i can find.

The reason why i gave the Tau example with markerlights is that the Codex itself specifically states that markerlights can only be used by Tau Codex units and no one else. You can have a Chaplain join a squad of FWs, but he cannot use the markerlights. He doesn't suddenly be a part of the Tau Codex just because he's hanging out with them.

What happens when a SM Chaplain joins a Tau Commander. Are they now a super unit that can embark in ANY transport?

I

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

All of those rules quotes and not a single one allowing a model to be a member of two units at the same time. Wow.

It starts with Page 3 as the rulebook allows grouping models together into units, not a unit, but units.

And what does a unit consist of? It's almost like the plural there is because you will have multiple units in an army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AnonAmbientLight wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Well, if IC magically loses their status, then i guess this means that joining a Tau Commander to a SM squad gives those SM's the ability to use markerlights. If it can go one way, (Tau Commander now part of the squad of SM for transport purposes), then it can go the other way too.

If only the SM unit was a unit chosen from the Tau codex like the marker light rule requires...

But would you agree a Chaplain in a squad of fire warriors able to do so then?

I don't remember if the marker light rule is specific enough or not. So... Maybe?

Battle Brothers can never embark on transports. Ever. There's no rule exception here anywhere that i can find.

Then you're not reading and understanding the thread.

The reason why i gave the Tau example with markerlights is that the Codex itself specifically states that markerlights can only be used by Tau Codex units and no one else. You can have a Chaplain join a squad of FWs, but he cannot use the markerlights. He doesn't suddenly be a part of the Tau Codex just because he's hanging out with them.

The marker light rule that was quoted absolutely disagrees with you. You can argue intent all you want, but that doesn't change what's written.

What happens when a SM Chaplain joins a Tau Commander. Are they now a super unit that can embark in ANY transport?

No. It'd be a Tau unit (since the Chaplain joined the Commander). If the Commander joined the Chaplain it'd be an SM unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

All of those rules quotes and not a single one allowing a model to be a member of two units at the same time. Wow.

It starts with Page 3 as the rulebook allows grouping models together into units, not a unit, but units.
And what does a unit consist of? It's almost like the plural there is because you will have multiple units in an army.

As per page 3, a unit usually consists of models. However, you can have models also in units.

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

All of those rules quotes and not a single one allowing a model to be a member of two units at the same time. Wow.

It starts with Page 3 as the rulebook allows grouping models together into units, not a unit, but units.
And what does a unit consist of? It's almost like the plural there is because you will have multiple units in an army.

As per page 3, a unit usually consists of models. However, you can have models also in units.

The first sentence is permitted by page 3. The second is completely made up and has no support from page 3.
Can you admit this multiple-unit unit? Page 3 doesn't support it at all and it breaks numerous rules. Units with an IC would never be allowed to embark a non-Apoc transport, for example, because they can only transport a single unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

All of those rules quotes and not a single one allowing a model to be a member of two units at the same time. Wow.

It starts with Page 3 as the rulebook allows grouping models together into units, not a unit, but units.
And what does a unit consist of? It's almost like the plural there is because you will have multiple units in an army.

As per page 3, a unit usually consists of models. However, you can have models also in units.

The first sentence is permitted by page 3. The second is completely made up and has no support from page 3.
Can you admit this multiple-unit unit? Page 3 doesn't support it at all and it breaks numerous rules. Units with an IC would never be allowed to embark a non-Apoc transport, for example, because they can only transport a single unit.

I can admit this, Page 3 states this by"grouping models together into units."

I appreciate the critique and critical analysis of course, but such as it is, I believe that we have delved as far as can possible go into this particular debate. RAW leaves little left else to dissect as unit composition pretty much begins and ends on Page 3.

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

All of those rules quotes and not a single one allowing a model to be a member of two units at the same time. Wow.

It starts with Page 3 as the rulebook allows grouping models together into units, not a unit, but units.
And what does a unit consist of? It's almost like the plural there is because you will have multiple units in an army.

As per page 3, a unit usually consists of models. However, you can have models also in units.

The first sentence is permitted by page 3. The second is completely made up and has no support from page 3.
Can you admit this multiple-unit unit? Page 3 doesn't support it at all and it breaks numerous rules. Units with an IC would never be allowed to embark a non-Apoc transport, for example, because they can only transport a single unit.

I can admit this, Page 3 states this by"grouping models together into units."

I appreciate the critique and critical analysis of course, but such as it is, I believe that we have delved as far as can possible go into this particular debate. RAW leaves little left else to dissect as unit composition pretty much begins and ends on Page 3.

It uses the plural there because if it didn't you'd only be able to have a single unit ever. You have 20 models. 10 in that unit, 9 in that unit, 1 in that unit. There - modelS have been grouped into unitS.

Since you won't bother conceding the point, will you at least stop arguing it? Your viewpoint has literally no rules support except for you taking one single word and twisting how it's used.

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

All of those rules quotes and not a single one allowing a model to be a member of two units at the same time. Wow.

It starts with Page 3 as the rulebook allows grouping models together into units, not a unit, but units.
And what does a unit consist of? It's almost like the plural there is because you will have multiple units in an army.

As per page 3, a unit usually consists of models. However, you can have models also in units.

The first sentence is permitted by page 3. The second is completely made up and has no support from page 3.
Can you admit this multiple-unit unit? Page 3 doesn't support it at all and it breaks numerous rules. Units with an IC would never be allowed to embark a non-Apoc transport, for example, because they can only transport a single unit.

I can admit this, Page 3 states this by"grouping models together into units."

I appreciate the critique and critical analysis of course, but such as it is, I believe that we have delved as far as can possible go into this particular debate. RAW leaves little left else to dissect as unit composition pretty much begins and ends on Page 3.

It uses the plural there because if it didn't you'd only be able to have a single unit ever. You have 20 models. 10 in that unit, 9 in that unit, 1 in that unit. There - modelS have been grouped into unitS.

Since you won't bother conceding the point, will you at least stop arguing it? Your viewpoint has literally no rules support except for you taking one single word and twisting how it's used.

I believe we had an exhaustive, constructive debate about the subject am I agree that the RAW interpretation would probably not work with a RAI ruling so to that point we can shift the debate to another area.

For example, how to define the relationship of a Battle Brother IC in an allied unit when the allied rule from Page 112 asks us to treat all Battle Brothers as 'friendly units.'

i.e. the current debate between other members on this thread.

 WarOne wrote:
I believe we had an exhaustive, constructive debate about the subject am I agree that the RAW interpretation would probably not work with a RAI ruling so to that point we can shift the debate to another area.

Your interpretation has no basis in rules and cannot be considered RAW.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
I'm saying that everything that made the Tau IC unit a Tau IC unit (which is the Tau IC model) is now attributed to the unit it joins effectively adding the two units together into one unit that has all the same characteristics each had independently.

And you've also been unable to cite rules supporting that statement. So...

I've cited rules for my arguments though none have been asked for as the rules surrounding this issue are well known by the relevant parties.

Abandon wrote:
"In most cases, it will be fairly obvious which unit type category a model falls into, but as unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile, you'll be able to find that information in the relevant codex." page 44, BRB (emphasis mine)

So as far as we can tell a unit by itself is only defined essentially as a group of models. Not a group belonging to a specific codex, not of a specific characteristic, etc. So a unit of Space Marines is such not by default or because you purchased the unit that way but because it contains Space Marines. In light of that fact a unit that contains more than just Space Marines will be more than just a unit of Space Marines.

Abandon wrote:
"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes"

Here it is made clear the IC is as much a part of the unit as every other member of that unit and therefore it's own characteristics are also taken into consideration for the unit as a whole just like every other models characteristics in the unit.

I'll add another citation though I really did not think it necessary "Independent Characters can join other units." page 39, BRB

IC's join units. They do not disappear into them. They are not subsumed or absorbed into them. They are joined which signifies nothing more than an attachment, a connection or link causing them to be considered one unit instead of two. Joining is a two way relationship indicating each side is attached to the other. How you may have twisted this around to mean something other than two entities being connected together to form a new whole is unclear to me.