Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 16:26:40


Post by: Khaine's Wrath


An example of what I want to do is simple. Allied inquisitor joins a sternguard unit in a drop pod. Can I do this?

This debate has started in another thread, I wanted to pull it out as a separate argument.

Some people are using the allies rules which states even battle brothers can't embark on allied transports. Others are quoting the independent character rules stating that when an IC joins a unit he becomes part of that unit, and it is the units transport and therefore allowed.

Where do we stand dakka?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 16:37:53


Post by: clively


Khaine: read this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/523666.page

It was locked after 14 pages of debate, there hasn't been a FAQ to resolve it AND we have new rules coming in 2 weeks...


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 16:38:39


Post by: nosferatu1001


Raw yes, because the bb rules refer to
Bb units, and while the IC is attached it isn't a BB unit.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 17:36:22


Post by: Khaine's Wrath


Are the release dates for the new rules confirmed? I really need to get my hands on the new book. Anyone know if this months white dwarf have any decent info?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 17:41:59


Post by: osirisx69


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Raw yes, because the bb rules refer to
Bb units, and while the IC is attached it isn't a BB unit.


to quote a famous dakkanaught

"This is where you have taken an incorrect logical leap.

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

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


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 17:46:47


Post by: rigeld2


osirisx69 wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Raw yes, because the bb rules refer to
Bb units, and while the IC is attached it isn't a BB unit.


to quote a famous dakkanaught

"This is where you have taken an incorrect logical leap.

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

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

And that famous dakkanaught is completely and utterly wrong.
There is no rule that says IC battle brothers are not allowed to embark.
There is a rule that Battle Brother (units) are not allowed to embark. An IC that is joined to a unit is not, himself, a unit and therefore there's no restriction on embarking.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 17:46:59


Post by: Khaine's Wrath


Well that is why I am interested in how tournaments play it?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 17:58:14


Post by: osirisx69


rigeld2 wrote:
osirisx69 wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Raw yes, because the bb rules refer to
Bb units, and while the IC is attached it isn't a BB unit.


to quote a famous dakkanaught

"This is where you have taken an incorrect logical leap.

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

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

And that famous dakkanaught is completely and utterly wrong.
There is no rule that says IC battle brothers are not allowed to embark.
There is a rule that Battle Brother (units) are not allowed to embark. An IC that is joined to a unit is not, himself, a unit and therefore there's no restriction on embarking.


Please site page and reference where it explicitly states IC of a DIFFERENT codex are not considered battle brothers.

All I am asking you show us where it says that..... that's it...........


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 18:02:18


Post by: rigeld2


osirisx69 wrote:
[Please site page and reference where it explicitly states IC of a DIFFERENT codex are not considered battle brothers.

All I am asking you show us where it says that..... that's it...........

What? That has literally no bearing on anything I've said.

Battle Brothers are defined as being friendly units. Correct?
If something is not a unit, it cannot be a friendly unit. Correct?
An IC that joins a unit is no longer a unit in and of himself. Correct?

Please tell me which one of these you disagree with and cite rules to support your disagreement.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 18:16:47


Post by: osirisx69


Its simple really.

When you take an allied detachment you have to determine if its a battle brother or not. correct?
When you purchase the units from a different codex that you have determined is a battlebrother all models\units\squads\ are battlebrothers, including independent characters. correct?
Since there is NO RULE anywhere saying you remove that tag\status\honor of battle brother, anything purchased from that allied codex therefore still a battlebrother correct?.
It states not EVEN battlebrothers can join DT. Correct?

what don't you agree with and why?




Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 18:20:49


Post by: rigeld2


rigeld2 wrote:
osirisx69 wrote:
[Please site page and reference where it explicitly states IC of a DIFFERENT codex are not considered battle brothers.

All I am asking you show us where it says that..... that's it...........

What? That has literally no bearing on anything I've said.

Battle Brothers are defined as being friendly units. Correct?
If something is not a unit, it cannot be a friendly unit. Correct?
An IC that joins a unit is no longer a unit in and of himself. Correct?

Please tell me which one of these you disagree with and cite rules to support your disagreement.

I'd love an actual answer.

osirisx69 wrote:It states not EVEN battlebrothers can join DT. Correct?

Partially correct, but misleading. The rule you're referring to is part of a set of rules that refer to BB as friendly units. Since an IC that joins a unit is no longer a unit he is not bound by those rules whatsoever.
Which is why I asked my questions - they're absolutely relevant and your refusal to answer them is noted.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 18:44:47


Post by: Pyrian


rigeld2 wrote:
Since an IC that joins a unit is no longer a unit he is not bound by those rules whatsoever.
...Thereby removing his permission to be joined to that unit in the first place?

Anyway, no. Battle Brothers are not defined as friendly units, they're treated as friendly units. They're defined as coming from a specific different codex. Joining a unit does not remove its status as a Battle Brother - it still came from a different codex.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 18:46:14


Post by: osirisx69


Pyrian wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Since an IC that joins a unit is no longer a unit he is not bound by those rules whatsoever.
...Thereby removing his permission to be joined to that unit in the first place?

Anyway, no. Battle Brothers are not defined as friendly units, they're treated as friendly units. They're defined as coming from a specific different codex. Joining a unit does not remove its status as a Battle Brother - it still came from a different codex.


+1

and ninjad my response......


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 18:46:39


Post by: rigeld2


Pyrian wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Since an IC that joins a unit is no longer a unit he is not bound by those rules whatsoever.
...Thereby removing his permission to be joined to that unit in the first place?

You mean the permission granted by being an IC?

Anyway, no. Battle Brothers are not defined as friendly units, they're treated as friendly units. They're defined as coming from a specific different codex. Joining a unit does not remove its status as a Battle Brother - it still came from a different codex.

I didn't say, and haven't said, that the IC isn't from another codex.
And you're misrepresenting something - when 40k says "treated as" it has to mean the same thing as "is".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
osirisx69 wrote:
Pyrian wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Since an IC that joins a unit is no longer a unit he is not bound by those rules whatsoever.
...Thereby removing his permission to be joined to that unit in the first place?

Anyway, no. Battle Brothers are not defined as friendly units, they're treated as friendly units. They're defined as coming from a specific different codex. Joining a unit does not remove its status as a Battle Brother - it still came from a different codex.


+1

Another refusal to answer questions?
Awesome.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 19:20:32


Post by: Pyrian


rigeld2 wrote:
Anyway, no. Battle Brothers are not defined as friendly units, they're treated as friendly units. They're defined as coming from a specific different codex. Joining a unit does not remove its status as a Battle Brother - it still came from a different codex.

I didn't say, and haven't said, that the IC isn't from another codex.
But you ARE claiming that he is no longer a Battle Brother, which is equivalent.

rigeld2 wrote:
And you're misrepresenting something - when 40k says "treated as" it has to mean the same thing as "is".
I've made the same argument a number of times, but this is different. Typically, the argument goes, A is treated as B, a rule references B, and people try to argue that A isn't "really" B, so it shouldn't apply. You're doing a sort of inverse of the same thing; trying to claim that a rule doesn't apply to A because A isn't A because it's B. But being B doesn't make A not A. If A is treated as B, and a rule references A, you don't get to claim that the rule doesn't apply because A is now B rather than A. A is B - but it's still A, too.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 19:25:20


Post by: osirisx69


Pyrian wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Anyway, no. Battle Brothers are not defined as friendly units, they're treated as friendly units. They're defined as coming from a specific different codex. Joining a unit does not remove its status as a Battle Brother - it still came from a different codex.

I didn't say, and haven't said, that the IC isn't from another codex.
But you ARE claiming that he is no longer a Battle Brother, which is equivalent.

[color=blue]That is the only way for the argument to be valid. The IC would have to lose the BB status in order for it to be in a DT. I just don 't see anywhere here in the BRB that supports that argument. Because if its NOT a BB then it could NOT join an allied unit in the first place. So yes he is claiming through a logical leap that IC lose there BB status.[/color]

rigeld2 wrote:
And you're misrepresenting something - when 40k says "treated as" it has to mean the same thing as "is".
I've made the same argument a number of times, but this is different. Typically, the argument goes, A is treated as B, a rule references B, and people try to argue that A isn't "really" B, so it shouldn't apply. You're doing a sort of inverse of the same thing; trying to claim that a rule doesn't apply to A because A isn't A because it's B. But being B doesn't make A not A. If A is treated as B, and a rule references A, you don't get to claim that the rule doesn't apply because A is now B rather than A. A is B - but it's still A, too.


This +1


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 19:25:36


Post by: rigeld2


Pyrian wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Anyway, no. Battle Brothers are not defined as friendly units, they're treated as friendly units. They're defined as coming from a specific different codex. Joining a unit does not remove its status as a Battle Brother - it still came from a different codex.

I didn't say, and haven't said, that the IC isn't from another codex.
But you ARE claiming that he is no longer a Battle Brother, which is equivalent.

No, I'm not. I'm stating he's no longer bound by the restrictions associated with Battle Brother units.

rigeld2 wrote:
And you're misrepresenting something - when 40k says "treated as" it has to mean the same thing as "is".
I've made the same argument a number of times, but this is different. Typically, the argument goes, A is treated as B, a rule references B, and people try to argue that A isn't "really" B, so it shouldn't apply. You're doing a sort of inverse of the same thing; trying to claim that a rule doesn't apply to A because A isn't A because it's B. But being B doesn't make A not A. If A is treated as B, and a rule references A, you don't get to claim that the rule doesn't apply because A is now B rather than A. A is B - but it's still A, too.

I don't really follow what you said, but you're saying he's still a Battle Brother? Sure. I don't care.
He's not a Battle Brother *unit* which is what the rule in question applies to. Which is what I said. Please address what I've said instead of assuming what you think I'm saying.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 19:44:44


Post by: Leonus


I get what you're saying, rigeld. While a battle brother unit cannot embark, an independent character (once joined to another unit) is not a battle brother unit anymore.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 19:59:00


Post by: rigeld2


 Leonus wrote:
I get what you're saying, rigeld. While a battle brother unit cannot embark, an independent character (once joined to another unit) is not a battle brother unit anymore.

Exactly. It's still a Battle Brother, but that's irrelevant as the only rules restricting embarkation are associated with BB units.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 20:03:44


Post by: insaniak


'No' vote from me. Battle brothers can not ride in Allied transports.

Allowing them to do so causes issues when the squad climbs out (or dies) and may result in the end of space-time as we know it. Think of the universe. Don't put allied ICs in transports.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 20:34:04


Post by: Nem


With the inconsistencies it's easier to agree on no. There have been polls before which suggest most people would play it no.

We can cross our fingers for allies fix in 7, with recent publications I'm guessing that New release will follow the trend 'unit' will disappear from the relationship BRB section and be replaced with 'models'.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 20:54:48


Post by: rigeld2


Most people play that way, sure.
But it's demonstrably not what the rules actually say - which is what was asked.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/12 21:58:20


Post by: Jimsolo


I say yes, however, a vast majority of Dakka users think otherwise. You'd be hard pressed to find an opponent who'd play it otherwise.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 05:26:30


Post by: Naw


Removed.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 05:39:59


Post by: Jimsolo


Naw wrote:
This is very easy:

Is the IC from an allied detachment?
If yes, then that IC is a BB at best and there is a _specific_ rule forbidding his embarkment.

Anything else is just ignoring the one rule to rule them all.

Once the allied IC has joined a primary detachment unit, check again where he is from. Is he from the allied detachment? Yes, he still is. He is forbidden from embarking.

Why do you continuosly ignore a) the rules defining alliances and b) the _specific_ rule that forbids the action of embarking?


Why do you ignore the Independent Character rule? The part where it says the character is considered a member of that unit for ALL rules purposes. Army affiliation would seem to qualify. And in most cases (bar a few special exceptions mentioned in the FAQs) it does.

This last bit is to Rig: You do not have demonstrated anything else than your ability to ignore a specific rule.

My IC does not suddenly become a troop just because he joined a unit of troops


For almost every rules purpose that matters, he does. If your HQ is joined to a troops unit and he is the only model from that unit in range of an objective, you still claim it because he's still a member of a scoring (troops) unit.

and my allied IC certainly does not become part of the primary detachment losing his allied status by joining my primary detachment troops!

Can't believe why there is even an argument saying otherwise..


Because the RAW seems to say otherwise. I understand that an overwhelming majority of players have decided that the RAI is that allied ICs can't get in their Battle Brothers' transports, and that might even be the case, but it isn't the RAW. And since we apparently love to debate the Rules as Written and Not How Anyone is Ever Going to Play Them, then the answer is that BB units can be joined by an IC in their low-riders. Trying to dismiss an argument (especially one that continues to spark so much debate) as 'unbelievable' is one of the surest signs of not being sure you're correct.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 05:42:27


Post by: Scipio Africanus


Must we start this again?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 05:46:41


Post by: Jimsolo


Every couple of months. Like clockwork. Usually right after someone starts the 'Can Space Marine apothecaries take upgrades?' thread all over again. Although occasionally this one takes a backseat to the 'do drop pod doors always count as open?' thread. Have I missed any of the 'Top 10 YMDC Hits?'


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 05:53:48


Post by: Naw


 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Must we start this again?


No, we don't. Apologies, I'll remove my message to prevent more responses.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 08:00:30


Post by: PrinceRaven


I'm gonna go with no, an Eldar Farseer in a tau Fire Warrior squad is stil an Eldar Farseer.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 10:04:06


Post by: Happyjew


 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm gonna go with no, an Eldar Farseer in a tau Fire Warrior squad is stil an Eldar Farseer.


Right, however, the unit is a Tau Fire Warrior unit. No one is saying that the Farseer magically becomes a Fire Warrior.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 10:13:26


Post by: PrinceRaven


They are saying it is no longer a Battle Brother, but as an Eldar model it clearly is, as it is from the allied detachment and its rules are found in the allied codex.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 10:27:42


Post by: niv-mizzet


 Jimsolo wrote:
Every couple of months. Like clockwork. Usually right after someone starts the 'Can Space Marine apothecaries take upgrades?' thread all over again. Although occasionally this one takes a backseat to the 'do drop pod doors always count as open?' thread. Have I missed any of the 'Top 10 YMDC Hits?'


You missed stacking hammerhand, and the rule that says "different powers stack" apparently being a waste of ink.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 10:56:35


Post by: nosferatu1001


 PrinceRaven wrote:
They are saying it is no longer a Battle Brother, but as an Eldar model it clearly is, as it is from the allied detachment and its rules are found in the allied codex.

Incorrect, reread more carefully, and note that a distinction is made between a UNIT and a MODEL here, one that you are missing.

The rules concerning Battle Brother units state that they cannot embark allied vehicles.
There is no such restriction on Battle Brother models.

An IC joining a unit is demonstrably NOT a unit in their own right any longer, but as per page 39 are a normal member for ALL rules purposes. Thus, the eldar model is STILL a battle brother, but NOT a battle brother unit, and absolutely CAN embark while joined to the Tau unit.

100% solid, concrete rules.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 12:26:43


Post by: PrinceRaven


The rule says "However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles", not Battle Brothers units, Battle Brothers. The IC is a Battle Brother; therefore they cannot embark on friendly transports; Q.E.D.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 12:31:59


Post by: Naw


Don't bother, they'll just ignore that rule as there are only battle brother units and battle brother models in the game. That is why the rule does not count.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 12:41:32


Post by: nosferatu1001


 PrinceRaven wrote:
The rule says "However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles", not Battle Brothers units, Battle Brothers. The IC is a Battle Brother; therefore they cannot embark on friendly transports; Q.E.D.

Yes, and if you read further up that example, you will note it is talking only about batle brother units, not models. Meaning that, unless you are ignoring context, this is referring to units of Battle Brothers and is a restriction only on said units.

Or do you disagree that he rule is only talking about units? If so you are ignoring context.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 12:45:03


Post by: rigeld2


Naw wrote:
This is very easy:

Is the IC from an allied detachment?
If yes, then that IC is a BB at best and there is a _specific_ rule forbidding his embarkment.

That's incorrect. There's a specific rule forbidding BB units from embarking. Please cite rules correctly.

This last bit is to Rig: You do not have demonstrated anything else than your ability to ignore a specific rule.

My IC does not suddenly become a troop just because he joined a unit of troops

As far as the rules are concerned, he does. Pretending otherwise violates the IC rules.
I'm ignoring nothing - please do not put words in my mouth. I've demonstrated how the rules work. I've asked 3 questions to give people an opportunity to show where they disagree. It's been ignored. I've cited rules to support my position. The best that has been used in rebuttal is "Nuh uh!".

I know you removed your post, but as you had a section directly addressed to me, I wanted to respond.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 12:45:19


Post by: PrinceRaven


I'm sorry, I was under the impression this was a RAW discussion, not RAI.

Please ignore me.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 12:46:37


Post by: rigeld2


 PrinceRaven wrote:
The rule says "However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles", not Battle Brothers units, Battle Brothers. The IC is a Battle Brother; therefore they cannot embark on friendly transports; Q.E.D.

Please, read the header before those bullet points.
Note that Battle Brothers are friendly units. Do you disagree?
Why are you separating the bullet points from the header?
Why are you assuming that something that isn't a unit can be restricted by rules around a friendly unit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm sorry, I was under the impression this was a RAW discussion, not RAI.

Please ignore me.

It is a RAW discussion. I've cited the rules that support my position.
Your refusal to actually address my argument is noted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Naw wrote:
Don't bother, they'll just ignore that rule as there are only battle brother units and battle brother models in the game. That is why the rule does not count.

That's a lie - I'm ignoring nothing.
Please address the argument, not the person.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 13:00:45


Post by: nosferatu1001


 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm sorry, I was under the impression this was a RAW discussion, not RAI.

Please ignore me.

It is a RAW discussion - I've supplied the rules, which is that Battle Brothers are defined under rules for BB UNITS. Nott models. It is only possible to disagree if you literally ignore rules


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 13:06:21


Post by: PrinceRaven


rigeld2 wrote:
 PrinceRaven wrote:
The rule says "However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles", not Battle Brothers units, Battle Brothers. The IC is a Battle Brother; therefore they cannot embark on friendly transports; Q.E.D.

Please, read the header before those bullet points.
Note that Battle Brothers are friendly units. Do you disagree?
Why are you separating the bullet points from the header?
Why are you assuming that something that isn't a unit can be restricted by rules around a friendly unit?


No, I do not.
Because each is a separate rule.
Because (a) an Independent character is a unit, (b) the rule does not say it only applies to units and (c) as it comes from the allied codex it is by definition a Battle Brother.

It is a RAW discussion. I've cited the rules that support my position.
Your refusal to actually address my argument is noted.


Just personal opinion here, but I consider saying that a rule is intended to mean something other than what it says it means because of "context" to be a RAI argument.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 13:16:23


Post by: rigeld2


 PrinceRaven wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 PrinceRaven wrote:
The rule says "However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles", not Battle Brothers units, Battle Brothers. The IC is a Battle Brother; therefore they cannot embark on friendly transports; Q.E.D.

Please, read the header before those bullet points.
Note that Battle Brothers are friendly units. Do you disagree?
Why are you separating the bullet points from the header?
Why are you assuming that something that isn't a unit can be restricted by rules around a friendly unit?


No, I do not.
Because each is a separate rule.
Because (a) an Independent character is a unit, (b) the rule does not say it only applies to units and (c) as it comes from the allied codex it is by definition a Battle Brother.

Your (b) is demonstrably incorrect.

p112 wrote:Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all
points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:

Note that it says "all points of view". Note again that the second sentence (the header for the bullet points) is applying that definition (friendly units) to the bullet points.
Therefore the rule does apply to only units - specifically friendly units that are tagged as Battle Brothers.

Just personal opinion here, but I consider saying that a rule is intended to mean something other than what it says it means because of "context" to be a RAI argument.

Except you're misreading the rule. I'm not saying it's what is intended, I am saying what the rule actually says.

Do you or don't you?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 13:18:48


Post by: nosferatu1001


PR - so you disagree that the definition only stalks about units? P39 also tates an IC is no longer a unit when joined - sol your a) is false as well.

So far a) and b) are wrong, and c) is an unsupported leap given the rules for BB define them as being units. So QED you are wrong


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 13:20:29


Post by: osirisx69


 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm sorry, I was under the impression this was a RAW discussion, not RAI.

Please ignore me.


This +1


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 13:21:40


Post by: Naw


As PrinceRaven said, you can't cherry pick your rules.

Rule 1 allows something.
Rule 2 alllows something.
Rule 3 prevents the above two in certain situation.

Your claim is that rule 3 does not count as there are no BB models, only BB units. But the rule 3 does not make that distinction, it universally forbids you from doing something. That rule has been quoted already, and it is very clear in wording.

Produce a rule that disproves this.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 13:32:53


Post by: rigeld2


osirisx69 wrote:
 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm sorry, I was under the impression this was a RAW discussion, not RAI.

Please ignore me.


This +1

It is a RAW discussion. As was already mentioned. So just saying "This +1" isn't contributing anything.

Naw wrote:As PrinceRaven said, you can't cherry pick your rules.

Rule 1 allows something.
Rule 2 alllows something.
Rule 3 prevents the above two in certain situation.

Your claim is that rule 3 does not count as there are no BB models, only BB units. But the rule 3 does not make that distinction, it universally forbids you from doing something. That rule has been quoted already, and it is very clear in wording.

Produce a rule that disproves this.

Rule 3 absolutely does make that distinction.

p112 wrote:Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:
...
• However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles.

All points of view. What does that mean? Oh - the rules are kind enough to tell us what "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units'" means.
One of the things it (Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units') means is that not even Battle Brothers (that thing that is a friendly unit) can embark.

Do you or don't you?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 13:44:07


Post by: PrinceRaven


nosferatu1001 wrote:
PR - so you disagree that the definition only stalks about units? P39 also tates an IC is no longer a unit when joined - sol your a) is false as well.

So far a) and b) are wrong, and c) is an unsupported leap given the rules for BB define them as being units. So QED you are wrong


Page 39 says it is counted as part of the unit for all purposes, not that it stops being a unit, do you believe a Farseer joined to a squad of Fire Warriors is no longer a Farseer unit?

Saying that the "Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units" rule means that only units are defined as Battle Brothers is also an unsupported leap.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 13:45:26


Post by: rigeld2


 PrinceRaven wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
PR - so you disagree that the definition only stalks about units? P39 also tates an IC is no longer a unit when joined - sol your a) is false as well.

So far a) and b) are wrong, and c) is an unsupported leap given the rules for BB define them as being units. So QED you are wrong


Page 39 says it is counted as part of the unit for all purposes, not that it stops being a unit, do you believe a Farseer joined to a squad of Fire Warriors is no longer a Farseer unit?

Correct - he's no longer a unit. He's still a Farseer, but he's not a unit.

Saying that the "Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units" rule means that only units are defined as Battle Brothers is also an unsupported leap.

Really? Do you have another rules definition of what being a Battle Brother means in the rules?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 13:49:20


Post by: osirisx69


Naw wrote:
As PrinceRaven said, you can't cherry pick your rules.

Rule 1 allows something.
Rule 2 alllows something.
Rule 3 prevents the above two in certain situation.

Your claim is that rule 3 does not count as there are no BB models, only BB units. But the rule 3 does not make that distinction, it universally forbids you from doing something. That rule has been quoted already, and it is very clear in wording.

Produce a rule that disproves this.


This is absolutely correct. Saying that BB does not apply to models would negate being able to purchase said models through the codex.

When you purchase the models in whatever allied codex they are all considered units

Independent characters count as one unit for targeting purposes, shooting, and assault, so why would they NOT be a unit when determining BB status?

Heck (I am paraphrasing) it even says in the BB that an IC is considered 1 unit or if a few join together its considered 1 big unit


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 13:52:45


Post by: rigeld2


osirisx69 wrote:
This is absolutely correct. Saying that BB does not apply to models would negate being able to purchase said models through the codex.

No it wouldn't. At all.

When you purchase the models in whatever allied codex they are all considered units

Yup.

Independent characters count as one unit for targeting purposes, shooting, and assault, so why would they NOT be a unit when determining BB status?

Because they're joined to another unit and therefore do not count as a unit for targeting, shooting, or assault.

Heck (I am paraphrasing) it even says in the BB that an IC is considered 1 unit or if a few join together its considered 1 big unit

... Correct. Literally no bearing, but correct.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 13:56:55


Post by: Big Blind Bill


Its a standard warhammer rules conundrum. Both points have merits to them, and there is no clear answer. GW hasn't released an FAQ in over a year so they are no help.

If you are into competitive play, then ask the organizers of the event you wish to attend. House rules for tournaments seems to be the way things are going.

As for HIWPI, I would allow it, as do the group of guys I play with. An inquisitor riding with some space marines in a rhino? Sure, what's the problem with this?
Its a beer and pretzels game after all, and not even the game designers care so much as to clarify the rules.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 14:03:17


Post by: Fragile


 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Its a standard warhammer rules conundrum. Both points have merits to them, and there is no clear answer. GW hasn't released an FAQ in over a year so they are no help.

If you are into competitive play, then ask the organizers of the event you wish to attend. House rules for tournaments seems to be the way things are going.

As for HIWPI, I would allow it, as do the group of guys I play with. An inquisitor riding with some space marines in a rhino? Sure, what's the problem with this?
Its a beer and pretzels game after all, and not even the game designers care so much as to clarify the rules.


All, true. But in general people like to follow RAW in these discussions. Its very hard to argue with ""While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.."" in this discussion for RAW though.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 14:04:42


Post by: osirisx69


The op asked what dakka thinks. Both the polls clearly show over 76% of players have it right and feel IC cannot use an allied DT. If you want to bend rules or make stretching logical leaps you could play it wrong and allow IC's to use an allied DT.

Either way, again, this topic has run its course and probably should be locked as there is no new information being added.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 14:07:04


Post by: rigeld2


osirisx69 wrote:
The op asked what dakka thinks. Both the polls clearly show over 76% of players have it right and feel IC cannot use an allied DT. If you want to bend rules or make stretching logical leaps you could play it wrong and allow IC's to use an allied DT.

Please don't assert right/wrong without at least attempting to disprove an argument.

As it is, all you've done is say I'm wrong and offered literally nothing to back it up. Please actually contribute to the thread.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 14:20:43


Post by: Farseer Faenyin


Considering the rules are so clear cut and dry for the Rigeld/Nos camp...I'm surprised the vote is going like it is.

I guess it isn't clear cut and dry and that Battle Brother rule has permission to disappear afterall.

I have to admit, it is nice to see that when there are two ways to 'read' a rule...the masses come to a more logical conclusion...but some still refuse to. Makes this thread so very fun to read.

P.S - I voted 'No', because the Battle Brother rule remains.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 14:24:16


Post by: rigeld2


Please - just once - cite where I've said the Battle Brother rule "disappears". Please - just once - cite where the "other side" is a more "logical conclusion". Use actual rules instead of attempts to mock.

Instead of jeering and snide remarks, actually participate in the discussion. That'd be welcome. Insults aren't.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 14:35:46


Post by: osirisx69


 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
Considering the rules are so clear cut and dry for the Rigeld/Nos camp...I'm surprised the vote is going like it is.

I guess it isn't clear cut and dry and that Battle Brother rule has permission to disappear afterall.

I have to admit, it is nice to see that when there are two ways to 'read' a rule...the masses come to a more logical conclusion...but some still refuse to. Makes this thread so very fun to read.

P.S - I voted 'No', because the Battle Brother rule remains.


You will find this more true then not. Most people are very easy to have a discussion with and debate over. This topic is a prime example. It really has stayed pretty civil even though over 78% agree that IC's cant be in allied DC.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 14:37:28


Post by: rigeld2


osirisx69 wrote:
It really has stayed pretty civil even though over 78% agree that IC's cant be in allied DC.

That many people play that way.
That doesn't mean that's what the rules actually say. You do understand the difference, yes?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 14:48:42


Post by: PrinceRaven


rigeld2 wrote:
 PrinceRaven wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
PR - so you disagree that the definition only stalks about units? P39 also tates an IC is no longer a unit when joined - sol your a) is false as well.

So far a) and b) are wrong, and c) is an unsupported leap given the rules for BB define them as being units. So QED you are wrong


Page 39 says it is counted as part of the unit for all purposes, not that it stops being a unit, do you believe a Farseer joined to a squad of Fire Warriors is no longer a Farseer unit?

Correct - he's no longer a unit. He's still a Farseer, but he's not a unit.


I am ok with this interpretation, since the model is now unable to use the rules for a Farseer unit.

Saying that the "Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units" rule means that only units are defined as Battle Brothers is also an unsupported leap.

Really? Do you have another rules definition of what being a Battle Brother means in the rules?


Considering that "Battle Brothers" is just a level of alliance, everything in the allied detachment that is Battle Brothers with the relevant unit.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 14:54:07


Post by: rigeld2


 PrinceRaven wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 PrinceRaven wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
PR - so you disagree that the definition only stalks about units? P39 also tates an IC is no longer a unit when joined - sol your a) is false as well.

So far a) and b) are wrong, and c) is an unsupported leap given the rules for BB define them as being units. So QED you are wrong


Page 39 says it is counted as part of the unit for all purposes, not that it stops being a unit, do you believe a Farseer joined to a squad of Fire Warriors is no longer a Farseer unit?

Correct - he's no longer a unit. He's still a Farseer, but he's not a unit.


I am ok with this interpretation, since the model is now unable to use the rules for a Farseer unit.

Great? You do realize his special rules, etc are model based and not tied to him being a unit, right?

Saying that the "Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units" rule means that only units are defined as Battle Brothers is also an unsupported leap.

Really? Do you have another rules definition of what being a Battle Brother means in the rules?


Considering that "Battle Brothers" is just a level of alliance, everything in the allied detachment that is Battle Brothers with the relevant unit.

No - that identifies what units are Battle Brothers.
Please define what that means in the rules. I've shown where it's defined. You've said that doesn't apply. Please show me rules that do apply to non-unit Battle Brothers.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 14:59:32


Post by: Kommissar Kel


Clearly an English lesson is required here.

When you have a sentence that ends in a colon(The following symbol ":") with bullet points following it, those bullet points are an extension of that sentence.

When a sentence is part of the body of a paragraph, the first sentence in the paragraph defines the subject of that paragraph.

Now those 2 rules of the English language alone tell you that the bullet points are part of the paragraph and the the paragraph is discussing Battle brothers as friendly units.

But more importantly we have the sentence that the bullet points belongs to: "This means, for example, Battle Brothers:". Example of what means? This means is in regard to the preceding sentence: "Battle brothers are treated as friendly units from all points of view." That is what "this means", that battle brothers as friendly units means...

This is also a theme that continues throughout the Bullet points. Does it say that a Battle brother IC can Join an allied unit? No it says "This Means that Battle Brothers: Can be joined by allied Independent Characters.". Does it say That Battle Brothers can be the target of Psychic powers, Abilities, and so on? Yes, yes it does, and most powers, abilities and what have you are based on units.

The third bullet point is poorly worded(worded as a complete sentence); but it must still be taken in context of its containing sentence.

So sure, the RAW read as anything that is drawn from a battle brothers ally; if yoiu completely ignore the English language and context of the rules

Why don't we ignore the context of Preferred enemy as well?

Or how about Vector Strike? Why can't a gliding FMC use vector strike? If we can ignore the first sentence in the paragraph about Battle brothers I should be able to take a FMC and vector strike while gliding by ignoring the first sentence of the paragraph and ignoring the context of the rest of the rules.

So yeah, the RAW of the rule is that Battle Brothers are friendly units and those units cannot embark on allied transports.

ICs joined to a unit are no longer units on their own, but are instead members of the unit they have joined for all rules purposes.

An Eldar farseer that joins a unit of Fire Warriors is still an Eldar Farseer, but is no longer and Eldar Farseer Unit, he is now just a member of the Tau Firewarrior unit. A Cadre Fireblade is still able to join that unit(ICs joining units does not change the unit, only the IC), and Preferred enemy(Eldar) will not effect that unit.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 15:04:58


Post by: nosferatu1001


 PrinceRaven wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
PR - so you disagree that the definition only stalks about units? P39 also tates an IC is no longer a unit when joined - sol your a) is false as well.

So far a) and b) are wrong, and c) is an unsupported leap given the rules for BB define them as being units. So QED you are wrong


Page 39 says it is counted as part of the unit for all purposes, not that it stops being a unit, do you believe a Farseer joined to a squad of Fire Warriors is no longer a Farseer unit?

Saying that the "Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units" rule means that only units are defined as Battle Brothers is also an unsupported leap.

Yes. Otherwise I can shoot at, and assault, that farseer unit. If you believe there is still aunit there, then under the rules for shooting at units your IC has NO protection from being shot at. Agreed?

To your second point - no, it is literally what that sentence means. The only rules for Battle Brothers that we have apply to units, and units alone. Saying anything else shows you have a poor understanding of English sentence construction, as saying anything else requires you to ignore the colon AND the explicit linkage of subject being "Battle Brother units"

Plesae, show rules pertaining to Battle Brother models. Page and graph. Until you can your concession is accepted.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 15:26:50


Post by: Nem


Unit can be taken either way on that one.. And Special rules are given to models - but only that are in the unit.
Codexs..


1. Unit Name
...

2. Unit Profile
...

3. Unit type
...
..
..

6. Special rules
Any special rules that apply to the models in the unit are listed here.......


I picked on Tau codex for that but believe all new codex's are a copy / paste of the same. Tau codex pg 94.


Of course, this is because unit means 2 different things. It's quite easy to come out with yes they can, or no they can't depending which 'unit' you choose. It's quite easy to say a 'Battle brother unit' is a unit taken as an allied detachment where the relationship is 'Battle Brother', in which case that model will never not be one. As I believe we all agree IC's retain Unit rule tags when joined to another unit.

Evidence of this in work, in the rule set is things like IC's still counting as unit kills. They are not a 'unit' at that point par sey, but they are still a 'unit'. yay.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 15:32:03


Post by: osirisx69


 Nem wrote:
Unit can be taken either way on that one.. And Special rules are given to models - but only that are in the unit.
Codexs..


1. Unit Name
...

2. Unit Profile
...

3. Unit type
...
..
..

6. Special rules
Any special rules that apply to the models in the unit are listed here.......


I picked on Tau codex for that but believe all new codex's are a copy / paste of the same. Tau codex pg 94.


Of course, this is because unit means 2 different things. It's quite easy to come out with yes they can, or no they can't depending which 'unit' you choose. It's quite easy to say a 'Battle brother unit' is a unit taken as an allied detachment where the relationship is 'Battle Brother', in which case that model will never not be one. As I believe we all agree IC's retain Unit rule tags when joined to another unit.

Evidence of this in work, in the rule set is things like IC's still counting as unit kills. They are not a 'unit' at that point par sey, but they are still a 'unit'. yay.


Great points!


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 15:54:54


Post by: Kommissar Kel


 Nem wrote:
Unit can be taken either way on that one.. And Special rules are given to models - but only that are in the unit.
Codexs..


1. Unit Name
...

2. Unit Profile
...

3. Unit type
...
..
..

6. Special rules
Any special rules that apply to the models in the unit are listed here.......


I picked on Tau codex for that but believe all new codex's are a copy / paste of the same. Tau codex pg 94.


Of course, this is because unit means 2 different things. It's quite easy to come out with yes they can, or no they can't depending which 'unit' you choose. It's quite easy to say a 'Battle brother unit' is a unit taken as an allied detachment where the relationship is 'Battle Brother', in which case that model will never not be one. As I believe we all agree IC's retain Unit rule tags when joined to another unit.

Evidence of this in work, in the rule set is things like IC's still counting as unit kills. They are not a 'unit' at that point par sey, but they are still a 'unit'. yay.


Poor points all.

Unit Name, ok that is fine, the model ceases being a unit when they join another unit; all the Ic's in the tau codex(and I am pretty sure all codices) have the same model name as the unit name, and all abilities/special rules are tied to the model name.

Unit Type: This has always been a misnomer, A SM Bike Captain does not stop being a Bike because he joined an Assault squad. Similarly a Riptide does not stop being a MC, nor does the Drones bought for him become MCs when drones are bought for him(since we are using t6he Tau codex).

Special rules: You posted the relevant rules yourself, These are the rules given to the models when you buy the unit. The IC ceases being a unit when brought to the table and joined to a Unit.

And as to the IC counting as a destroyed unit, that falls back to the IC rules as well. It is only while attached to the unit that he is a member of the unit, when he is destroyed he is no longer part of the unit and dies as a Unit himself.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 16:00:49


Post by: PrinceRaven


Can someone actually quote the rule that says an Independent Character ceases being a unit when joined to another unit?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 16:07:24


Post by: osirisx69


 PrinceRaven wrote:
Can someone actually quote the rule that says an Independent Character ceases being a unit when joined to another unit?


Unfortunately it cant be produced because it does not exist. That is why IC cannot use an allied DT


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 16:08:49


Post by: PanzerLeader


 Kommissar Kel wrote:

An Eldar farseer that joins a unit of Fire Warriors is still an Eldar Farseer, but is no longer and Eldar Farseer Unit, he is now just a member of the Tau Firewarrior unit.


Where do you receive permission to not count the Farseer's codex of origin for embarking purposes? He doesn't stop being an Eldar model just because he is joined to a unit of fire warriors.

I think the crux boils down to whether or not you think the IC counts as being absorbed by the parent unit he joins. If you do, then you think that Unit A + IC B = Unit A for all rules purposes, to include embarking on transports. If you think the IC counts as being joined for all rules purposes, then you think at Unit A + IC B = Unit (A+B) and so the unit as a whole no longer has permission to embark on transports because no matter which detachment the model is from (A or B), another model in the unit invokes the BB restriction.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 16:10:00


Post by: Kommissar Kel


BRB Page 39, ICs, first column, last paragraph: "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."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PanzerLeader wrote:
 Kommissar Kel wrote:

An Eldar farseer that joins a unit of Fire Warriors is still an Eldar Farseer, but is no longer and Eldar Farseer Unit, he is now just a member of the Tau Firewarrior unit.


Where do you receive permission to not count the Farseer's codex of origin for embarking purposes? He doesn't stop being an Eldar model just because he is joined to a unit of fire warriors.


Did you read my whole post, it explains this pretty well.

I think the crux boils down to whether or not you think the IC counts as being absorbed by the parent unit he joins. If you do, then you think that Unit A + IC B = Unit A for all rules purposes, to include embarking on transports. If you think the IC counts as being joined for all rules purposes, then you think at Unit A + IC B = Unit (A+B) and so the unit as a whole no longer has permission to embark on transports because no matter which detachment the model is from (A or B), another model in the unit invokes the BB restriction.


This is pretty much the crux of the issue, yes.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 16:24:54


Post by: rigeld2


PanzerLeader wrote:
 Kommissar Kel wrote:

An Eldar farseer that joins a unit of Fire Warriors is still an Eldar Farseer, but is no longer and Eldar Farseer Unit, he is now just a member of the Tau Firewarrior unit.


Where do you receive permission to not count the Farseer's codex of origin for embarking purposes? He doesn't stop being an Eldar model just because he is joined to a unit of fire warriors.

I think the crux boils down to whether or not you think the IC counts as being absorbed by the parent unit he joins. If you do, then you think that Unit A + IC B = Unit A for all rules purposes, to include embarking on transports. If you think the IC counts as being joined for all rules purposes, then you think at Unit A + IC B = Unit (A+B) and so the unit as a whole no longer has permission to embark on transports because no matter which detachment the model is from (A or B), another model in the unit invokes the BB restriction.

If he's simply "joined" what is stopping me from selecting his unit to target? According to that position, the unit still exists. I have permission to target a unit. Where's the denial?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 PrinceRaven wrote:
Can someone actually quote the rule that says an Independent Character ceases being a unit when joined to another unit?

Asking to prove a negative?

How about you prove that he's still a separate, individual unit?
Does this question mean you've accepted you were wrong about how to read the rules on page 112?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 16:26:26


Post by: Kommissar Kel


I was waiting for the response about the IC rule as not meaning the IC Ceases being a unit to pull that out Rigeld.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 16:26:44


Post by: osirisx69


PanzerLeader wrote:
 Kommissar Kel wrote:

An Eldar farseer that joins a unit of Fire Warriors is still an Eldar Farseer, but is no longer and Eldar Farseer Unit, he is now just a member of the Tau Firewarrior unit.


Where do you receive permission to not count the Farseer's codex of origin for embarking purposes? He doesn't stop being an Eldar model just because he is joined to a unit of fire warriors.

I think the crux boils down to whether or not you think the IC counts as being absorbed by the parent unit he joins. If you do, then you think that Unit A + IC B = Unit A for all rules purposes, to include embarking on transports. If you think the IC counts as being joined for all rules purposes, then you think at Unit A + IC B = Unit (A+B) and so the unit as a whole no longer has permission to embark on transports because no matter which detachment the model is from (A or B), another model in the unit invokes the BB restriction.


And in the BRB is says ic's "join" or "attach" to a unit. it never once has said absorbed into a unit.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 16:29:10


Post by: Kommissar Kel


No it says he is "part of" the unit.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 16:29:30


Post by: Khaine's Wrath


Ok guys. I think this needs to end. I think both sides of the argument have valid points. The way I would've liked it to go was that they can join units in transports. But this is why I put a poll up. And I'm going to go with majority decision. I will obviously ask each TO as to how they will play it. In the hope that some sway towards the way I want. But I'll assume majority won't.

Point to note. I am categorically NOT stating that one side if the argument is wrong. I'm simply stating I'm going to go by majority democratic vote. I appreciate all the comments. I do like the fact that people are passionate enough about this game to argue as such. But it is a game. And I play cos it's fun. So I won't spit my dummy if I can't get my way.

I just hope that 7th addresses these issues. And for that reason I'll be sticking to my kill team for now and waiting to build my new imperial army...


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 16:30:54


Post by: PrinceRaven


rigeld2 wrote:
 PrinceRaven wrote:
Can someone actually quote the rule that says an Independent Character ceases being a unit when joined to another unit?

Asking to prove a negative?

How about you prove that he's still a separate, individual unit?
Does this question mean you've accepted you were wrong about how to read the rules on page 112?


I can prove that Farseer units are indeed units, yes.

"Unit composition: 1 Farseer" - page 97 of the Eldar codex.

It means that arguing about page 112 is pointless because of fundamental differences in how we read the rules based on their structure. Neither of us will be able to convince the other on this issue so I'm trying a different tact.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 16:33:13


Post by: Kommissar Kel


 PrinceRaven wrote:
I can prove that Farseer units are indeed units, yes.

"Unit composition: 1 Farseer" - page 97 of the Eldar codex.

It means that arguing about page 112 is pointless because of fundamental differences in how we read the rules based on their structure.


Yep the Unit Composition of a Farseer Unit is 1 Farseer model, congratulations.

When that Farseer joins a Guardian unit he sttops being a Farseer Unit(but remains being a Farseer model).


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 16:34:15


Post by: PrinceRaven


And you can provide this rule that says it stops being a Farseer unit?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 16:36:24


Post by: rigeld2


 PrinceRaven wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 PrinceRaven wrote:
Can someone actually quote the rule that says an Independent Character ceases being a unit when joined to another unit?

Asking to prove a negative?

How about you prove that he's still a separate, individual unit?
Does this question mean you've accepted you were wrong about how to read the rules on page 112?


I can prove that Farseer units are indeed units, yes.

"Unit composition: 1 Farseer" - page 97 of the Eldar codex.

That's not what I asked at all.
Prove that, once part of another unit, he's still a separate unit.
And then cite a rule denying me the ability to target that unit.

The Unit Composition is not an immutable fact - we know that because it doesn't list other ICs. Trying to use it to prove your point won't work.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 16:42:47


Post by: Naw


Let's see what page 112 actually says.

Allies - Levels of Alliance - Battle Brothers

Quite clear that Battle Brothers cover everything: Troops, IC, monstrous creatures, etc.

"Battle Brothers have utter trust in their comrades.."

The some examples are listed, which include:

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

Cannot really be more clearer than that. I don't see the need tl argue this further.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 16:44:37


Post by: rigeld2


Naw wrote:
Let's see what page 112 actually says.

Allies - Levels of Alliance - Battle Brothers

Quite clear that Battle Brothers cover everything: Troops, IC, monstrous creatures, etc.

"Battle Brothers have utter trust in their comrades.."

The some examples are listed, which include:

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

Cannot really be more clearer than that. I don't see the need tl argue this further.

Congratulations on a failure to actually read the thread and correctly quote rules.
Hint - you left out 2 very important sentences in your attempt to seem correct.
Please don't purposely leave relevant rules text out when discussing rules.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 16:47:17


Post by: Fragile


 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No it says he is "part of" the unit.


So my Vindicare snipes your IC out during Purge the Alien. Are you saying that i do not get a VP for it?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 16:51:17


Post by: PrinceRaven


rigeld2 wrote:

That's not what I asked at all.
Prove that, once part of another unit, he's still a separate unit.
And then cite a rule denying me the ability to target that unit.

The Unit Composition is not an immutable fact - we know that because it doesn't list other ICs. Trying to use it to prove your point won't work.


So you can't actually prove your assertion that it stops being a unit, but you still want me to disprove it?

The Farseer is treated as part of the Fire Warrior unit for all rules purposes, so targeting his unit automatically targets the unit he's joined, as targeting is a rules purpose.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 16:51:31


Post by: osirisx69


Naw wrote:
Let's see what page 112 actually says.

Allies - Levels of Alliance - Battle Brothers

Quite clear that Battle Brothers cover everything: Troops, IC, monstrous creatures, etc.

"Battle Brothers have utter trust in their comrades.."

The some examples are listed, which include:

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

Cannot really be more clearer than that. I don't see the need tl argue this further.


This is exactly correct. There is express denial of ALL models from an allied BB to use an allied DT. ALL models from an allied BB detachment are BB ergo you can't use an allied DT.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 16:59:13


Post by: rigeld2


Fragile wrote:
 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No it says he is "part of" the unit.


So my Vindicare snipes your IC out during Purge the Alien. Are you saying that i do not get a VP for it?

What does page 127 say?
(Hint - ICs always count for VP if they are destroyed)
(In addition, the count happens at the end of the game, and the IC wouldn't be joined except for during the game)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 PrinceRaven wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

That's not what I asked at all.
Prove that, once part of another unit, he's still a separate unit.
And then cite a rule denying me the ability to target that unit.

The Unit Composition is not an immutable fact - we know that because it doesn't list other ICs. Trying to use it to prove your point won't work.


So you can't actually prove your assertion that it stops being a unit, but you still want me to disprove it?

The Farseer is treated as part of the Fire Warrior unit for all rules purposes, so targeting his unit automatically targets the unit he's joined, as targeting is a rules purpose.

So you're attempting to treat the Farseer as something other than part of the Fire Warrior unit (ie - you're trying to treat him as his own unit) for a rules purpose. The IC rules explicitly deny that.
Please cite rules allowing you to do so.

I've shown you a rule to prove my assertion. You've asked for more evidence. I can't provide any so you're attempting to assert I must be wrong - when in fact, you have a burden of proof as well.
Searching for logical fallacies when I've provided everything I've been asked is amusing though - not that it makes you seem smart, but it is amusing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
osirisx69 wrote:
This is exactly correct. There is express denial of ALL models from an allied BB to use an allied DT. ALL models from an allied BB detachment are BB ergo you can't use an allied DT.

This is a lie.
There is no express denial of "ALL models from an allied BB". Please don't misquote rules.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 17:14:31


Post by: BarBoBot


I'm with the 80% of people who are not buying into the rules lawyering on this one. Not that it matters much with new rules about to drop.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 17:24:18


Post by: Fragile


rigeld2 wrote:
Fragile wrote:
 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No it says he is "part of" the unit.


So my Vindicare snipes your IC out during Purge the Alien. Are you saying that i do not get a VP for it?

What does page 127 say?
(Hint - ICs always count for VP if they are destroyed)
(In addition, the count happens at the end of the game, and the IC wouldn't be joined except for during the game)



pg. 127 Reminds us that IC are individual units. And while PtA is counted at end, First blood is not.



Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 17:29:02


Post by: Happyjew


Funny, it's almost as if First Blood has permission to override the normal IC rules.

Does Battle Brothers have the same permission?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 17:48:15


Post by: PanzerLeader


osirisx69 wrote:
PanzerLeader wrote:
 Kommissar Kel wrote:

An Eldar farseer that joins a unit of Fire Warriors is still an Eldar Farseer, but is no longer and Eldar Farseer Unit, he is now just a member of the Tau Firewarrior unit.


Where do you receive permission to not count the Farseer's codex of origin for embarking purposes? He doesn't stop being an Eldar model just because he is joined to a unit of fire warriors.

I think the crux boils down to whether or not you think the IC counts as being absorbed by the parent unit he joins. If you do, then you think that Unit A + IC B = Unit A for all rules purposes, to include embarking on transports. If you think the IC counts as being joined for all rules purposes, then you think at Unit A + IC B = Unit (A+B) and so the unit as a whole no longer has permission to embark on transports because no matter which detachment the model is from (A or B), another model in the unit invokes the BB restriction.


And in the BRB is says ic's "join" or "attach" to a unit. it never once has said absorbed into a unit.


Kommissar Kel wrote:No it says he is "part of" the unit.


Actually, the IC rules both verbages.

"Independent characters can join other units."
"In order to join a unit, an IC simply has to move..."
"While an IC is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..."

So in the context of the IC rule, he is described as both "joining" and being "part of" a unit. Again, it boils down to does joining mean Unit A + IC B becomes Unit A or does Unit A + IC B become Unit (A+B).

Rigeld, you don't need rules permission to deny you trying to snipe out an IC without special permission. The IC plus unit always becomes one unit. That is clear in the rules. The question is which detachment does that unit count as for the purposes of embarkation. One side is essentially saying "whatever the unit consisted of prior to the IC is what it remains" and the other side is "the unit now consists of models from two detachments and those can't evade the BB restriction on transports."


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 17:50:00


Post by: Fragile


Funny I see no such explicit permission on 122.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 18:22:30


Post by: some bloke


you make your list, you look at the units chosen in the allied detachment and they are all branded "battle brothers", and they can't go in transports. then you try and put one in a transport - regardless of what with - and you can't, because it can't go in transports.

by your argument, you can put the IC in a unit and then put the unit in a transport, but you can't get the IC into a transport to join the squad that's already inside, because he can't get in. only the first one of these is disputed, so logically it's going to be the same as the second; he can't get into the transport at all.

here's another; you want your ethereal to get a better bunker. so you ally in space marines, and get a landraider. the ethereal can't embark, as per the battle brothers rules, but there's nothing that states he cannot be embarked, meaning you can take him in a squad of marines, then immediately get the marines out of the landraider, leaving the ethereal behind. you just can't do that.


I'm not sure where the dispute is coming from here. the rulebook on page 112 states:

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

is the allied IC from a different codex a battle brother? yes.
QED - he can't get in a vehicle.

if you want to argue the "is it a unit" thing, let's do that:
"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view"

this doesn't say that battle brother units are treated as friendly units, just battle brothers in general. it also states that battle brothers can't get into an allied transport.

so for him to be able to get in, by your method, he is relinquishing his status as a "friendly unit" as he's clearly not a battle brother, and so can't join the unit to embark anyway!

they're either bringing their own transports, or they're walking.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 18:49:35


Post by: Happyjew


 some bloke wrote:
if you want to argue the "is it a unit" thing, let's do that:
"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view"

this doesn't say that battle brother units are treated as friendly units, just battle brothers in general.


So each individual model in the army is now it's own unit? If Battle Brothers refers to models and not units that means every single model, in your army, is now its own unit. Guess that means only one model can be embarked at a time, and characters cannot utilise LOS!


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 18:50:41


Post by: Naw


rigeld2 wrote:
Naw wrote:
Let's see what page 112 actually says.

Allies - Levels of Alliance - Battle Brothers

Quite clear that Battle Brothers cover everything: Troops, IC, monstrous creatures, etc.

"Battle Brothers have utter trust in their comrades.."

The some examples are listed, which include:

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

Cannot really be more clearer than that. I don't see the need tl argue this further.

Congratulations on a failure to actually read the thread and correctly quote rules.
Hint - you left out 2 very important sentences in your attempt to seem correct.
Please don't purposely leave relevant rules text out when discussing rules.


Those sentences are irrelevant as the blanket statement in third bullet point covers all cases. That is the point you conveniently forget.

Answer this question with yes/no and provide rules to support your response:

Can Battle Brothers embark on transports of their allies?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 18:55:50


Post by: Happyjew


Naw wrote:
Answer this question with yes/no and provide rules to support your response:

Can Battle Brothers embark on transports of their allies?


Battle Brother units cannot embark on allied Transports.

If an IC is attached to an allied unit, you only have the unit, which has no restriction on embarking onto its own transport.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 18:58:01


Post by: Fragile


 Happyjew wrote:
Naw wrote:
Answer this question with yes/no and provide rules to support your response:

Can Battle Brothers embark on transports of their allies?


Battle Brother units cannot embark on allied Transports.

If an IC is attached to an allied unit, you only have the unit, which has no restriction on embarking onto its own transport.


A unit never ceases to be a unit though, unless it has a special rule stating that it does. For example Royal Courts, etc.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 19:00:55


Post by: osirisx69


"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." is denial for all BB.



Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 19:01:16


Post by: Happyjew


Fragile wrote:
 Happyjew wrote:
Naw wrote:
Answer this question with yes/no and provide rules to support your response:

Can Battle Brothers embark on transports of their allies?


Battle Brother units cannot embark on allied Transports.

If an IC is attached to an allied unit, you only have the unit, which has no restriction on embarking onto its own transport.


A unit never ceases to be a unit though, unless it has a special rule stating that it does. For example Royal Courts, etc.


If there is still a unit, that means I can elect to shoot at the IC unit, which would just contain the specific IC. Furthermore, the IC would not be able to LOS! any wounds, as there is no one else in the IC unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
osirisx69 wrote:
"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." is denial for all BB.



Which when taken in context refers to what? Friendly units. Not models, units.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 19:02:07


Post by: osirisx69


 some bloke wrote:
you make your list, you look at the units chosen in the allied detachment and they are all branded "battle brothers", and they can't go in transports. then you try and put one in a transport - regardless of what with - and you can't, because it can't go in transports.

by your argument, you can put the IC in a unit and then put the unit in a transport, but you can't get the IC into a transport to join the squad that's already inside, because he can't get in. only the first one of these is disputed, so logically it's going to be the same as the second; he can't get into the transport at all.

here's another; you want your ethereal to get a better bunker. so you ally in space marines, and get a landraider. the ethereal can't embark, as per the battle brothers rules, but there's nothing that states he cannot be embarked, meaning you can take him in a squad of marines, then immediately get the marines out of the landraider, leaving the ethereal behind. you just can't do that.


I'm not sure where the dispute is coming from here. the rulebook on page 112 states:

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

is the allied IC from a different codex a battle brother? yes.
QED - he can't get in a vehicle.

if you want to argue the "is it a unit" thing, let's do that:
"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view"

this doesn't say that battle brother units are treated as friendly units, just battle brothers in general. it also states that battle brothers can't get into an allied transport.

so for him to be able to get in, by your method, he is relinquishing his status as a "friendly unit" as he's clearly not a battle brother, and so can't join the unit to embark anyway!

they're either bringing their own transports, or they're walking.


this +1


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Happyjew wrote:
Fragile wrote:
 Happyjew wrote:
Naw wrote:
Answer this question with yes/no and provide rules to support your response:

Can Battle Brothers embark on transports of their allies?


Battle Brother units cannot embark on allied Transports.

If an IC is attached to an allied unit, you only have the unit, which has no restriction on embarking onto its own transport.


A unit never ceases to be a unit though, unless it has a special rule stating that it does. For example Royal Courts, etc.


If there is still a unit, that means I can elect to shoot at the IC unit, which would just contain the specific IC. Furthermore, the IC would not be able to LOS! any wounds, as there is no one else in the IC unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
osirisx69 wrote:
"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." is denial for all BB.



Which when taken in context refers to what? Friendly units. Not models, units.


Actually it refers to anything purchased from a codex that you have allied BB with.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 19:11:58


Post by: Naw


 Happyjew wrote:
Funny, it's almost as if First Blood has permission to override the normal IC rules.

Does Battle Brothers have the same permission?


Without Battle Brothers rules you would not even have a permission to field allies. But go ahead and ignore rules that are inconvenient to you.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 19:20:01


Post by: rigeld2


Naw wrote:
 Happyjew wrote:
Funny, it's almost as if First Blood has permission to override the normal IC rules.

Does Battle Brothers have the same permission?


Without Battle Brothers rules you would not even have a permission to field allies. But go ahead and ignore rules that are inconvenient to you.

Not true at all. It's like you're not even trying my more...
And Happy isn't ignoring any rules. At all. Please - cite the rule he's ignoring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Naw wrote:
Those sentences are irrelevant as the blanket statement in third bullet point covers all cases. That is the point you conveniently forget.

Really? Go ahead. Take those sentences out of the rulebook.
You've broken the game. Congrats! That means the sentences matter.

Answer this question with yes/no and provide rules to support your response:

Can Battle Brothers embark on transports of their allies?

Objection - not enough information to make it a yes or no question.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 19:25:38


Post by: Naw


 Happyjew wrote:
Naw wrote:
Answer this question with yes/no and provide rules to support your response:

Can Battle Brothers embark on transports of their allies?


Battle Brother units cannot embark on allied Transports.

If an IC is attached to an allied unit, you only have the unit, which has no restriction on embarking onto its own transport.


Did you just fail to quote any rules? Hmm, yes, you failed. Re-read pg 112 3rd bullet point under Battle Brothers (note, not BB units).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote:
Naw wrote:
 Happyjew wrote:
Funny, it's almost as if First Blood has permission to override the normal IC rules.

Does Battle Brothers have the same permission?


Without Battle Brothers rules you would not even have a permission to field allies. But go ahead and ignore rules that are inconvenient to you.

Not true at all. It's like you're not even trying my more...
And Happy isn't ignoring any rules. At all. Please - cite the rule he's ignoring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Naw wrote:
Those sentences are irrelevant as the blanket statement in third bullet point covers all cases. That is the point you conveniently forget.

Really? Go ahead. Take those sentences out of the rulebook.
You've broken the game. Congrats! That means the sentences matter.

Answer this question with yes/no and provide rules to support your response:

Can Battle Brothers embark on transports of their allies?

Objection - not enough information to make it a yes or no question.


You always insist on others to answer your questions and provide rules support, but you almost never do so yourself. I no longer see the need to continue any conversation with you as you just keep repeating the same and demanding responses.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 19:49:47


Post by: Fragile


 Happyjew wrote:


If there is still a unit, that means I can elect to shoot at the IC unit, which would just contain the specific IC. Furthermore, the IC would not be able to LOS! any wounds, as there is no one else in the IC unit.



Except the whole IC rule being more specific about that.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 20:13:39


Post by: Nem


 Kommissar Kel wrote:
 Nem wrote:
Unit can be taken either way on that one.. And Special rules are given to models - but only that are in the unit.
Codexs..


1. Unit Name
...

2. Unit Profile
...

3. Unit type
...
..
..

6. Special rules
Any special rules that apply to the models in the unit are listed here.......


I picked on Tau codex for that but believe all new codex's are a copy / paste of the same. Tau codex pg 94.


Of course, this is because unit means 2 different things. It's quite easy to come out with yes they can, or no they can't depending which 'unit' you choose. It's quite easy to say a 'Battle brother unit' is a unit taken as an allied detachment where the relationship is 'Battle Brother', in which case that model will never not be one. As I believe we all agree IC's retain Unit rule tags when joined to another unit.

Evidence of this in work, in the rule set is things like IC's still counting as unit kills. They are not a 'unit' at that point par sey, but they are still a 'unit'. yay.


Poor points all.

Unit Name, ok that is fine, the model ceases being a unit when they join another unit; all the Ic's in the tau codex(and I am pretty sure all codices) have the same model name as the unit name, and all abilities/special rules are tied to the model name.

Unit Type: This has always been a misnomer, A SM Bike Captain does not stop being a Bike because he joined an Assault squad. Similarly a Riptide does not stop being a MC, nor does the Drones bought for him become MCs when drones are bought for him(since we are using t6he Tau codex).

Special rules: You posted the relevant rules yourself, These are the rules given to the models when you buy the unit. The IC ceases being a unit when brought to the table and joined to a Unit.

And as to the IC counting as a destroyed unit, that falls back to the IC rules as well. It is only while attached to the unit that he is a member of the unit, when he is destroyed he is no longer part of the unit and dies as a Unit himself.



No rules say he is a member of the unit. The paragraphs after that misquoted sentence address what its actually saying, people just choose to ignore it. Being Part of a unit is also addressed in the characters section.

Special rules: You posted the relevant rules yourself, These are the rules given to the models when you buy the unit. The IC ceases being a unit when brought to the table and joined to a Unit.?

Please point me to this rule which states they are given to models for being bought? from what I quoted, they get it for being in the unit. 'Being in' rather than 'Being bought for', the difference is crucial to this thread.

And wrong, the rules are not addressed in this section, it's later on there's a rule (or.. reminder) IC's as part of other units give VP for killing a unit.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 21:14:37


Post by: rigeld2


Naw wrote:
You always insist on others to answer your questions and provide rules support, but you almost never do so yourself. I no longer see the need to continue any conversation with you as you just keep repeating the same and demanding responses.

I have provided rules support - I always do.
I can't answer your question as I need more information.

Do you or don't you?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 21:21:51


Post by: some bloke


rigeld2 wrote:

Answer this question with yes/no and provide rules to support your response:

Can Battle Brothers embark on transports of their allies?

Objection - not enough information to make it a yes or no question.


actually there is, and it is. page 112 of the rulebook states

"note that not even battle brothers can embark on allied transport vehicles"

the answer therefore is no.

I don't know where you're getting the word "unit" involved here! can you please explain exactly where the word "unit" comes into this, and quote me the rule & page number as I have now done for you?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 21:58:29


Post by: rigeld2


 some bloke wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

Answer this question with yes/no and provide rules to support your response:

Can Battle Brothers embark on transports of their allies?

Objection - not enough information to make it a yes or no question.


actually there is, and it is. page 112 of the rulebook states

"note that not even battle brothers can embark on allied transport vehicles"

the answer therefore is no.

I don't know where you're getting the word "unit" involved here! can you please explain exactly where the word "unit" comes into this, and quote me the rule & page number as I have now done for you?

I've quoted it multiple times in this thread.
Page 112, the paragraph that begins before your oft-quoted bullet points.
Reading the thread is polite. Asking me to repeat something I've done multiple times so far (and others have as well) isn't.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 22:25:16


Post by: some bloke


rigeld2 wrote:
 some bloke wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

Answer this question with yes/no and provide rules to support your response:

Can Battle Brothers embark on transports of their allies?

Objection - not enough information to make it a yes or no question.


actually there is, and it is. page 112 of the rulebook states

"note that not even battle brothers can embark on allied transport vehicles"

the answer therefore is no.

I don't know where you're getting the word "unit" involved here! can you please explain exactly where the word "unit" comes into this, and quote me the rule & page number as I have now done for you?

I've quoted it multiple times in this thread.
Page 112, the paragraph that begins before your oft-quoted bullet points.
Reading the thread is polite. Asking me to repeat something I've done multiple times so far (and others have as well) isn't.


you mean the paragraph;

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

"treated as" =/= "are"

your whole argument is caught up on the idea that "battle brother units are friendly units", and you'll note that it doesn't say that. it says battle brothers are treated as friendly units. the chain of rules goes:

the allies are battle brothers

the battle brothers are treated as friendly units

the battle brothers can't go in allied vehicles

so the fact that the independant character is treated as a friendly unit and can join an allied unit does not remove anything except the word "unit" from his profile, he is still a battle brother, he still can't embark on an allied transport.

the word "However" in "However, not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles" tells us that this third bullet point affects the initial statement. so regardless of anything previously mentioned ivolving being freindly and joining units, they can't get in vehicles!

if we treat the bullet points as commas, which english lets us do (bullet points are a list, it makes it easier to read, it functions as a comma) we have the paragraph:

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers can be joined by allied independant characters and are counted as being friendly units for the casting of psychic powers and so on. However, note that not even a Battle Brother can embark in an allied transport vehicle."

My rules are cited, yours are disproved. have you any more to add?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/13 23:27:53


Post by: nosferatu1001


Why are you changing the subject from units to non units?

"Treated as" also must equal "are", otherwise the rules breakdown in lots of places


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 00:26:53


Post by: Kommissar Kel


Fragile wrote:
 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No it says he is "part of" the unit.


So my Vindicare snipes your IC out during Purge the Alien. Are you saying that i do not get a VP for it?


I already answered that.

He is only part of the unit while attached to the unit, the moment the farseer model is destroyed it is no longer part of the unit and returns to being its own unit


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 00:43:40


Post by: rigeld2


 some bloke wrote:

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers can be joined by allied independant characters and are counted as being friendly units for the casting of psychic powers and so on. However, note that not even a Battle Brother can embark in an allied transport vehicle."

My rules are cited, yours are disproved. have you any more to add?

So since we know that Battle Brothers and "friendly units" are interchangeable. Agreed? (I hope so - the rules break down I spectacular ways otherwise)
So we can write that sentence to read "However, note that not even a friendly unit can embark in an allied transport vehicle." Agreed?

So what happens when the Battle Brother is not a unit?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 01:03:55


Post by: Happyjew


Naw wrote:
 Happyjew wrote:
Funny, it's almost as if First Blood has permission to override the normal IC rules.

Does Battle Brothers have the same permission?


Without Battle Brothers rules you would not even have a permission to field allies. But go ahead and ignore rules that are inconvenient to you.


So my Eldar cannot ally with the Inquisition since they are not Battle Brothers?

What about Tau? Can they ally with Imperial Knights, even though they are Desperate Allies?

I guess Grey Knights cannot ally with anyone except Inquisition then.

Also, what rules am I ignoring?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fragile wrote:
 Happyjew wrote:


If there is still a unit, that means I can elect to shoot at the IC unit, which would just contain the specific IC. Furthermore, the IC would not be able to LOS! any wounds, as there is no one else in the IC unit.



Except the whole IC rule being more specific about that.


So while attached to a unit, an IC is not a unit unto itself?

If so, then where is the restriction for Unit "X" to embark it's Transport?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Naw wrote:
Did you just fail to quote any rules? Hmm, yes, you failed. Re-read pg 112 3rd bullet point under Battle Brothers (note, not BB units).


Fail to quote the rules? Sure. But I figured there was no point as they've been posted multiple times and would just be ignored.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 01:10:05


Post by: jamesk1973


Pg 112 of the small rulebook

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

Doesn't matter if he "is" or "is not" a unit.

Doesn't matter is he "is" or "is not" a friendly unit.

He stops at the door.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 01:11:31


Post by: Happyjew


jamesk1973, what is the rules definition of "battle brother"?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 01:21:12


Post by: rigeld2


jamesk1973 wrote:
Pg 112 of the small rulebook

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

Doesn't matter if he "is" or "is not" a unit.

Doesn't matter is he "is" or "is not" a friendly unit.

He stops at the door.

Do me a favor and actually read the thread.
Seriously - it's the polite thing to do.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 01:24:45


Post by: jamesk1973


The is not such thing as a "Battle Brother".

Battle Brother indicates a level of alliance between two armies.

Battle Brother describes a relationship.

I totally agree that ICs can join allied units. That such units and ICs are considered friendly units and all that.

And...

If they had not said anything, I would not be able to argue the allied ICs cannot ride in your LRC.

But...

The writers specifically went out of their way and said "no BBs in allied transports".

Share our chow? Join our units? Participate in our psyker love? Sure. No problem.

Want to ride in our Rhino? GtFO. We don't want your kind...

I am not saying the rule makes any particular sense.

But there must have been a specific reason that they went out of their way to say "No" to riding in allied transports.

Truth be told they probably never anticipated that it would become an issue since we are forging narratives and whatnot.



Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 01:26:08


Post by: rigeld2


So are you arguing intent or what's written?
Your latest post is confusing.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 01:28:02


Post by: jamesk1973


rigeld2 wrote:
So are you arguing intent or what's written?
Your latest post is confusing.


No BB ICs in allied transports whether they have or have not joined a unit. That should clear it up.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 01:29:30


Post by: rigeld2


jamesk1973 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
So are you arguing intent or what's written?
Your latest post is confusing.


No BB ICs in allied transports whether they have or have not joined a unit. That should clear it up.

As written? I'd ask that you read the thread and respond to rules citations that are false.
As intended? I honestly couldn't care less.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 01:39:49


Post by: jamesk1973


rigeld2 wrote:
jamesk1973 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
So are you arguing intent or what's written?
Your latest post is confusing.


No BB ICs in allied transports whether they have or have not joined a unit. That should clear it up.

As written? I'd ask that you read the thread and respond to rules citations that are false.
As intended? I honestly couldn't care less.


Edit, nope, that's undeniably rude and you know it - MT11

What does it matter if I interpreted the rule "as written" or "as intended"?

Does it really matter in the scheme of things?

There was a question posed at the beginning of this thread and the answer was simply yes or no.

Based upon my readings and understanding of the game my interpretation is "no". And so it would seem for 78% of the folks who have responded to the poll.

Those of us who are saying "no" are simply reading the rules.

We (those who read the rules and made a decision) are not delving into the metaphysical nature of our plastic toys.

Is it a unit? When is a unit not a unit? Does an IC that has joined a unit become a butterfly? Is an allied unit a friendly character or a serial rapist? Those are figuratively some of the questions/arguments that have been thrown out.

For feths sake if you want to win so badly and it matters so much to you go pick yourself up a screamstar and be done with it.

But don't hold your hands out in a gesture of confusion...as written?...as intended?....mocha latte?....



Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 01:51:34


Post by: JinxDragon


'What I believe the Rules intended' and 'What the Rules are Written' are two completely different animals when it comes to a Rule Debate.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 01:53:03


Post by: Rorschach9


jamesk1973 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
jamesk1973 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
So are you arguing intent or what's written?
Your latest post is confusing.


No BB ICs in allied transports whether they have or have not joined a unit. That should clear it up.

As written? I'd ask that you read the thread and respond to rules citations that are false.
As intended? I honestly couldn't care less.


What does it matter if I interpreted the rule "as written" or "as intended"?


It matters because those who are discussing rules As Written (as is the case in this forum unless noted otherwise) do not necessarily play that way. To simply say it doesn't matter is blatantly rude and dismissive of honest debate.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 01:59:17


Post by: rigeld2


jamesk1973 wrote:
What does it matter if I interpreted the rule "as written" or "as intended"?

Because when we're discussing what the rules say, knowing where you're arguing from is important.

Those of us who are saying "no" are simply reading the rules.

No, you're making your own assumption as to what the rules should say - for whatever reason. I'm not trying to imply bias, I'm simply stating that you are failing to read the actual words on the page if you say "No."

Is it a unit? When is a unit not a unit? Does an IC that has joined a unit become a butterfly? Is an allied unit a friendly character or a serial rapist? Those are figuratively some of the questions/arguments that have been thrown out.

Perhaps you could Strawman less? That'd be great. Because, no - they're not.

For feths sake if you want to win so badly and it matters so much to you go pick yourself up a screamstar and be done with it.

Hi, I'm a Tyranid player. I can't take Allies nor Vehicles so this rule literally doesn't effect me. At all. But you know, go ahead and insinuate bias if it makes you feel better. Maybe throw in something about serial rapists too! Oh, you did that.

But don't hold your hands out in a gesture of confusion...as written?...as intended?....mocha latte?....

I will continue to ask the question so that I can have an honest discussion with you. If you're arguing intent and I'm arguing what's written, were talking (potentially) two completely different things. It's the polite thing to do to clarify instead of assume.

But what do I know - I should just go buy a screamer star (that loses to a well played Tyranid list) and fly off the handle when someone asks honest questions.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 02:23:47


Post by: Eihnlazer


Rigeld has been right about this from day one.

An IC that joins a unit is part of it, and can therefor go into a transport with it.

It is no longer a unit on its own, and so is no longer a BB unit.

The rule stating "An IC who joins a unit becomes a member of it for all rules purposes" clearly means it is no longer a unit in and of itself as it is now part of the unit it joined.



Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 04:12:58


Post by: Naw


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Why are you changing the subject from units to non units?

"Treated as" also must equal "are", otherwise the rules breakdown in lots of places


Care to explain in what spectacular way the rules break, as units taken from another codex are all "just" battle brothers?

Cite some examples.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The "yes" side is not discussing the rules as written. They make the illogical assumption that all units, models, whatnot taken from another codex are battle brothers at best and bullet point nr 3 specifically forbids all battle brothers from embarking.

That they claim it to mean battle brothers units is their interpretation, not as the rule is written.

Yet they continuously pursue that one track despite exact opposite _rule as written_ evidence makes their arguing step deep in the realm of RAI.

But even there they are incorrect as the 3rd point does not leave room for interpretation, it works the same RAW and RAI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eihnlazer wrote:

It is no longer a unit on its own, and so is no longer a BB unit.


Whether it is a unit or not is irrelevant. It is still a battle brother and "not even battle brothers can". It is also from a rules perspective treated as a "friendly unit" so joining units, using/benefiting from psychic rules etc were possible. HOWEVER bullet point 3 declares whether they can embark and the answer is no.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 04:41:11


Post by: PrinceRaven


So I have a Farseer joined to a Crisis Suit squad.

- Since the Farseer is no longer a Battle Brother, what rule allows me to have it remain joined to the unit?

- Since it is no longer a Farseer unit, how do I navigate from the Crisis Suit unit rules to find out what Farseers do?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Dark Eldar allies? Why or why not?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Space Marine allies? Why or why not?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 04:53:26


Post by: JinxDragon


The issue will always stem from the Independent Character Rules, in particular the very poor choice of words: "for all rules purposes."
That requirement prevents us from treating the Independent Character as anything but part of that Unit....


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 05:48:00


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 PrinceRaven wrote:
So I have a Farseer joined to a Crisis Suit squad.

- Since the Farseer is no longer a Battle Brother, what rule allows me to have it remain joined to the unit?

- Since it is no longer a Farseer unit, how do I navigate from the Crisis Suit unit rules to find out what Farseers do?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Dark Eldar allies? Why or why not?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Space Marine allies? Why or why not?


1) The independent character rules.

2) Is nonsensical - "if a librarian is joined to a terminator squad, how to I get the librarian's rules from the Terminator entry??" is exactly the same question, with exactly the same answer - so unless you think that no IC can ever join a unit...

3) I don't know the levels of alliance, but I would say yes, because Dark Eldar units are friendly units, as are other Eldar units.

4) I don''t know the level of alliance between Space Marines and Eldar.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 05:49:18


Post by: Naw


JinxDragon wrote:
The issue will always stem from the Independent Character Rules, in particular the very poor choice of words: "for all rules purposes."
That requirement prevents us from treating the Independent Character as anything but part of that Unit....


Another simple question. Let's state that your army is single FOC with 2 HQ's and an allied detachment with 1 HQ.

When you attach your allied HQ to your primary detachment do you immediately forfeit the game for having an illegal army composition?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 05:50:42


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Naw wrote:
JinxDragon wrote:
The issue will always stem from the Independent Character Rules, in particular the very poor choice of words: "for all rules purposes."
That requirement prevents us from treating the Independent Character as anything but part of that Unit....


Another simple question. Let's state that your army is single FOC with 2 HQ's and an allied detachment with 1 HQ.

When you attach your allied HQ to your primary detachment do you immediately forfeit the game for having an illegal army composition?


No, because you'd go from having 2 Primary Detachment HQs and 1 Allied Detachment HQ to having 2 Primary Detachment HQs.

The IC has become a part of the Primary Detachment HQ it has joined "for all rules purposes."


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 05:56:53


Post by: PrinceRaven


Unit1126PLL wrote:
 PrinceRaven wrote:
So I have a Farseer joined to a Crisis Suit squad.

- Since the Farseer is no longer a Battle Brother, what rule allows me to have it remain joined to the unit?

- Since it is no longer a Farseer unit, how do I navigate from the Crisis Suit unit rules to find out what Farseers do?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Dark Eldar allies? Why or why not?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Space Marine allies? Why or why not?


1) The independent character rules.

2) Is nonsensical - "if a librarian is joined to a terminator squad, how to I get the librarian's rules from the Terminator entry??" is exactly the same question, with exactly the same answer - so unless you think that no IC can ever join a unit...

3) I don't know the levels of alliance, but I would say yes, because Dark Eldar units are friendly units, as are other Eldar units.

4) I don''t know the level of alliance between Space Marines and Eldar.


1) The independent Character rules only allow ICs to join friendly units, if the Farseer is not a Battle Brother any more the Crisis Suits are no longer friendly units

2) No, I think that it keeps being a Librarian unit within a Terminator unit

3) So you're saying that the Farseer still uses the level of alliance rules of Eldar and would therefore be Battle Brothers with the Crisis Suits and unable to enter a Tau transport?

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Naw wrote:
JinxDragon wrote:
The issue will always stem from the Independent Character Rules, in particular the very poor choice of words: "for all rules purposes."
That requirement prevents us from treating the Independent Character as anything but part of that Unit....


Another simple question. Let's state that your army is single FOC with 2 HQ's and an allied detachment with 1 HQ.

When you attach your allied HQ to your primary detachment do you immediately forfeit the game for having an illegal army composition?


No, because you'd go from having 2 Primary Detachment HQs and 1 Allied Detachment HQ to having 2 Primary Detachment HQs.

The IC has become a part of the Primary Detachment HQ it has joined "for all rules purposes."


An army whose Allied detachment has no HQs is an illegal list.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 06:04:43


Post by: Naw


Indeed. Looks like we found autowin against many deathstars. Well done, guys.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 06:11:47


Post by: JinxDragon


Naw,
Where in the book is a requirement that the List must always be checked, throughout the course of the game and not just at List building stage, to contain one X and two Y per Detachment?
As far as I know, it is impossible for the Independent character to be 'joined' into another Unit when it comes time to check to see if the list is legal.

From what I have seen, the game is designed to allow Units to either be removed or created during play given how many Rules can Remove models or even Units from play or create entire new Units that would otherwise make the 'list' illegal. The restriction on what is or isn't legal has to only apply to the List Building stage, or else we enter into this strange situation where losing your Warlord would forfeit the game instead of just giving a Victory Point. Therefore I can not accept there is some global requirement to always have a 'legal' list that is violated by the Wording of the Rule itself, unless we create a Unit inside of a Unit situation which contradicts the very wording of the Rule causing us the problem in the first place.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 06:17:04


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 PrinceRaven wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
 PrinceRaven wrote:
So I have a Farseer joined to a Crisis Suit squad.

- Since the Farseer is no longer a Battle Brother, what rule allows me to have it remain joined to the unit?

- Since it is no longer a Farseer unit, how do I navigate from the Crisis Suit unit rules to find out what Farseers do?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Dark Eldar allies? Why or why not?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Space Marine allies? Why or why not?


1) The independent character rules.

2) Is nonsensical - "if a librarian is joined to a terminator squad, how to I get the librarian's rules from the Terminator entry??" is exactly the same question, with exactly the same answer - so unless you think that no IC can ever join a unit...

3) I don't know the levels of alliance, but I would say yes, because Dark Eldar units are friendly units, as are other Eldar units.

4) I don''t know the level of alliance between Space Marines and Eldar.


1) The independent Character rules only allow ICs to join friendly units, if the Farseer is not a Battle Brother any more the Crisis Suits are no longer friendly units

2) No, I think that it keeps being a Librarian unit within a Terminator unit

3) So you're saying that the Farseer still uses the level of alliance rules of Eldar and would therefore be Battle Brothers with the Crisis Suits and unable to enter a Tau transport?


1) What are they, then? Unfriendly unit? Enemy unit? Neutral unit? Some made up category?

2) Can I target the librarian separately, then, since he's his own unit?

3) Yes, he still uses the level of alliance rules of Eldar, and would therefore be Battle Brothers with the Crisis Suits. However, this would not prevent him from entering a Tau transport with the Crisis Suits, as the restriction applies to "Battle Brother Unit" which the Farseer is not, if he is joined to the crisis suits.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Naw wrote:
JinxDragon wrote:
The issue will always stem from the Independent Character Rules, in particular the very poor choice of words: "for all rules purposes."
That requirement prevents us from treating the Independent Character as anything but part of that Unit....


Another simple question. Let's state that your army is single FOC with 2 HQ's and an allied detachment with 1 HQ.

When you attach your allied HQ to your primary detachment do you immediately forfeit the game for having an illegal army composition?


No, because you'd go from having 2 Primary Detachment HQs and 1 Allied Detachment HQ to having 2 Primary Detachment HQs.

The IC has become a part of the Primary Detachment HQ it has joined "for all rules purposes."


An army whose Allied detachment has no HQs is an illegal list.


The Allied detachment still has an HQ Selection, just not an HQ unit.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 06:21:34


Post by: PrinceRaven


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 PrinceRaven wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
 PrinceRaven wrote:
So I have a Farseer joined to a Crisis Suit squad.

- Since the Farseer is no longer a Battle Brother, what rule allows me to have it remain joined to the unit?

- Since it is no longer a Farseer unit, how do I navigate from the Crisis Suit unit rules to find out what Farseers do?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Dark Eldar allies? Why or why not?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Space Marine allies? Why or why not?


1) The independent character rules.

2) Is nonsensical - "if a librarian is joined to a terminator squad, how to I get the librarian's rules from the Terminator entry??" is exactly the same question, with exactly the same answer - so unless you think that no IC can ever join a unit...

3) I don't know the levels of alliance, but I would say yes, because Dark Eldar units are friendly units, as are other Eldar units.

4) I don''t know the level of alliance between Space Marines and Eldar.


1) The independent Character rules only allow ICs to join friendly units, if the Farseer is not a Battle Brother any more the Crisis Suits are no longer friendly units

2) No, I think that it keeps being a Librarian unit within a Terminator unit

3) So you're saying that the Farseer still uses the level of alliance rules of Eldar and would therefore be Battle Brothers with the Crisis Suits and unable to enter a Tau transport?


1) What are they, then? Unfriendly unit? Enemy unit? Neutral unit? Some made up category?

2) Can I target the librarian separately, then, since he's his own unit?

3) Yes, he still uses the level of alliance rules of Eldar, and would therefore be Battle Brothers with the Crisis Suits. However, this would not prevent him from entering a Tau transport with the Crisis Suits, as the restriction applies to "Battle Brother Unit" which the Farseer is not, if he is joined to the crisis suits.


1) They would be a temporarily undefined unit, then once the Farseer is kicked out of the unit they would go back to being friendly units.

2) Not according to the shooting rules.

3) Show me this rule you are quoting "Battle Brothers Unit" from.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 06:26:23


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 PrinceRaven wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 PrinceRaven wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
 PrinceRaven wrote:
So I have a Farseer joined to a Crisis Suit squad.

- Since the Farseer is no longer a Battle Brother, what rule allows me to have it remain joined to the unit?

- Since it is no longer a Farseer unit, how do I navigate from the Crisis Suit unit rules to find out what Farseers do?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Dark Eldar allies? Why or why not?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Space Marine allies? Why or why not?


1) The independent character rules.

2) Is nonsensical - "if a librarian is joined to a terminator squad, how to I get the librarian's rules from the Terminator entry??" is exactly the same question, with exactly the same answer - so unless you think that no IC can ever join a unit...

3) I don't know the levels of alliance, but I would say yes, because Dark Eldar units are friendly units, as are other Eldar units.

4) I don''t know the level of alliance between Space Marines and Eldar.


1) The independent Character rules only allow ICs to join friendly units, if the Farseer is not a Battle Brother any more the Crisis Suits are no longer friendly units

2) No, I think that it keeps being a Librarian unit within a Terminator unit

3) So you're saying that the Farseer still uses the level of alliance rules of Eldar and would therefore be Battle Brothers with the Crisis Suits and unable to enter a Tau transport?


1) What are they, then? Unfriendly unit? Enemy unit? Neutral unit? Some made up category?

2) Can I target the librarian separately, then, since he's his own unit?

3) Yes, he still uses the level of alliance rules of Eldar, and would therefore be Battle Brothers with the Crisis Suits. However, this would not prevent him from entering a Tau transport with the Crisis Suits, as the restriction applies to "Battle Brother Unit" which the Farseer is not, if he is joined to the crisis suits.


1) They would be a temporarily undefined unit, then once the Farseer is kicked out of the unit they would go back to being friendly units.

2) Not according to the shooting rules.

3) Show me this rule you are quoting "Battle Brothers Unit" from.


1) Why would the Farseer be kicked from the unit? And not, say, a drone or something.

2) Where in the shooting rules does it say I cannot target separate units?

3) See the first post on the top of page 3, which demonstrates why the use of the term "Battle Brother" by the BRB must necessarily refer to units.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 06:33:52


Post by: PrinceRaven


1) Because the drone is part of the unit's composition and is in a friendly unit while the Farseer (if they are no longer Battle Brothers) is not

2) The IC is also part of the unit it is joined to, and you cannot target a part of a unit without invoking a rule like Focus Fire or a Focussed Witchfire.

3) In which case, according to your interpretation of the rules, the Farseer, not being a unit, cannot be a Battle Brother with Dark Eldar or Tau.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 07:00:31


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 PrinceRaven wrote:
1) Because the drone is part of the unit's composition and is in a friendly unit while the Farseer (if they are no longer Battle Brothers) is not

2) The IC is also part of the unit it is joined to, and you cannot target a part of a unit without invoking a rule like Focus Fire or a Focussed Witchfire.

3) In which case, according to your interpretation of the rules, the Farseer, not being a unit, cannot be a Battle Brother with Dark Eldar or Tau.


1) If the unit is 'undefined', how do you know that the drone is part of its composition? Or that it's friendly? Or that it's even a unit at all? If you take the IC rule "is treated as a member of the unit for all rules purposes" as RAW, then the Farseer has just as much a right to be in said "undefined" unit as a drone would. Since, as soon as it joined the unit, it became a member 'for all rules purposes.'

2) Citation for a model to be in two units simultaneously.

3) Correct - once the Farseer has joined a unit, he is a member of that unit for all rules purposes and is no longer merely an "ally."


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 07:47:41


Post by: Naw


JinxDragon wrote:
Naw,
Where in the book is a requirement that the List must always be checked, throughout the course of the game and not just at List building stage, to contain one X and two Y per Detachment?


Must be in the same place where it says that Battle Brothers can embark on allied transports, please look it up.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 07:51:06


Post by: nosferatu1001


Naw wrote:
JinxDragon wrote:
The issue will always stem from the Independent Character Rules, in particular the very poor choice of words: "for all rules purposes."
That requirement prevents us from treating the Independent Character as anything but part of that Unit....


Another simple question. Let's state that your army is single FOC with 2 HQ's and an allied detachment with 1 HQ.

When you attach your allied HQ to your primary detachment do you immediately forfeit the game for having an illegal army composition?

Only if you believe that having the allied HQ killed would also cause you to forfeit the game. Oh wait, no such rule exists, phew! Guess your rule doesn't exist as well.

(If it wasn't clear - list construction rules cannot apply throughout the game, or else I can say with certainty you have lost some games you didn't play as a loss)

So again, why changing the subject from "are" friendly units to talking about models? Or is still the claim that you are ignoring page 39 and the rule "for all rules purposes" by NOT treating the IC as a part of the unit?

So we have rules. Stating BB are defined as friendly units, and we know, with certainty, that we cannot treat the IC as an attached unit without breaking page 39, and therefore any restriction on allied Units cannot apply, as you don't HAVE an allied IC

Naw - for examples of where the rules break if you do not treat "treated as" as "are" or "is", do some quick searches on here. Simple examples include deepstrike movement, vehicle weapon skill. If you make the claim that they are not actually weapon skill 0, say, then you have no ability to resolve attacks.

So, given every point you made has been comprehensively debunked, your concession is accepted


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 07:52:11


Post by: milkboy


Dear OP,

I hope you managed to get an answer to your original post. Now there are 2 schools of thought, one might sound wrong to you. But hopefully the poll answers your question about Dakka's take on this.

As for your question on how tournaments play it, maybe you could pm previous organizers? I remember seeing Reecius who did LVO.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 08:00:00


Post by: nosferatu1001


Naw wrote:
JinxDragon wrote:
Naw,
Where in the book is a requirement that the List must always be checked, throughout the course of the game and not just at List building stage, to contain one X and two Y per Detachment?


Must be in the same place where it says that Battle Brothers can embark on allied transports, please look it up.

Page 39 allows allied IC models to embark, otherwise you are breaking a rule. Page 122 only concerns itself with units, which is what BB are defined as in game, which you know.

So, care to find a quote for your supposed rule of auto losing the game ? Or we're you simply creating a straw man argument again?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 08:06:56


Post by: Naw


 Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) See the first post on the top of page 3, which demonstrates why the use of the term "Battle Brother" by the BRB must necessarily refer to units.


Whew, luckily the third bullet point under the heading Battle Brothers forbids Battle Brothers from embarking, at least in my rulebook.

Still awaiting the exact opposite rules quote. It looks like you are again arguing based not on what the rulebook says but from your own wishful thinking.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 08:15:01


Post by: nosferatu1001


Naw wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) See the first post on the top of page 3, which demonstrates why the use of the term "Battle Brother" by the BRB must necessarily refer to units.


Whew, luckily the third bullet point under the heading Battle Brothers forbids Battle Brothers from embarking, at least in my rulebook.

Still awaiting the exact opposite rules quote. It looks like you are again arguing based not on what the rulebook says but from your own wishful thinking.

Phew, lucky for us that you're not ignoring the the first sentence, that define the content of that list of which the third item is part! If you were, then you wouldn't be arguing based on what the rule book says but something else, breaking the tenets.

So again, Battle brothers ARE friendly units. So, when you don't have a unit, can you be a battle brother? The rules say no, however your stance is....?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 08:20:59


Post by: Naw


nosferatu1001 wrote:
So we have rules. Stating BB are defined as friendly units


That is incorrect again, as you already noticed below. They are NOT defined as friendly units, they are TREATED AS. They are defined as battle brothers because of they are from another Codex AND the ally matrix defines the level of alliance in question. Stop with your rules interpretations and follow the rules as they are crystal clear in this area.

and we know, with certainty, that we cannot treat the IC as an attached unit without breaking page 39, and therefore any restriction on allied Units cannot apply, as you don't HAVE an allied IC


What makes you think rules cannot extend each other? Clearly when you have allies you follow also the ally rules. Yes or no? IC rules do not take any stance whatsoever to allies as they cover only that part of the rules. To expand on those when you do have allies, you will look up the alliy rules.

Naw - for examples of where the rules break if you do not treat "treated as" as "are" or "is", do some quick searches on here.


I'm not going to do the work for you, you are the one asserting that this BB units being not BB units breaks the whole game. Your examples below have _nothing to do with that_.

Simple examples include deepstrike movement, vehicle weapon skill. If you make the claim that they are not actually weapon skill 0, say, then you have no ability to resolve attacks.


What?? What have these examples got to do with allies?

So, given every point you made has been comprehensively debunked, your concession is accepted


Debunk this:
Allies
Levels of Alliance
Battle Brothers
Definition of Battle Brothers
"This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:" (note, not units, Battle Brothers)
"- However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles."

Debunk that and show the opposite ruling that allows IC who are Battle Brothers to embark. It must be easy, just quote from the rulebook.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are treated as 'friendly units'. Not units, but friendly units. Then two positives are given as examples of IC's being able to join and that they are counted as being friendly units.

Again, nowhere does it give this weird "Battle Brothers unit" that you are referring to. Is my rulebook incorrect?

Luckily almost 80% of Dakka readers have the ability to follow the actual rules here. I'm done with this thread, thanks and bye.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 08:27:14


Post by: nosferatu1001


Sigh, ignoring what others type again.

You claim is that treated as is not the same as is/are. I showed where this is not true. Exactly as you asked.

So, battle brothers ARE friendly units. Saying otherwise literally ignores the way the game is written.

Page 39 states they are no longer a unit. As they are not a unit, they cannot be a battle brother, as we know that BB refers to units and not models. So therefore a restriction on the unit no longer applies.

Stop removing the context from rules, stop ignoring how English works (as in, you are taking part of a list and claiming it is the whole rule, when by definition it is a continuation of what preceded it. Continuing to ignore the first sentences means it is pointless to argue further with you, as you are refusing to acknowledge the rules that exist) and you may stop creating rules out if thin air


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 10:21:40


Post by: some bloke


We don't know that battle brothers refers to units and not models. battle brothers refers to everything from an allied detachment.

you are arguing that as apples are fruits, all fruits are apples.

you are arguing that as battle brothers are treated as friendly units, only units can be battle brothers.

to put it in algebra, as seems popular:

A is treated as B
A also cannot do C

if A is no longer treated as B, can it do C? no, because it is still A.

what you seem to be reading it as is:

A is treated as B
B cannot do C

if A is no longer B, it can do C as only B cannot do C.

I'm genuinely perplexed as to how this is being misinterpreted! And before you make the assumption that I haven't read the thread, I've read every word.

onto the post you've referred to a few times now:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Clearly an English lesson is required here.

When you have a sentence that ends in a colon(The following symbol ":") with bullet points following it, those bullet points are an extension of that sentence.

When a sentence is part of the body of a paragraph, the first sentence in the paragraph defines the subject of that paragraph.

Now those 2 rules of the English language alone tell you that the bullet points are part of the paragraph and the the paragraph is discussing Battle brothers as friendly units.

But more importantly we have the sentence that the bullet points belongs to: "This means, for example, Battle Brothers:". Example of what means? This means is in regard to the preceding sentence: "Battle brothers are treated as friendly units from all points of view." That is what "this means", that battle brothers as friendly units means...

This is also a theme that continues throughout the Bullet points. Does it say that a Battle brother IC can Join an allied unit? No it says "This Means that Battle Brothers: Can be joined by allied Independent Characters.". Does it say That Battle Brothers can be the target of Psychic powers, Abilities, and so on? Yes, yes it does, and most powers, abilities and what have you are based on units.

The third bullet point is poorly worded(worded as a complete sentence); but it must still be taken in context of its containing sentence.

So sure, the RAW read as anything that is drawn from a battle brothers ally; if yoiu completely ignore the English language and context of the rules

Why don't we ignore the context of Preferred enemy as well?

Or how about Vector Strike? Why can't a gliding FMC use vector strike? If we can ignore the first sentence in the paragraph about Battle brothers I should be able to take a FMC and vector strike while gliding by ignoring the first sentence of the paragraph and ignoring the context of the rest of the rules.

So yeah, the RAW of the rule is that Battle Brothers are friendly units and those units cannot embark on allied transports.

ICs joined to a unit are no longer units on their own, but are instead members of the unit they have joined for all rules purposes.

An Eldar farseer that joins a unit of Fire Warriors is still an Eldar Farseer, but is no longer and Eldar Farseer Unit, he is now just a member of the Tau Firewarrior unit. A Cadre Fireblade is still able to join that unit(ICs joining units does not change the unit, only the IC), and Preferred enemy(Eldar) will not effect that unit.


and compare with the one I made that's startlingly similar, but without a sudden jump of random logic:

 some bloke wrote:

if we treat the bullet points as commas, which english lets us do (bullet points are a list, it makes it easier to read, it functions as a comma) we have the paragraph:

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers can be joined by allied independant characters and are counted as being friendly units for the casting of psychic powers and so on. However, note that not even a Battle Brother can embark in an allied transport vehicle."

My rules are cited, yours are disproved. have you any more to add?


when you read this statement, what part of it makes you think that an independant character stops being a battle brother? the word "unit" is on the wrong side of the equation. is he a battle brother? yes. is he a friendly unit? yes, because he's a battle brother. can he join another unit? yes, because he's a friendly unit. does this stop him being a battle brother? no, because not a single rule states that it does. so can he embark on an allied transport? no, he's a battle brother.


it's very simple; is it from your codex or the allied one? if allied, it's a battle brother (or worse) and can't get in, no matter how much you mutilate the rules.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 12:21:26


Post by: rigeld2


Naw wrote:
Indeed. Looks like we found autowin against many deathstars. Well done, guys.

You select 2 HQs and an allied HQ. I kill the allied HQ. do you auto-lose?
What's the difference?

Oh, there isn't one. Gotcha.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 some bloke wrote:
We don't know that battle brothers refers to units and not models. battle brothers refers to everything from an allied detachment.

you are arguing that as apples are fruits, all fruits are apples.

Not at all.
All apples are fruits. Fruits are prevented from being dinner.
If something isn't an apple, can it be dinner?
it's very simple; is it from your codex or the allied one? if allied, it's a battle brother (or worse) and can't get in, no matter how much you mutilate the rules.

That's correct if you ignore rules.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 12:57:01


Post by: nosferatu1001


Some bloke - from all points of view, they are friendly units. So a Batle Brother is, from all points of view, a friendly unit. Are you discussing a unit any longer? No, because the IC is not a unit any longer, but part of a non-BB unit.

If you do not have a unit, you certainly cannot have a BB unit, meaning none of the rules that apply to BB units

You are making a leap the wrong direction, and misreading a very straightforward sentence in quite a bizarre way. Literally, the only way to read the sentence is that Battle brothers are friendly units, always. If you do not have a unit, you cannot have a battle brother - you have failed in the first requirement.

If you no longer have a unit, you cannot be a battle brother, meaning you cannot apply any restrictions on battlebrothers.

Proven.

Naw - your concession si accepted.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 13:36:18


Post by: PrinceRaven


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 PrinceRaven wrote:
1) Because the drone is part of the unit's composition and is in a friendly unit while the Farseer (if they are no longer Battle Brothers) is not

2) The IC is also part of the unit it is joined to, and you cannot target a part of a unit without invoking a rule like Focus Fire or a Focussed Witchfire.

3) In which case, according to your interpretation of the rules, the Farseer, not being a unit, cannot be a Battle Brother with Dark Eldar or Tau.


1) If the unit is 'undefined', how do you know that the drone is part of its composition? Or that it's friendly? Or that it's even a unit at all? If you take the IC rule "is treated as a member of the unit for all rules purposes" as RAW, then the Farseer has just as much a right to be in said "undefined" unit as a drone would. Since, as soon as it joined the unit, it became a member 'for all rules purposes.'

2) Citation for a model to be in two units simultaneously.

3) Correct - once the Farseer has joined a unit, he is a member of that unit for all rules purposes and is no longer merely an "ally."


1) Because the Drone is purchased as part of the unit in the Tau Codex.

2) The Independent Character rules allow you to join an IC to another unit

3) So if the Farseer is no longer allowed to use the Battle Brothers rules:
- It cannot cast psychic powers on the Dark Eldar unit
- It cannot treat the Tau unit as a friendly unit

Now, as the Farseer is not within 2" coherency of a friendly unit, it leaves the Tau unit at the end of movement phase.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 13:36:32


Post by: Naw


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Naw - your concession si accepted.


LOL



Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 13:46:08


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 PrinceRaven wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 PrinceRaven wrote:
1) Because the drone is part of the unit's composition and is in a friendly unit while the Farseer (if they are no longer Battle Brothers) is not

2) The IC is also part of the unit it is joined to, and you cannot target a part of a unit without invoking a rule like Focus Fire or a Focussed Witchfire.

3) In which case, according to your interpretation of the rules, the Farseer, not being a unit, cannot be a Battle Brother with Dark Eldar or Tau.


1) If the unit is 'undefined', how do you know that the drone is part of its composition? Or that it's friendly? Or that it's even a unit at all? If you take the IC rule "is treated as a member of the unit for all rules purposes" as RAW, then the Farseer has just as much a right to be in said "undefined" unit as a drone would. Since, as soon as it joined the unit, it became a member 'for all rules purposes.'

2) Citation for a model to be in two units simultaneously.

3) Correct - once the Farseer has joined a unit, he is a member of that unit for all rules purposes and is no longer merely an "ally."


1) Because the Drone is purchased as part of the unit in the Tau Codex.

2) The Independent Character rules allow you to join an IC to another unit

3) So if the Farseer is no longer allowed to use the Battle Brothers rules:
- It cannot cast psychic powers on the Dark Eldar unit
- It cannot treat the Tau unit as a friendly unit

Now, as the Farseer is not within 2" coherency of a friendly unit, it leaves the Tau unit at the end of movement phase.


1) What codex a unit is from has no bearing on its composition. A unit could have an Inquisitor, Commissar, and Chapter Master Marneus Calgar, an Iron Hands MOTF and three Techmarines, and it's still one unit, the individual members of which are each from different codexes/supplements.

2) Yes, but they also say they count as part of that unit for all rules purposes, so either they're 2 units simultaneously or they're one unit which the independent character is part of. (Notice the how the wording for the second option is identical to the wording in the rulebook? While the first one is basically unsubstantiated by the rules?)

3) Yes, it can. Because it counts as a member of the Tau unit, and to a Tau unit, all other Tau units are friendly. As far as the Dark Eldar are concerned, I am unsure of their state-of-alliance with the Tau, but if they are not BB with the Tau then a Farseer in a Tau unit could not cast psychic powers on a Dark Eldar unit, RAW.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 14:13:10


Post by: nosferatu1001


Naw wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Naw - your concession si accepted.


LOL



You proferred no rebuttal to the points, posted up strawman arguments that you never even attempted to defend once shown how silly they were, and insist on sleectively quoting, and therefore misrepresenting, rules.

Your concession is indeed accepted, as your useful contribution to the thread is mostly summed up by your response above.

PrinceRaven wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 PrinceRaven wrote:
1) Because the drone is part of the unit's composition and is in a friendly unit while the Farseer (if they are no longer Battle Brothers) is not

2) The IC is also part of the unit it is joined to, and you cannot target a part of a unit without invoking a rule like Focus Fire or a Focussed Witchfire.

3) In which case, according to your interpretation of the rules, the Farseer, not being a unit, cannot be a Battle Brother with Dark Eldar or Tau.


1) If the unit is 'undefined', how do you know that the drone is part of its composition? Or that it's friendly? Or that it's even a unit at all? If you take the IC rule "is treated as a member of the unit for all rules purposes" as RAW, then the Farseer has just as much a right to be in said "undefined" unit as a drone would. Since, as soon as it joined the unit, it became a member 'for all rules purposes.'

2) Citation for a model to be in two units simultaneously.

3) Correct - once the Farseer has joined a unit, he is a member of that unit for all rules purposes and is no longer merely an "ally."


1) Because the Drone is purchased as part of the unit in the Tau Codex.

2) The Independent Character rules allow you to join an IC to another unit

3) So if the Farseer is no longer allowed to use the Battle Brothers rules:
- It cannot cast psychic powers on the Dark Eldar unit
- It cannot treat the Tau unit as a friendly unit

Now, as the Farseer is not within 2" coherency of a friendly unit, it leaves the Tau unit at the end of movement phase.


2) ...and become a part of the unit for all rules purposes/ You are attempting to treat it NOT as a member of the unit for a rules purpose - namely, you are claiming it is still a separate unit. You have broken a rule, and therefore your argument is invalidated at that point
3) It is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes. Whether it is "friendly" or not as is needed to be determined for the casting powers of powers IS A RULES PURPOSE, so he is a) "Friendly" to any Tau unit, as he is a member of a Tau unit for all rules purposes, and b) at the same level of alliance as the Tau unit to anything else. So assuming Tau are NOT BB with DE, a farseer joined to a tau unit CANNOT CAST powers on a DE unit, as the DE unit is NOT BB with the Tau unit.

Attempting to differentiate the Farseer at this point breaks the rules on page 39. You cannot show allowance to do so - as the BB rules refer to friendly units, and the IC is demonstrably NOT a unit in and of itself any longer - and therefore you cannot do so.

QED.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 14:46:27


Post by: rigeld2


 PrinceRaven wrote:
3) So if the Farseer is no longer allowed to use the Battle Brothers rules:
- It cannot treat the Tau unit as a friendly unit

Now, as the Farseer is not within 2" coherency of a friendly unit, it leaves the Tau unit at the end of movement phase.

Please, using actual rules, define "friendly unit". There's a reason I'm asking this question.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 14:47:05


Post by: Nem


Remember, a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit. If a character in a unit that charges into close combat, the character charges too, as it is part of the unit. If the character is locked in close combat he fights as part of the unit.


'All rules purposes' is like a little lie in the book. The following paragraphs go on to show this isn't true, as with other areas. Nothings listed as 'unless otherwise specified' and nothing in those conflicting rules are listed as exceptions. It's quite reasonable to read 'Part of the unit for all rules purposes' to mean as quoted above, rather than that he is absorbed by the unit. - As in, being part of the unit means he runs, charges, shoots etc as part of the unit. Unit in this context being the group of models. He is part, and acts with that group of models.
This however never stops him being a unit as bought on the army list - or an IC would lose all their special rules. We know this isn't the case.

Once at this point all rules are covered, with no other rules issues, and the IC is both part of the unit, and a unit as bought from the codex, still a BB unit.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 14:49:49


Post by: rigeld2


 Nem wrote:
This however never stops him being a unit as bought on the army list - or an IC would lose all their special rules.

Incorrect. Special Rules are model based, not unit based.

Once at this point all rules are covered, with no other rules issues, and the IC is both part of the unit, and a unit as bought from the codex, still a BB unit.

Are you attempting to treat it as something other than a member of the unit its joined for a rules purpose?
Yes?
Why would you do that when the rules explicitly tell you otherwise?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 14:54:04


Post by: Nem


rigeld2 wrote:
 Nem wrote:
This however never stops him being a unit as bought on the army list - or an IC would lose all their special rules.

Incorrect. Special Rules are model based, not unit based.

Once at this point all rules are covered, with no other rules issues, and the IC is both part of the unit, and a unit as bought from the codex, still a BB unit.

Are you attempting to treat it as something other than a member of the unit its joined for a rules purpose?
Yes?
Why would you do that when the rules explicitly tell you otherwise?


Special rules are given to models that are 'in the unit' - direct quote -

If he is no longer a unit, he no longer has those rules either.

Your the ones that are saying he is no longer in the unit he was bought for.

Edit; clarify posted that a few back.
6. Special rules
Any special rules that apply to the models in the unit are listed here.......

Of course things like this, battle brother tags etc - the things that were decided when choosing your army, probably all remain, and do so at a model level.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 15:01:37


Post by: some bloke


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Some bloke - from all points of view, they are friendly units. So a Batle Brother is, from all points of view, a friendly unit. Are you discussing a unit any longer? No, because the IC is not a unit any longer, but part of a non-BB unit.

If you do not have a unit, you certainly cannot have a BB unit, meaning none of the rules that apply to BB units

You are making a leap the wrong direction, and misreading a very straightforward sentence in quite a bizarre way. Literally, the only way to read the sentence is that Battle brothers are friendly units, always. If you do not have a unit, you cannot have a battle brother - you have failed in the first requirement.

If you no longer have a unit, you cannot be a battle brother, meaning you cannot apply any restrictions on battlebrothers.

Proven.

Naw - your concession si accepted.


there's that phrase again - "Battle brother unit".
there is no such thing as a "battle brother unit"!
it has been invented by people because Battle Brothers count as friendly units!
The word "unit" is in the phrase "Friendly units" not "Battle Brothers"!

every single thing in the allied army is a battle brother to the primary, and vice versa. it does not cease to be a battle brother, ever. nothing says it does. you're adding the word "unit" into the term "battle brother", then removing the word "unit" from the new, invented term "Battle Brother Unit" and then claiming that it doesn't just revert back to "Battle Brother", but instead loses all limitations and restrictions it had!

and what still hasn't been addressed is that if what you are saying is true, and that an independant character loses his place as a battle brother if he joins a unit, how has he joined the unit? he is no longer a friendly character, so cannot join.

oh, but there's a second bullet point that allows him to join. well, we'll allow that then.

best not mention that third bullet point about not being allowed in allied transports though, that clearly doesn't apply.

NEXT!

rigeld2 wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
We don't know that battle brothers refers to units and not models. battle brothers refers to everything from an allied detachment.

you are arguing that as apples are fruits, all fruits are apples.

Not at all.
All apples are fruits. Fruits are prevented from being dinner.
If something isn't an apple, can it be dinner?
it's very simple; is it from your codex or the allied one? if allied, it's a battle brother (or worse) and can't get in, no matter how much you mutilate the rules.

That's correct if you ignore rules.


hmm, that apples thing reminds me of the algebra I stated as well. you know, the one I said was wrong?

skipping the confusion of the charade of replacing rules with items of food....

Battle brothers are friendly units
IC's are friendly units
IC's can join friendly units
IC no longer is classed as a unit
Is the IC a battle brother. the simple solution to this is in the list you wrote before the game - if he's in one detatchment and the transport he wants to get into is in the other, he can't get in.

do you remember those really long questions that were all about reading the question properly?

it'd start with "you pick up your bag and get on a bus, on the bus there are 16 other people, four have green eyes and three have brown, the rest have blue. you sit down on one of the 4 empty seats and eat 8 skittles out of a pack of 30. you give each of the other people on the bus a skittle.
How many bags do you have?"

this discussion reminds me of that sort of thing. you're getting caught up by all the stuff in the middle and are forgetting the simple fact that the book states "Not even Battle Brothers can ride in allied Transports". "but he's not a unit!" still a battle brother. "but he's in another squad!" Still a battle brother.

the status of "Battle Brother" is simply defined by pointing at any model and saying "what detachment did I buy him for?" if it's different from the transport vehicle, he can't get in.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 15:07:23


Post by: Naw


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Naw wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Naw - your concession si accepted.


LOL



You proferred no rebuttal to the points, posted up strawman arguments that you never even attempted to defend once shown how silly they were, and insist on sleectively quoting, and therefore misrepresenting, rules.


For the final time, provide the rule from BRB that says that Battle Brothers can embark transports of their allies. Should be easy, just the page number and rule quote.

We have already provided the rule word to word that forbids them doing so.


Your concession is indeed accepted, as your useful contribution to the thread is mostly summed up by your response above.


Aha. So it is accepted in rules discussion to provide your opinion rather than actual rules. Glad you clarified that.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 15:07:30


Post by: rigeld2


 Nem wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 Nem wrote:
This however never stops him being a unit as bought on the army list - or an IC would lose all their special rules.

Incorrect. Special Rules are model based, not unit based.

Once at this point all rules are covered, with no other rules issues, and the IC is both part of the unit, and a unit as bought from the codex, still a BB unit.

Are you attempting to treat it as something other than a member of the unit its joined for a rules purpose?
Yes?
Why would you do that when the rules explicitly tell you otherwise?


Special rules are given to models that are 'in the unit' - direct quote -

If he is no longer a unit, he no longer has those rules either.

Your the ones that are saying he is no longer in the unit he was bought for.

p33 wrote:WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant entry in its codex. That said, a model's Attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.

Rules are given to a model. Does the model change? No. So your assertion is incorrect. Next?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 some bloke wrote:
and what still hasn't been addressed is that if what you are saying is true, and that an independant character loses his place as a battle brother if he joins a unit, how has he joined the unit? he is no longer a friendly character, so cannot join.

Really? What defines a friendly unit in the BRB? I'd love an answer.

Battle brothers are friendly units
IC's are friendly units
IC's can join friendly units
IC no longer is classed as a unit
Is the IC a battle brother. the simple solution to this is in the list you wrote before the game - if he's in one detatchment and the transport he wants to get into is in the other, he can't get in.

The underlined is an interesting argument for intent, but it is not what the rules actually say.

this discussion reminds me of that sort of thing. you're getting caught up by all the stuff in the middle and are forgetting the simple fact that the book states "Not even Battle Brothers can ride in allied Transports". "but he's not a unit!" still a battle brother. "but he's in another squad!" Still a battle brother.

the status of "Battle Brother" is simply defined by pointing at any model and saying "what detachment did I buy him for?" if it's different from the transport vehicle, he can't get in.

No, that's incorrect. You're literally ignoring the rest of the paragraph and focusing on one sentence. That's not how English works.

Left or Right? Relevant question, please answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Naw wrote:
For the final time, provide the rule from BRB that says that Battle Brothers can embark transports of their allies. Should be easy, just the page number and rule quote.

p78 wrote:A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its Access Points in the Movement phase


We have already provided the rule word to word that forbids them doing so.

No, you haven't. You've misquoted rules, repeatedly, to make it seem like you're correct - but you have to literally ignore the beginning of that paragraph (pretend it doesn't exist).


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 15:19:43


Post by: some bloke


the beginning of the paragraph doesn't help at all! if it stated, with these exact words, "All Battle Brother Units are treated as friendly units" then it would, you would have found a loophole, hooray for you. as it is it states "All Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units", so your whole "is he a unit or isn't he" argument becomes invalid, as the very statement that you're clinging to doesn't care if he's a unit or not.

And you Still haven't addressed the issue that if indeed he ceases to be a Battle Brother, and therefore ceases to be counted as a friendly unit, how is he joined to the unit.

so for your next response please, explain to me how an independant character who is not within 2" of a friendly unit is joined to the aforementioned not-friendly unit.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 15:24:27


Post by: rigeld2


 some bloke wrote:
the beginning of the paragraph doesn't help at all! if it stated, with these exact words, "All Battle Brother Units are treated as friendly units" then it would, you would have found a loophole, hooray for you. as it is it states "All Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units", so your whole "is he a unit or isn't he" argument becomes invalid, as the very statement that you're clinging to doesn't care if he's a unit or not.

It does.
Battle Brothers are friendly units. If something isn't a unit, can it possibly be a friendly unit?

And you Still haven't addressed the issue that if indeed he ceases to be a Battle Brother, and therefore ceases to be counted as a friendly unit, how is he joined to the unit.

I did. I asked a question that you apparently ignored.

so for your next response please, explain to me how an independant character who is not within 2" of a friendly unit is joined to the aforementioned not-friendly unit.

Your assumption is that any Allied unit is non-friendly by default. I've never seen you support that assumption with actual rules - you've just repeated it over and over.
Perhaps you'd like to support that assumption with actual rules? Because as far as I can see in the rulebook, that assumption isn't true.
Which means the BB rules are more a reminder than a bonus. DA and AoC specify enemy units so of course they're not friendly.

Cite a rule that, by default, Allies are not friendly.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 15:25:17


Post by: don_mondo


Or we could just wait 10 days and see if the BB rules change.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 15:37:21


Post by: osirisx69


 Nem wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 Nem wrote:
This however never stops him being a unit as bought on the army list - or an IC would lose all their special rules.

Incorrect. Special Rules are model based, not unit based.

Once at this point all rules are covered, with no other rules issues, and the IC is both part of the unit, and a unit as bought from the codex, still a BB unit.

Are you attempting to treat it as something other than a member of the unit its joined for a rules purpose?
Yes?
Why would you do that when the rules explicitly tell you otherwise?


Special rules are given to models that are 'in the unit' - direct quote -

If he is no longer a unit, he no longer has those rules either.

Your the ones that are saying he is no longer in the unit he was bought for.

Edit; clarify posted that a few back.
6. Special rules
Any special rules that apply to the models in the unit are listed here.......

Of course things like this, battle brother tags etc - the things that were decided when choosing your army, probably all remain, and do so at a model level.


This is absolutely correct.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 15:38:23


Post by: rigeld2


osirisx69 wrote:
This is absolutely correct.

No, it's not. I've addressed his comments.
Perhaps you have something to actually add to the thread instead of just +1ing?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 15:44:50


Post by: some bloke


rigeld2 wrote:
 some bloke wrote:
the beginning of the paragraph doesn't help at all! if it stated, with these exact words, "All Battle Brother Units are treated as friendly units" then it would, you would have found a loophole, hooray for you. as it is it states "All Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units", so your whole "is he a unit or isn't he" argument becomes invalid, as the very statement that you're clinging to doesn't care if he's a unit or not.

It does.
Battle Brothers are friendly units. If something isn't a unit, can it possibly be a friendly unit?

And you Still haven't addressed the issue that if indeed he ceases to be a Battle Brother, and therefore ceases to be counted as a friendly unit, how is he joined to the unit.

I did. I asked a question that you apparently ignored.

so for your next response please, explain to me how an independant character who is not within 2" of a friendly unit is joined to the aforementioned not-friendly unit.

Your assumption is that any Allied unit is non-friendly by default. I've never seen you support that assumption with actual rules - you've just repeated it over and over.
Perhaps you'd like to support that assumption with actual rules? Because as far as I can see in the rulebook, that assumption isn't true.
Which means the BB rules are more a reminder than a bonus. DA and AoC specify enemy units so of course they're not friendly.

Cite a rule that, by default, Allies are not friendly.


Well, I think you've misunderstood me there but that's no big deal, I'll go over it now, with rules references for you.

1: starting at the top, we already know that Battle brothers are friendly units by virtue of being Battle Brothers, as stated on page 112. if they were not Battle Brothers, they wouldn't be friendly units. correct?
2: You state that Independant characters are no longer Battle Brothers when they join an allied unit, correct?
3: So by removing the "Battle Brothers" tag from the IC, it means he is no longer a BB. Can i confirm that you do not think he is a BB?
4: so by going through the rules for BB's, he no longer is treated as a freindly unit, cannot join friendly units, isn't treated as friendly for the purposes of psychic powers, as the only reason this was true was because he was a BB. correct?
5: flip back to page 39. "in order to join a unit, the IC simply has to move so that he is within 2" coherency of a friendly unit at the end of the movement phase" as the IC is no longer treated as a Battle Brother, he is no longer a friendly unit, and can no longer join units, as it is only under the bullet points for Battle Brothers that he can join them. correct?

It's not about defaulting to non-friendly. it's about whether he counts as friendly or not. he is only friendly because he's a battle brother (note that all the other allies count as enemy units). if he stops being a battle brother, he stops being friendly.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 15:55:33


Post by: rigeld2


 some bloke wrote:
1: starting at the top, we already know that Battle brothers are friendly units by virtue of being Battle Brothers, as stated on page 112. if they were not Battle Brothers, they wouldn't be friendly units. correct?

Citation required.
Your entire argument hinges on this assumption and you have done literally nothing to prove it. Please do so.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 16:06:19


Post by: nosferatu1001


Naw wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Naw wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Naw - your concession si accepted.


LOL



You proferred no rebuttal to the points, posted up strawman arguments that you never even attempted to defend once shown how silly they were, and insist on sleectively quoting, and therefore misrepresenting, rules.


For the final time, provide the rule from BRB that says that Battle Brothers can embark transports of their allies. Should be easy, just the page number and rule quote.

We have already provided the rule word to word that forbids them doing so.


Your concession is indeed accepted, as your useful contribution to the thread is mostly summed up by your response above.


Aha. So it is accepted in rules discussion to provide your opinion rather than actual rules. Glad you clarified that.

No, you have provided the rules that forbid friendly units, which are battle brothers, from embarking.. That isn't a model level rule, as you are aware. So I have permission to embark, and nothing restricting me, as proven, so I can embark. Your concession is still accepted.

Prove that a rule dealing with units applies to models, and do so without violating page 39. Page and graph, or accept your argument is voided,

No, what is accepted that your useful contribution is effectively nil , as you continue to deliberately misrepresent and ignore written rules. You are pretending the first paragraph sentence does not exist, which given it defines the term battle brother, and therefore underpins any argument you are trying to make, means you have no useful argument to make. It is impossible to argue coherently with you, as you refuse to accept the written rules that are there, and have been cited for you ad nauseum.

Reread, note you are looking at an ordered list, and adept your error in comprehension is real.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 16:45:12


Post by: some bloke


rigeld2 wrote:
 some bloke wrote:
1: starting at the top, we already know that Battle brothers are friendly units by virtue of being Battle Brothers, as stated on page 112. if they were not Battle Brothers, they wouldn't be friendly units. correct?

Citation required.
Your entire argument hinges on this assumption and you have done literally nothing to prove it. Please do so.


right, right. so can you please tell me where it states that your opponents models are "enemy units" and your own are "Friendly units"?

if models are friendly units by default then every match ends at the start with peace and flowers.

so there are Units, Friendly Units and Enemy units. by standard you're a unit. to Battle Brothers and models in your own detachment, you are Friendly units. To model in the opponents army, you are Enemy Units.

you have to be a battle brother to be a friendly unit, you have to be a friendly unit to join. so you're either in the unit, still a Battle brother and can't embark on allied transports, or you're no longer a Battle Brother, no longer a friendly unit, can't join the unit and can't Embark on allied transports.

or, as you seem to think, you use the Battle Brothers rule to join the unit, discard half the Battle Brothers rule, keeping the part you like, and can embark on a transport.


it was mentioned before that ignoring the word "unit" in the battle brothers opening paragraph (the word that wasn't actually there) would result in the catastrophic failure of the rules. so now I'm going to turn that argument on you, using your logic for the interpretation of the rules. let's take a look.

Page 39:
"An independent character can begin the game already with a unit, simply by deploying in unit coherency with it."

Page 112, Allies of Convenience, underlines for effect:
"Units in your army treat allies of convenience as enemy Units that cannot be charged..."

using your logic for what makes a battle brother a battle brother, we must be able to apply the self same login to the other types of allies.

so an Ally of Convenience is only an Enemy Unit if if is a Unit. if it is no longer a unit, it is no longer an enemy unit.

an Independant Character can join a Unit at the start, with no stipulations on whether it is friendly or not - this comes in at the end of the movement phase...

Page 39:
"in order to join a unit, an independent Character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" unit coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of the movement phase"

so if an ally of convenience IC is deployed with an allied unit, it loses the rule for "Allies of convenience", as per your argument, and ceases to be an enemy unit. This means that, as per your argument he now defaults to "Friendly unit" and by the end of the movement phase will be able to stay in the unit, embark on transports and cast psychic power on the now friendly units around him.

so would you be happy to face an army in which, thanks to your own rules interpretation, even desperate allies can join their characters to each other at the start of the game? let's get Abaddon leading a unit of 30 'ard boys, shall we, or mad dok grotsnik giving a unit of 20 nurgle posessed feel no pain?

please feel free to point out any of your rules interpretations I got wrong here.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 17:50:32


Post by: rigeld2


 some bloke wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 some bloke wrote:
1: starting at the top, we already know that Battle brothers are friendly units by virtue of being Battle Brothers, as stated on page 112. if they were not Battle Brothers, they wouldn't be friendly units. correct?

Citation required.
Your entire argument hinges on this assumption and you have done literally nothing to prove it. Please do so.


right, right. so can you please tell me where it states that your opponents models are "enemy units" and your own are "Friendly units"?

The rules consistently use "your army" vs "your opponents army". Since the rules never define "friendly" vs "enemy" normal English tells us your army is friendly unless otherwise stated.

if models are friendly units by default then every match ends at the start with peace and flowers.

Incorrect.

so if an ally of convenience IC is deployed with an allied unit, it loses the rule for "Allies of convenience", as per your argument, and ceases to be an enemy unit. This means that, as per your argument he now defaults to "Friendly unit" and by the end of the movement phase will be able to stay in the unit, embark on transports and cast psychic power on the now friendly units around him.

Incorrect. The deployment rules don't override the IC rules that require a friendly unit.

so would you be happy to face an army in which, thanks to your own rules interpretation, even desperate allies can join their characters to each other at the start of the game? let's get Abaddon leading a unit of 30 'ard boys, shall we, or mad dok grotsnik giving a unit of 20 nurgle posessed feel no pain?

If it was allowed by the rules, I'd have no problem with it. Again, however - it's not.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 18:05:45


Post by: Kommissar Kel


It was asked earlier what rules would allow a Farseer to be joined to a Crisis team since he stops being a Battle Brother by ceasing to be a Unit.

I have a simple answer for which rule allows him to remain attached: The Battle Brothers rule, but not why you think.

The Battle Brothers rule does not say that Battle Brothers ICs may join allied units, it says that Battle Brothers may be joined by Allied ICs.

The Battle Brothers in the situation is the Crisis Team, The Farseer is merely an Allied IC.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 18:29:00


Post by: Poly Ranger


I think literal RAW wise it is possible as rigeld has quite nicely shown through applying literal definitions to concepts and words. Don't ask me why as I will just point you to what he has posted.
How it is intended, I believe it not to be possible and the vast majority of players do not allow it.
How I play it - I do not allow it due to general consensus and it would not be worth the arguing otherwise.
How I WOULD LIKE to play it - allow it!!! It makes utter complete logical sense! Why can an inquisitor not join his spacemarine deathsquad at the start of the game? Why can a space marine captain not join his chapters attached support units in defense of his planet? Why can a farseer who is striving to protect his species from extinction not zoom with the dark eldar warriors who he is using to aid him with that?
It is fluffy, it is logical. Be a good 'dungeon master' and allow it when not playing competative games.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/14 22:07:24


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Poly Ranger wrote:
I think literal RAW wise it is possible as rigeld has quite nicely shown through applying literal definitions to concepts and words. Don't ask me why as I will just point you to what he has posted.
How it is intended, I believe it not to be possible and the vast majority of players do not allow it.
How I play it - I do not allow it due to general consensus and it would not be worth the arguing otherwise.
How I WOULD LIKE to play it - allow it!!! It makes utter complete logical sense! Why can an inquisitor not join his spacemarine deathsquad at the start of the game? Why can a space marine captain not join his chapters attached support units in defense of his planet? Why can a farseer who is striving to protect his species from extinction not zoom with the dark eldar warriors who he is using to aid him with that?
It is fluffy, it is logical. Be a good 'dungeon master' and allow it when not playing competative games.


Don't let logic, fun, and fluff get in the way of good, honest competition.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 01:56:14


Post by: PrinceRaven


 Kommissar Kel wrote:
It was asked earlier what rules would allow a Farseer to be joined to a Crisis team since he stops being a Battle Brother by ceasing to be a Unit.

I have a simple answer for which rule allows him to remain attached: The Battle Brothers rule, but not why you think.

The Battle Brothers rule does not say that Battle Brothers ICs may join allied units, it says that Battle Brothers may be joined by Allied ICs.

The Battle Brothers in the situation is the Crisis Team, The Farseer is merely an Allied IC.


So they are simultaneously Battle Brothers and not Battle Brothers?
How is the Farseer treating the unit as a friendly unit, as required by the Independent Character rules?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 02:11:46


Post by: Happyjew


 PrinceRaven wrote:
 Kommissar Kel wrote:
It was asked earlier what rules would allow a Farseer to be joined to a Crisis team since he stops being a Battle Brother by ceasing to be a Unit.

I have a simple answer for which rule allows him to remain attached: The Battle Brothers rule, but not why you think.

The Battle Brothers rule does not say that Battle Brothers ICs may join allied units, it says that Battle Brothers may be joined by Allied ICs.

The Battle Brothers in the situation is the Crisis Team, The Farseer is merely an Allied IC.


So they are simultaneously Battle Brothers and not Battle Brothers?
How is the Farseer treating the unit as a friendly unit, as required by the Independent Character rules?


Well first we need to know what a "Friendly Unit" is.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 02:17:01


Post by: PrinceRaven


No we don't, we need to know that an Independent Character can only join friendly units, and that without the Battle Brothers rules we don't have permission to treat allied units as friendly.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 02:31:24


Post by: rigeld2


 PrinceRaven wrote:
No we don't, we need to know that an Independent Character can only join friendly units, and that without the Battle Brothers rules we don't have permission to treat allied units as friendly.

That's an assumption without rules support.
Please, use the rules to define a freindly unit.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 02:35:21


Post by: PrinceRaven


Which is an assumption? That Independent Characters can only join friendly units?

"In order to join a unit, an Independent Character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" unit coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase"

Or that we don't have permission to treat allied units without invoking the Battle Brothers rules? If you have a rule that allows us to treat non-BB allies as friendly by all means please share.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 02:37:37


Post by: Happyjew


PrinceRaven, as both sides arguments hinge on "Friendly Unit", what is the definition of "Friendly Unit"?

I think most people would claim that a Friendly unit is a unit in your army that is not an Ally of Convenience or Desperate Ally. Is that something you would agree with?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 02:38:53


Post by: rigeld2


 PrinceRaven wrote:
Or that we don't have permission to treat allied units without invoking the Battle Brothers rules? If you have a rule that allows us to treat non-BB allies as friendly by all means please share.

Did you actually read my post?
The onus is on you to define friendly unit in the rules.
Otherwise by plain English, it's all the models in your army that aren't otherwise treated as Enemy units (DA or AoC).


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 02:49:38


Post by: PrinceRaven


Please find permission to treat "all models in your army that aren't otherwise treated as Enemy units" as friendly units.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 02:55:31


Post by: rigeld2


I have. Unless it's defined otherwise, that's the English definition.

Have you found somewhere it's defined otherwise? I'd be interested to see that.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 02:58:25


Post by: PrinceRaven


So you don't have any rules-based permission to support your assertions?

Well, as long as we don't need to back up our assertions with rules, I say friendly units are all the units in your army painted purple.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 03:24:32


Post by: rigeld2


 PrinceRaven wrote:
So you don't have any rules-based permission to support your assertions?

Well, as long as we don't need to back up our assertions with rules, I say friendly units are all the units in your army painted purple.

That's cute.
I'm curious - how do the rules define "a", "the", and "different"?
Since you're asserting every word used must have a rules based definition and all, I'm sure you can provide me with these.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 03:30:29


Post by: PrinceRaven



Tenets of YMDC wrote:1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate.
...
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 03:58:48


Post by: Fenris-77


English definitions are great in English class. This isn't English class, and general grammar isn't the YMDC beat stick a lot of people think it is. What an 'friendly unit' is in terms of the game rules needs specifically bear not the slightest resemblance to the same phrase in a basic English grammar. Terms in 40K are defined by the GW authors (for both good a bad) not by dictionary definitions.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 05:32:54


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 PrinceRaven wrote:

Tenets of YMDC wrote:1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate.
...
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.


He's saying "if the definition I have provided, the English definition, is wrong, show me why that is." How would you define a friendly unit, if you exclude the definition in the dictionary?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Fenris-77 wrote:
English definitions are great in English class. This isn't English class, and general grammar isn't the YMDC beat stick a lot of people think it is. What an 'friendly unit' is in terms of the game rules needs specifically bear not the slightest resemblance to the same phrase in a basic English grammar. Terms in 40K are defined by the GW authors (for both good a bad) not by dictionary definitions.


Not every term is explicitly defined by the authors. Tell me, what definitions are we supposed to use in the absence of one explicitly stated?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 06:48:51


Post by: nosferatu1001


 PrinceRaven wrote:

Tenets of YMDC wrote:1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate.
...
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

So you dont have a rules based definition of "friendly unit" then? Given your argument relies upon it, I suggest you find one.

If you cannot THEN the common English usage applies. Oh, and the tenet doesnt really apply here - it has been backed up that "friendly units" are the units in your army not otherwise defined as enemy, like DA and AoC are. We know they are not friendly. An allied IC attached to a unt is not a not unit, so cannot be a friendly one.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 07:17:37


Post by: Naw


Funnily enough talk is now about the definition of friendly units. That has nothing to do with the topic.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 07:19:18


Post by: nosferatu1001


Naw wrote:
Funnily enough talk is now about the definition of friendly units. That has nothing to do with the topic.

Care to post a rebuttal of the arguments proving your assertions are incorrect? Or will you follow the tenets and mark your posts as "HYWPI", as they do not have a rules basis?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 07:23:39


Post by: Naw


To bring it back to what this is about, Battle Brothers are treated as "friendly units" (BRB 112). Furthermore, because they are "friendly units", they can join other "friendly units" and benefit from or can cast psychic powers on other "friendly units", however they are forbidden from embarking.

Easy way to check your level of alliance is to check your army list. If from different codex, refer to the alliance matrix.

Also to a previous poster, the alliance matrix is not asymmetric.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My assertions? You have not ever responded to straight questions supported by the rulebook and yet you complain about not following the tenets?? As an example of pro-embarking side's way of arguing, look how often "incorrect" was used in responses without any reason/rule given.

For shooting we refer to the rules about shooting. For assaults we refer to the rules of assaulting. Surprisingly for alliances we refer to the rules of alliances.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 07:35:17


Post by: PrinceRaven


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 PrinceRaven wrote:

Tenets of YMDC wrote:1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate.
...
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.


He's saying "if the definition I have provided, the English definition, is wrong, show me why that is." How would you define a friendly unit, if you exclude the definition in the dictionary?


How about "units you are told are friendly units"?

I'd also be very interesting in seeing this dictionary that provides the definition for the Warhammer 40k game term "friendly unit".


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 07:49:09


Post by: nosferatu1001


Naw - erm, incorrect, actually. I proved that we already have permission to embark, answering your question - just not in the ay you were hoping. You have general permission to embark, and the restriction only applues to units, and as we ALL know - including yourself - the IC is no longer a unit while attached.

Please, rebut the arguments. Stop ignoring the first line that actually defines BBs, misrepresenting the continuation of that rule as somehow a self contained rule, devoid of all context, and admit your error. I note you still have yet to present an argument that doesnt ignore the rules stating BBs are friendly units, and that when reading "BB" you can substitue in the thing they literally ARE - meaning units - meaning the final bullet can only be talkin about units. Something you pretend otehrwise, but that doesnt satisfy even a casual glance.

PR - it only has to define "friendly", as unit is already defined in game. Your army is friendly until told otherwise - or are you claiming a no-ally army isnt friendly to itself?

Again, if you claim that the accepted English usage of a phrase is not valid, then you MUST have an ingame term for it. Please cite a rule defining "friendly" in relation to "friendly unit" , page and para. Further refusal is concession that none such definition exists.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 08:34:17


Post by: Nem


It never reaaaally defines BB's. It says BB's are friendly units - the sentence is structured as a already defined item are friendly units.

If you take only that sentence you know there's something which is called 'Battle Brothers' and that they are friendly.

So what are these friendly units?
-Units taken from an allied detachment with the relationship BB are friendly units?
-BB models are friendly at a group (unit) only level? (unlikely)
-Every model in an allied detachment is a friendly unit (unlikely)
-The detachment taken as allied are a friendly unit? (unlikely)

I believe the above is all it could possibly be. Ofc all of them work in 'no' favor, but if anyone could offer another which doesn't....


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 10:17:51


Post by: Naw


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Naw - erm, incorrect, actually. I proved that we already have permission to embark, answering your question - just not in the ay you were hoping. You have general permission to embark, and the restriction only applues to units, and as we ALL know - including yourself - the IC is no longer a unit while attached .


What?? No! That is not what the rulebook says. Why do you keep insisting that it does?

This is verbatim from the rulebook pg 112 (I shall take a picture if you don't believe me) under heading Battle Brothers:
Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all
points of view. This rneans, for example, that Battle Brothers:

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


Battle Brothers, not units, see?? Why do you keep lying about what it says in the rulebook?

Please, rebut the arguments.


Done.

Stop ignoring the first line that actually defines BBs


What first line? The one that says treated as 'friendly units'? I am not ignoring it. You can also refer to the alliance matrix to see the level of alliance your models might have.

misrepresenting the continuation of that rule as somehow a self contained rule


Again I provided a written rule, unlike you, yet you accuse me of misrepresenting something. Shall I take a picture and post a screenshot?

I note you still have yet to present an argument that doesnt ignore the rules stating BBs are friendly units


Why would I do that? I do not disagree that Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units'.

and that when reading "BB" you can substitue in the thing they literally ARE - meaning units - meaning the final bullet can only be talkin about units.


Aha, so that's how you read the rules. You decide what it means, good work. Shall we utilize that to the allied rules in general about Battle Brothers?

So the heading should read:
Battle Brothers units

Then the rules part:
Battle Brothers units are treated as 'friendly units'... This means, for example, that Battle Brothers units:
...
However, note that not even Battle Brothers units can embark in allied transport vehicles.


Yes yes, much better now.


Something you pretend otehrwise, but that doesnt satisfy even a casual glance.


Yet I do not make up rules or claim that a rule says something that it doesn't.

Edit: Tag issue.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 10:30:40


Post by: nosferatu1001


Sigh.

I am not lying about what it states. I am stating that pretending that the "treated as" somehow does not apply to every instance of Battle Brothers means you are NOT follwoing the rules. Retract your adhominem.

Battle brothers, whcih are friendly units, are not allowed to embark. Agreed?

Now take an IC joined to a unit. We know, per page 39, we have to treat him as a normal member of the uit in ALL respects. Agreed?

If you try to claim they are a friendly unit, have you treated them as a normal member? No. Agreed?

So how then can you apply the BB rules? We KNOW that, in ALL respects, they are a friendly unit. If you do not HAVE a unit, you CANNOT be a battle brother - as otherwise you are treating a non-unit as a battle brother, breaking the EXPLICIT rule telling you what they are

That is your issue. You are pretending, for some reason, that the explicit requirement to treat them as a friendly unit somehow applies to a model. It doesnt. If that model is NOT an allied unit, it cannot be a battle brother.

Your argument is conceded, as yet again you cannot join the dots between the requirement (are a friendly unti) and something that is no longer a unit in and of itself.

I have made up no rules, and have not claimed anythign that isnt supportable. You have - or are you still going to claim a game is autolost if I kill your allied HQ?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 10:46:34


Post by: Sigvatr


Naw wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
and as we ALL know - including yourself - the IC is no longer a unit while attached [/color].


What?? No! That is not what the rulebook says. Why do you keep insisting that it does?


Actually...

[...]he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.


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.


BRB, p.39.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 10:54:23


Post by: Naw


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh.

I am not lying about what it states. I am stating that pretending that the "treated as" somehow does not apply to every instance of Battle Brothers means you are NOT follwoing the rules. Retract your adhominem.


I have no reason to do so as I quoted actual rules, you never have.

Battle brothers, whcih are friendly units, are not allowed to embark. Agreed?


No, I do not agree. The rule says: Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' and furthermore states that not even Battle Brothers are allowed to embark. Look it up, I posted the rules in my previous message.

Now take an IC joined to a unit. We know, per page 39, we have to treat him as a normal member of the uit in ALL respects. Agreed?


Yes, which does not mean that this IC would stop having Battle Brothers status with the unit it is attached to, as it wouldn't be able to join the unit in the first place without that status. This also has nothing to do with the third bullet point which says in verbatim "However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles."

Do you see the requirement of being a Battle Brothers unit there? Because I do not. Does the IC stop being a Tau Commander just because he joined up with Centurion Devastators? No, he does not. Looking up the alliance matrix in BRB tells me that his level of alliance is Battle Brothers with Space Marines, which is covered by the third bullet point preventing him from embarking.

It really is as simple as that.

If you try to claim they are a friendly unit, have you treated them as a normal member? No. Agreed?


Now you lost me. Read up the rules about ICs. They can join units that they are friendly with by moving within 2" of said unit. I also have no idea what this has got to do with disallowing embarking for Battle Brothers.

So how then can you apply the BB rules? We KNOW that, in ALL respects, they are a friendly unit.


Because the requirement is not that they are friendly units, the requirement is that they are Battle Brothers, thus they are not allowed to embark. I do not understand why you keep bringing up this friendly unit issue, it has no bearing whatsoever in the rule.

If you do not HAVE a unit, you CANNOT be a battle brother


Please provide the rule that says they lose their battle brother status. Should be easy, yes?

- as otherwise you are treating a non-unit as a battle brother, breaking the EXPLICIT rule telling you what they are


What is this EXPLICIT rule you are talking about? Again you pull out rules from your... well, not from the rulebook anyway. Refer to the alliance matrix if you have any doubt on who are battle brothers.

That is your issue. You are pretending, for some reason, that the explicit requirement to treat them as a friendly unit somehow applies to a model. It doesnt. If that model is NOT an allied unit, it cannot be a battle brother.


Why do you keep insisting on that friendly unit issue? The rule does not require them to be friendly, enemies, cousins and whatnot. The only requirement is that they are battle brothers and again, you can verify this by looking it up in the alliance matrix.

There is no rule that you base this argument on, yet you blame me for not following the tenets.

Your argument is conceded, as yet again you cannot join the dots between the requirement (are a friendly unti) and something that is no longer a unit in and of itself.


Oh, this is jumping to the conclusion game. I so like games. Let's just forget the rules and come up with our own conclusions and present them as facts. That will work.

I have made up no rules, and have not claimed anythign that isnt supportable.


Now I'll give you the chance to support what you just wrote by providing actual rules to the points you made in your message. I won't say I haven't given you the chance before and you have failed to do so by showing a written rule from BRB. But hey, give it a try.

You have - or are you still going to claim a game is autolost if I kill your allied HQ?


Yes yes, next time I shall point out my sarcastic response so it is clear to everyone.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sigvatr wrote:
Naw wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
and as we ALL know - including yourself - the IC is no longer a unit while attached [/color].


What?? No! That is not what the rulebook says. Why do you keep insisting that it does?


Actually...

[...]he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.


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.


BRB, p.39.


Well quoted, sir. Want to try again? I even bolded the part in my own message. Nevermind.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 11:20:25


Post by: Happyjew


Naw, do you agree that "Treated As" functionally means "Is"?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 11:22:34


Post by: Nem


 Happyjew wrote:
Naw, do you agree that "Treated As" functionally means "Is"?


Even with that, and 'unit' functionally means 'group of models' you come to

Battle Brothers are friendly groups of models.

Which is means if this is a 'definition' everything on the table is a battle brother.



Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 11:26:26


Post by: Happyjew


 Nem wrote:
 Happyjew wrote:
Naw, do you agree that "Treated As" functionally means "Is"?


Even with that, and 'unit' functionally means 'group of models' you come to

Battle Brothers are friendly groups of models.

Which is means if this is a 'definition' everything on the table is a battle brother.



The underlined is claiming that since apples are fruit, all fruit are apples.

And you did not answer my question. Do you agree or disagree that "Treated As" = "Is"?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 11:31:01


Post by: Naw


 Happyjew wrote:
Naw, do you agree that "Treated As" functionally means "Is"?


Yes, I agree with that. It also has no bearing with the 3rd point which prevents embarking. More specific rule trumps more general rule, if that is your question.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 11:46:37


Post by: Nem


 Happyjew wrote:
 Nem wrote:
 Happyjew wrote:
Naw, do you agree that "Treated As" functionally means "Is"?


Even with that, and 'unit' functionally means 'group of models' you come to

Battle Brothers are friendly groups of models.

Which is means if this is a 'definition' everything on the table is a battle brother.



The underlined is claiming that since apples are fruit, all fruit are apples.

And you did not answer my question. Do you agree or disagree that "Treated As" = "Is"?



I never denied so, my line of thinking is in a slightly separate vein the Naws.

At this point we still don't know what we are treating as a friendly unit. Are we treating the whole allied detachment of battle brothers as a friendly unit?

You see, that sentence about friendly units doesn't really make sense in the context it is being used to push. It's being proposed as a definition, and it is not. It's a statement used to help players understand how the armies interact, not limiting, not defining just a statement.
I listed some possibilities in a thread further up, and challenged anyone to come up with a different suggestion.




Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 11:52:51


Post by: Happyjew


 Nem wrote:
 Happyjew wrote:
 Nem wrote:
 Happyjew wrote:
Naw, do you agree that "Treated As" functionally means "Is"?


Even with that, and 'unit' functionally means 'group of models' you come to

Battle Brothers are friendly groups of models.

Which is means if this is a 'definition' everything on the table is a battle brother.



The underlined is claiming that since apples are fruit, all fruit are apples.

And you did not answer my question. Do you agree or disagree that "Treated As" = "Is"?



I never denied so, my line of thinking is in a slightly separate vein the Naws.

At this point we still don't know what we are treating as a friendly unit. Are we treating the whole allied detachment of battle brothers as a friendly unit?

You see, that sentence about friendly units doesn't really make sense in the context it is being used to push. It's being proposed as a definition, and it is not.
I listed some possibilities in a thread further up, and challenged anyone to come up with a different suggestion.


Sorry, I was replying from my phone, and thought you were Naw, which is why I accused you of not answering my question.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 11:55:13


Post by: Naw


Also using my phone and I did


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 11:55:27


Post by: Happyjew


Naw wrote:
 Happyjew wrote:
Naw, do you agree that "Treated As" functionally means "Is"?


Yes, I agree with that. It also has no bearing with the 3rd point which prevents embarking. More specific rule trumps more general rule, if that is your question.


I'm getting there.

Now if you agree that "Treated as" functionally means the same thing as "is", then the BB rules could be re-written as follows and would mean the same thing:

Friendly units are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that friendly units:

Do you agree with my statement?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 12:04:28


Post by: Naw


I do not. You just changed the whole rule to something it was not. That is not following RAW but your own interpretation.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 12:10:07


Post by: Happyjew


Naw wrote:
I do not. You just changed the whole rule to something it was not. That is not following RAW but your own interpretation.


How? If "Treated as" means the same thing as "Is" then you can replace X with Y and it would functionally mean the same thing. For example, if you are given the math equation "X+Y=Z" and are told that X is treated as 2, then the same equation could be written as "2+Y=Z" and it would mean the same thing.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 12:21:42


Post by: some bloke


we still have the issue of how you seem to be removing the Battle Brothers tag - and it's just that, it's not a rule, it's a Tag. the allied army is treated as a battle brother by the other allied army.

what you are doing (back to metaphors) is this:

I am allergic to prawns
Prawns are shellfish
Lets have prawn cocktail for dinner.

Battle Brothers sticks, nothing makes it go!

you're claiming that as Battle Brothers are friendly units, if it's no longer a unit, it's no longer a Battle brother. I still don't get why you think this.

an IC is a Battle Brother, and is its own friendly unit because it is a Battle Brother. it is not a Battle Brother because it is its own friendly unit, however. apples are all fruits, fruits aren't all apples.

The IC rules then let it join another unit, becoming part of that unit. It is no longer a unit, but remains a Battle Brother. a toffee apple is still an apple, even if it's wrapped in toffee.

you're still trying to take the phrase "Battle Brothers are Friendly Units" and try to turn it backwards, unsuccessfully.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 12:22:56


Post by: rigeld2


 PrinceRaven wrote:

Tenets of YMDC wrote:1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate.
...
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

Please answer my question.
Obviously you should be able to. Right? I mean, everything is defined in the rulebook!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 PrinceRaven wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 PrinceRaven wrote:

Tenets of YMDC wrote:1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate.
...
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.


He's saying "if the definition I have provided, the English definition, is wrong, show me why that is." How would you define a friendly unit, if you exclude the definition in the dictionary?


How about "units you are told are friendly units"?

Great! So literally only Battle Brothers are friendly units. If you take no allies you have no friendly units. At all.

I'd also be very interesting in seeing this dictionary that provides the definition for the Warhammer 40k game term "friendly unit".

I've explained it, but you ignored it so...


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 12:33:22


Post by: some bloke


 Happyjew wrote:
Naw wrote:
 Happyjew wrote:
Naw, do you agree that "Treated As" functionally means "Is"?


Yes, I agree with that. It also has no bearing with the 3rd point which prevents embarking. More specific rule trumps more general rule, if that is your question.


I'm getting there.

Now if you agree that "Treated as" functionally means the same thing as "is", then the BB rules could be re-written as follows and would mean the same thing:

Friendly units are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that friendly units:

Do you agree with my statement?


this, exactly. "treated as" doesn't mean "is".

if Battle Brothers are freindly units, then you can stop treating them as Battle Brothers at all.

if Battle Brothers are teated as friendly units, then they remain Battle Brothers. they don't stop being Battle Brothers to be friendly units. so Battle Brothers remains, no matter what you do with the model, as no rule says to remove it (and as we've already pointed out several times, if what you say does ignore it, then it stops being possible to do what you say.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 12:37:38


Post by: rigeld2


 some bloke wrote:
 Happyjew wrote:
Naw wrote:
 Happyjew wrote:
Naw, do you agree that "Treated As" functionally means "Is"?


Yes, I agree with that. It also has no bearing with the 3rd point which prevents embarking. More specific rule trumps more general rule, if that is your question.


I'm getting there.

Now if you agree that "Treated as" functionally means the same thing as "is", then the BB rules could be re-written as follows and would mean the same thing:

Friendly units are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that friendly units:

Do you agree with my statement?


this, exactly. "treated as" doesn't mean "is".

if Battle Brothers are freindly units, then you can stop treating them as Battle Brothers at all.

if Battle Brothers are teated as friendly units, then they remain Battle Brothers. they don't stop being Battle Brothers to be friendly units. so Battle Brothers remains, no matter what you do with the model, as no rule says to remove it (and as we've already pointed out several times, if what you say does ignore it, then it stops being possible to do what you say.


... You said "this exactly" and then disagreed completely with him.
What?

And I've literally never said he stops being a Battle Brother. That'd be silly.
I've said that the restriction in that paragraph only apply to units. Which is true.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 12:47:44


Post by: some bloke


rigeld2 wrote:
 some bloke wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 some bloke wrote:
1: starting at the top, we already know that Battle brothers are friendly units by virtue of being Battle Brothers, as stated on page 112. if they were not Battle Brothers, they wouldn't be friendly units. correct?

Citation required.
Your entire argument hinges on this assumption and you have done literally nothing to prove it. Please do so.


right, right. so can you please tell me where it states that your opponents models are "enemy units" and your own are "Friendly units"?

The rules consistently use "your army" vs "your opponents army". Since the rules never define "friendly" vs "enemy" normal English tells us your army is friendly unless otherwise stated.

if models are friendly units by default then every match ends at the start with peace and flowers.

Incorrect.

so if an ally of convenience IC is deployed with an allied unit, it loses the rule for "Allies of convenience", as per your argument, and ceases to be an enemy unit. This means that, as per your argument he now defaults to "Friendly unit" and by the end of the movement phase will be able to stay in the unit, embark on transports and cast psychic power on the now friendly units around him.

Incorrect. The deployment rules don't override the IC rules that require a friendly unit.

so would you be happy to face an army in which, thanks to your own rules interpretation, even desperate allies can join their characters to each other at the start of the game? let's get Abaddon leading a unit of 30 'ard boys, shall we, or mad dok grotsnik giving a unit of 20 nurgle posessed feel no pain?

If it was allowed by the rules, I'd have no problem with it. Again, however - it's not.


the current argument for allowing IC's into transports is as follows:

1:The IC is a Battle Brother as long as it is a unit
2: When the IC stops being a unit, he stops being a BB
3: The IC now classes as a friendly model as he is on your side
4: therefore he is now just within 2" of a friendly unit and can embark on transports.

my argument, using the exact same logic as your own is:

1: The IC is a desperate ally as long as it's a unit
2: The IC may be deployed in any unit, it does not specify whether it is a friendly or an enemy unit until the end of the movement phase - look it up and quote it if I'm wrong.
3: The IC ceases to be his own unit at the start, as he is deployed in an allied unit
4: As the IC is not a unit, he is no longer a Desperate Ally
5: if he is no longer a Desperate ally, he is no longer treated as an enemy unit
6: The IC therefore classes as a friendly model, as he is on your side
7: By the end of the movement phase, the IC is within 2" of a friendly unit and can stay joined, as he no longer is a desperate ally and doesn't treat them as enemy units, nor they him.
8: because of this, he can embark on transports.


do you not see that this is exactly what you're doing?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 12:48:13


Post by: Happyjew


So it appears there are two ways of reading the Battle Brothers rules.

1. Battle Brothers refers to units from a different codex (baring certain exceptions such as SM), and as such, every time the rule mentions "Battle Brothers" then it deals with the unit level.

2. Battle Brothers refers to models from a different codex (again barring certain exceptions), and as such, in accordance with the very first rule of Battle Brothers (treated as friendly units) means not only is every model a unit in and of itself, but except for an IC joined to a unit, no character can ever make LOS rolls since there is nothing else in its unit.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 12:53:22


Post by: some bloke


rigeld2 wrote:
 some bloke wrote:
 Happyjew wrote:
Naw wrote:
 Happyjew wrote:
Naw, do you agree that "Treated As" functionally means "Is"?


Yes, I agree with that. It also has no bearing with the 3rd point which prevents embarking. More specific rule trumps more general rule, if that is your question.


I'm getting there.

Now if you agree that "Treated as" functionally means the same thing as "is", then the BB rules could be re-written as follows and would mean the same thing:

Friendly units are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that friendly units:

Do you agree with my statement?


this, exactly. "treated as" doesn't mean "is".

if Battle Brothers are freindly units, then you can stop treating them as Battle Brothers at all.

if Battle Brothers are teated as friendly units, then they remain Battle Brothers. they don't stop being Battle Brothers to be friendly units. so Battle Brothers remains, no matter what you do with the model, as no rule says to remove it (and as we've already pointed out several times, if what you say does ignore it, then it stops being possible to do what you say.


... You said "this exactly" and then disagreed completely with him.
What?

And I've literally never said he stops being a Battle Brother. That'd be silly.
I've said that the restriction in that paragraph only apply to units. Which is true.


I read the sarcasm, the turning of one persons dodgy rules against themselves. that's what I agree with.

the restriction applies to battle brothers. the sentence the bullet points lead off of is "This means, for example, that Battle Brothers...", which means that Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transports. if it tailed off as "BB are friendly units that cannot embark on allied transports" then the argument would be valid.

you just agreed that he never stops being a Battle Brother
The rules say Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transports
therefore, he cannot embark on an allied transport.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 13:01:59


Post by: Happyjew


 some bloke wrote:
I read the sarcasm, the turning of one persons dodgy rules against themselves. that's what I agree with.

the restriction applies to battle brothers. the sentence the bullet points lead off of is "This means, for example, that Battle Brothers...", which means that Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transports. if it tailed off as "BB are friendly units that cannot embark on allied transports" then the argument would be valid.

you just agreed that he never stops being a Battle Brother
The rules say Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transports
therefore, he cannot embark on an allied transport.


And since we know form the very first paragraph that Battle Brothers are friendly units, then you are proposing that since (for example) an Eldar Farseer attached to a Dark Eldar unit is still a Battle Brother, it is still a unit and as such can be selected as a target and cannot LOS since there are no other models in the Farseer unit.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 13:04:12


Post by: some bloke


 Happyjew wrote:
 some bloke wrote:
I read the sarcasm, the turning of one persons dodgy rules against themselves. that's what I agree with.

the restriction applies to battle brothers. the sentence the bullet points lead off of is "This means, for example, that Battle Brothers...", which means that Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transports. if it tailed off as "BB are friendly units that cannot embark on allied transports" then the argument would be valid.

you just agreed that he never stops being a Battle Brother
The rules say Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transports
therefore, he cannot embark on an allied transport.


And since we know form the very first paragraph that Battle Brothers are friendly units, then you are proposing that since (for example) an Eldar Farseer attached to a Dark Eldar unit is still a Battle Brother, it is still a unit and as such can be selected as a target and cannot LOS since there are no other models in the Farseer unit.


no. IC's have their own rules concerning changing their status as a unit to join another unit. this does not change their status as a battle brother.

is he a battle brother -> he's a friendly unit ->is he an IC -> is he in a unit-> He's no longer his own unit

at no point does BB get removed.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 13:07:31


Post by: Happyjew


So why are you ignoring the very first rule regarding Battle Brothers? You know, the one that says they are treated as friendly "units".


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 13:10:03


Post by: Naw


 Happyjew wrote:
Naw wrote:
I do not. You just changed the whole rule to something it was not. That is not following RAW but your own interpretation.


How? If "Treated as" means the same thing as "Is" then you can replace X with Y and it would functionally mean the same thing. For example, if you are given the math equation "X+Y=Z" and are told that X is treated as 2, then the same equation could be written as "2+Y=Z" and it would mean the same thing.


Your whole argument hinges on your idea that once the IC us joined to a unit, it no longer is an ally. If that is the case in your interpretation then what happens when this IC detaches itself from the unit? What is it then? Will you point to the alliance matrix then? Was there a rule that told you to do that? Why does it suddenly become a battle brother again? Certainly there must be something in the rules as you are so adamant about that?


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 13:13:29


Post by: Rorschach9


Naw wrote:
 Happyjew wrote:
Naw wrote:
I do not. You just changed the whole rule to something it was not. That is not following RAW but your own interpretation.


How? If "Treated as" means the same thing as "Is" then you can replace X with Y and it would functionally mean the same thing. For example, if you are given the math equation "X+Y=Z" and are told that X is treated as 2, then the same equation could be written as "2+Y=Z" and it would mean the same thing.


Your whole argument hinges on your idea that once the IC us joined to a unit, it no longer is an ally. If that is the case in your interpretation then what happens when this IC detaches itself from the unit?


No, the argument hinges on the IC joined to another unit no longer being a single model unit.

There is a clear misunderstanding of this from the side arguing against the restriction being only on BB (which = friendly Units) (as the rule defines them as).


What is it then? Will you point to the alliance matrix then? Was there a rule that told you to do that? Why does it suddenly become a battle brother again? Certainly there must be something in the rules as you are so adamant about that


It is still an ally. It is a member of the unit it joined, for all rules purposes. When it leaves that unit, it again becomes its own unit and the restrictions on BB Units are restored to that single model unit.



Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 13:28:45


Post by: rigeld2


 some bloke wrote:
the current argument for allowing IC's into transports is as follows:

1:The IC is a Battle Brother as long as it is a unit

Incorrect. He's always a Battle Brother. As I've said. Please stop attributing this argument to me as it's false.
He is no longer bound by the restrictions on Battle Brothers on page 112 as he's no longer a unit.

my argument, using the exact same logic as your own is:

1: The IC is a desperate ally as long as it's a unit
2: The IC may be deployed in any unit, it does not specify whether it is a friendly or an enemy unit until the end of the movement phase - look it up and quote it if I'm wrong.

Page 39. The Deployment rules do not override the IC rules.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 13:30:11


Post by: Nem


Models are never units to begin with, IC is no longer a unit is a very strange argument, as he never was.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 13:32:12


Post by: Rorschach9


 Nem wrote:
Models are never units to begin with, IC is no longer a unit is a very strange argument, as he never was.


An IC is a single model unit, as per the rules, unless it is joined to another unit at which point it becomes a member of that unit for all rules purposes. When it leaves that unit, it again becomes a single model unit.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 13:32:13


Post by: rigeld2


Naw wrote:
Your whole argument hinges on your idea that once the IC us joined to a unit, it no longer is an ally.

Completely and utterly false. Are you even reading the thread before replying?
He's still an ally. He is no longer a separate unit. The BB restrictions/rules on page 112 apply to units.
You have no permission to apply those rules to something that is no longer a unit.

Seriously - this isn't a changed argument. It's what I've been saying all along. If you're willingly misreading what I'm typing I can't help that, but please don't argue against something I'm not saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Nem wrote:
Models are never units to begin with, IC is no longer a unit is a very strange argument, as he never was.

False. He's a single model unit - otherwise a lone IC couldn't ever be targeted, assaulted, moved, etc.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 14:03:04


Post by: Nem


rigeld2 wrote:
Naw wrote:
Your whole argument hinges on your idea that once the IC us joined to a unit, it no longer is an ally.

Completely and utterly false. Are you even reading the thread before replying?
He's still an ally. He is no longer a separate unit. The BB restrictions/rules on page 112 apply to units.
You have no permission to apply those rules to something that is no longer a unit.

Seriously - this isn't a changed argument. It's what I've been saying all along. If you're willingly misreading what I'm typing I can't help that, but please don't argue against something I'm not saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Nem wrote:
Models are never units to begin with, IC is no longer a unit is a very strange argument, as he never was.

False. He's a single model unit - otherwise a lone IC couldn't ever be targeted, assaulted, moved, etc.


Hmmm. Could call him 'a' unit certainly in some respects but the model composition isn't the defining factor of 'a unit'. for example 4 models together are 'a unit', if one of them dies the remainder are still 'a unit' - but I mean models are not units, units are models. Its more like there is a unit comprised of one model, the unit 'layer' still sits above, like any other unit.

Plenty of examples of single model units outside a IC.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 14:07:11


Post by: Rorschach9


 Nem wrote:


Hmmm. Could call him 'a' unit certainly in some respects but the model composition isn't the defining factor of 'a unit'. for example 4 models together are 'a unit', if one of them dies the remainder are still 'a unit' - but I mean models are not units, units are models. Its more like there is a unit comprised of one model, the unit 'layer' still sits above, like any other unit.

Plenty of examples of single model units outside a IC.


Correct, models are not units in and of themselves. However, a lone IC *IS* a single model unit. So where you're going with this statement is confusing as it has nothing to do with the debate (and your statement of an IC not being a unit, but a model is factually incorrect under the single model unit circumstances to begin with).

Yes, there are plenty of single model units outside of an IC. That doesn't alter the debate in any way as the debate is about an IC, not another single model unit that isn't an IC.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 some bloke wrote:


the current argument for allowing IC's into transports is as follows:

1:The IC is a Battle Brother as long as it is a unit


NO, the IC is always a battle brother and an ally


2: When the IC stops being a unit, he stops being a BB


Incorrect. The IC stops being a unit of its own and is now a member of the unit it joined, for all rules purposes (as per the BRB), but is still a BB


3: The IC now classes as a friendly model as he is on your side


The IC was already a friendly unit, which is what allowed the IC to join the other unit in the first place.


4: therefore he is now just within 2" of a friendly unit and can embark on transports.


Correct. And as the IC is no longer a unit of its own but a member of the unit embarking the transport (for all rules purposes) it has no restrictions on embarking the transport (since the restriction, in context, is discussing BB = Friendly UNITS), there is no issue here
my argument, using the exact same logic as your own is:

1: The IC is a desperate ally as long as it's a unit
2: The IC may be deployed in any unit, it does not specify whether it is a friendly or an enemy unit until the end of the movement phase - look it up and quote it if I'm wrong.


How are you joining the IC to a non friendly unit? This is not allowed.


3: The IC ceases to be his own unit at the start, as he is deployed in an allied unit
4: As the IC is not a unit, he is no longer a Desperate Ally
5: if he is no longer a Desperate ally, he is no longer treated as an enemy unit
6: The IC therefore classes as a friendly model, as he is on your side
7: By the end of the movement phase, the IC is within 2" of a friendly unit and can stay joined, as he no longer is a desperate ally and doesn't treat them as enemy units, nor they him.
8: because of this, he can embark on transports.


Since the DA ally cannot join the unit in the first place, this is all irrelevant


do you not see that this is exactly what you're doing?


Except .. it's not.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 14:49:46


Post by: osirisx69


Does a Spacemarine captain ic which joined a unit of firewarriors get to ride in a TAU DT?

Does a Spacemarine captain ic which joined a unit of firewarriors suffer the effects of PE TAU?

Does a Spacemarine captain ic which joined a unit of firewarriors get to use the marker lights of tau since they are per unit?


If you have answered yes to these questions then you agree that the SpaceMarine Captain is no longer restricted by the BB status and he gets to do amazing things


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 14:57:52


Post by: Happyjew


osirisx69 wrote:
Does a Spacemarine captain ic which joined a unit of firewarriors get to ride in a TAU DT?

Yes as it is a Tau unit trying to embark.

Does a Spacemarine captain ic which joined a unit of firewarriors suffer the effects of PE TAU?

Yes as it is a Tau unit.

Does a Spacemarine captain ic which joined a unit of firewarriors get to use the marker lights of tau since they are per unit?

Again yes, as it is a Tau unit, and the markerlights affect all models/weapons in the unit.

If you have answered yes to these questions then you agree that the SpaceMarine Captain is no longer restricted by the BB status and he gets to do amazing things

Only while he is part of a Tau unit.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 15:04:53


Post by: osirisx69


 Happyjew wrote:
osirisx69 wrote:
Does a Spacemarine captain ic which joined a unit of firewarriors get to ride in a TAU DT?

Yes as it is a Tau unit trying to embark.

Does a Spacemarine captain ic which joined a unit of firewarriors suffer the effects of PE TAU?

Yes as it is a Tau unit.

Does a Spacemarine captain ic which joined a unit of firewarriors get to use the marker lights of tau since they are per unit?

Again yes, as it is a Tau unit, and the markerlights affect all models/weapons in the unit.

If you have answered yes to these questions then you agree that the SpaceMarine Captain is no longer restricted by the BB status and he gets to do amazing things

Only while he is part of a Tau unit.


I will let others answer there Reponses before I post the correct answers to these questions.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 15:09:47


Post by: rigeld2


 Nem wrote:
Hmmm. Could call him 'a' unit certainly in some respects but the model composition isn't the defining factor of 'a unit'. for example 4 models together are 'a unit', if one of them dies the remainder are still 'a unit' - but I mean models are not units, units are models. Its more like there is a unit comprised of one model, the unit 'layer' still sits above, like any other unit.

Plenty of examples of single model units outside a IC.

I never said ICs are the only single model units.
Where are you taking this argument? You're the one that brought up unit composition, you're the one that said, and I quote, "Models are never units to begin with, IC is no longer a unit is a very strange argument, as he never was."
The IC was a unit - a single model unit. He isn't any longer.


Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports. @ 2014/05/15 15:15:41


Post by: reds8n


All somewhat redundant soon enough anyway.