Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm sorry but where are we getting this idea that only units can be treated as battle brothers? The rulebook says "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units'"

but gives no definition to what a battle brother actually IS other than the matrix: which simply shows that, for instance, IG are BB to SM - Not IG units are BB so SM units.

rigeld2 wrote:


Bananas are yellow. No deviations from that fact are bananas.
I have a red fruit. Is it possible it's a banana?

2+2 is 4.
Is it possible 2 is 4?

BB are friendly units.
I have a model that is not a unit. Is it possible that it's a BB?

The rulebook says BB are TREATED as friendly units, not that they ARE friendly units - to continue your analogy if i peel an apples skin in 4 sections as i would with a banana, is it now a banana?

NickAtkins wrote:
I'm sorry but where are we getting this idea that only units can be treated as battle brothers? The rulebook says "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units'"

but gives no definition to what a battle brother actually IS other than the matrix: which simply shows that, for instance, IG are BB to SM - Not IG units are BB so SM units.

"treated as" must equal is.

Therefore you can rewrite the sentence as:

BB are friendly units.

Agreed?

Given what we know about equality, it can also be said that:
Friendly units (obviously from the allied detachment) are Battle Brothers.

Given no allowance to call friendly models Battle Brothers, we can't do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NickAtkins wrote:
The rulebook says BB are TREATED as friendly units, not that they ARE friendly units - to continue your analogy if i peel an apples skin in 4 sections as i would with a banana, is it now a banana?

Treated as must equal is. Same as counts as, essentially, etc. If you don't accept that fact the rules break in spectacular ways.

NickAtkins wrote:
I'm sorry but where are we getting this idea that only units can be treated as battle brothers? The rulebook says "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units'"

but gives no definition to what a battle brother actually IS other than the matrix: which simply shows that, for instance, IG are BB to SM - Not IG units are BB so SM units.

The argument as simplified as I can:

Independent Characters from Page 39 paraphrased- He becomes a member of that unit for all rule purposes while still being a character.

Battle Brothers from Page 12 paraphrased- Allied ICs can join BBs, BBs are treated as friendly units, and BBs cannot jump in allied transports.

The argument, can Allied ICs join BBs and ride in their transports?

The answer depends on the interpretation of how the whole rule set is worded.

Example: ICs lose their BB status when they join an allied unit as the IC rules (paraphrased) state the IC counts as a member of said unit for all purposes related to rules. So in that context, the allied IC is now treated as a member of that unit and therefore can enter the transport with that unit (unit he leaves that unit and then becomes an IC not attached to another unit). This all hinges on how BBs are worded as treating units but not as models. There is no clear definition of BB models in relation to allies, just units.

I would argue that treating "Treated as" as "is" causes even more headache - for instance

"For the purposes of determining which weapons a Heavy
vehicle can fire (and at what Ballistic Skill),Heavy vehicles are
always treated as having remained Stationary."

So my vehicles can't move and fire.

NickAtkins wrote:


So after so much anger at people not specifying how the rules will break, you fail to do it yourself?

Examples of rule breakages:

The IC and BB unit are in the BB's transport and the BB unit decides to disembark from the transport (or are removed as casualties while inside the transport, leaving the IC). What happens to the IC in the transport? The rules do not engage what happens in this context because the IC cannot be forced to leave the transport but yet we have a situation now where the IC is now illegally on the transport.

If you want to address this issue, you have to do so outside the 6th edition rule set as nothing within the confines of the rules state how to treat an IC trapped in a BB's ride when the BBs decide to vanish for no particular raisin.

I've accidentally nuked that first half of my post WarOne, but i was actually after rules breakages caused by not counting instances of "Treated as" as instances of "Is" like rigeld says has to happen. I fall firmly on the side that this whole business is completely against RAW and RAI

NickAtkins wrote:
I would argue that treating "Treated as" as "is" causes even more headache - for instance

"For the purposes of determining which weapons a Heavy
vehicle can fire (and at what Ballistic Skill),Heavy vehicles are
always treated as having remained Stationary."

So my vehicles can't move and fire.

No it means when you determine what weapons you can fire the model did not move.

 Happyjew wrote:

NickAtkins wrote:
I would argue that treating "Treated as" as "is" causes even more headache - for instance

"For the purposes of determining which weapons a Heavy
vehicle can fire (and at what Ballistic Skill),Heavy vehicles are
always treated as having remained Stationary."

So my vehicles can't move and fire.

No it means when you determine what weapons you can fire the model did not move.

Not by Rigelds logic. - he says "Treated as" MUST be counted as the same as "is" - upon re-read i see your point.

Now fix the following paradox.

"the rider of the Chariot is treated as being in base contact with all enemy models that are themselves in contact with the Chariot"

NickAtkins wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:


"treated as" must equal is.

Why must it equal is? Where is this written? Or must my apple now be a banana?

rigeld2 wrote:


Treated as must equal is. Same as counts as, essentially, etc. If you don't accept that fact the rules break in spectacular ways.

So after so much anger at people not specifying how the rules will break, you fail to do it yourself?

It's a generally accepted fact in YMDC.
Also - I've asked for evidence and it wasn't provided. You haven't asked for it. I'll assume this is your (impolite) way of asking.

p15 wrote:In these instances, randomly determine which model is treated as being the closest - that model remains the closest until the attack ends or the model is slain.

So it's treated as being the closest, but it's not. But the part of the sentence after the hyphen says it is. I'm confused!

p40 wrote:Unless otherwise stated, Poisoned weapons are treated as having a Strength of 1.

But they don't actually have that STR so therefore cannot wound.

p40 wrote:A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being Leadership 10 (before modifiers) for the purposes of Psychic tests.

But it doesn't have a LDR value. So what value do you use?

p51 wrote:If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.

Woohoo! Infinite CCW for models without a specifically stated one! GOGO TYRANIDS!

p76 wrote:Accordingly, all vehicles are treated as being Weapon Skill 1, provided that they moved in the previous turn - otherwise they are treated as being Weapon Skill 0.

Well, there goes hitting Vehicles in CC - they don't actually have a Weapon Skill.

p80 wrote:They don't have to use the Skyfire special rule,but if they do, all weapons they fire that turn are treated as having the Skyfire special rule.

There goes Flyers shooting Flyers.

p81 wrote:Accordingly, the rider of the Chariot is treated as being in base contact with all enemy models that are themselves in contact with the Chariot. This means that the Chariot's rider can both strike, and be struck by, such models. Note that, as a vehicle, the Chariot (and its rider, whilst embarked) cannot be locked in combat.

So he can't strike in CC (because he's not in B2B, but the rules say he can. ZOMGWATDO

p94 wrote:The building can no longer be occupied and is hereafter treated as impassable terrain.

But it's not actually impassable so go ahead and embark into the building after it's been destroyed.

Need more evidence?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

NickAtkins wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

NickAtkins wrote:
I would argue that treating "Treated as" as "is" causes even more headache - for instance

"For the purposes of determining which weapons a Heavy
vehicle can fire (and at what Ballistic Skill),Heavy vehicles are
always treated as having remained Stationary."

So my vehicles can't move and fire.

No it means when you determine what weapons you can fire the model did not move.

Not by Rigelds logic. - he says "Treated as" MUST be counted as the same as "is"

It's amusing to me that you used "counted as" there. :-)

Yes - For the purposes of determining which weapons a Heavy vehicle moved, the vehicle was stationary. Does that mean you can't move? No - it means for that specific purpose, you didn't.

NickAtkins wrote:
I fall firmly on the side that this whole business is completely against RAW and RAI

For RAW, Battle Brothers does not mention BB models as the IC becomes a member of a unit and therefore loses its unit status unto itself (unless you want to argue that ICs are still their own unit even when attached to another unit, read page 3 for clarity on those shenanigans). So how do we treat a BB model when the rules do not explicitly state what constitutes a BB outside of unit structure which is the only definition we get?

Of course, we could go around in circles going with-

Rules state IC models cannot be in BB units inside their transports.

Show where BBs are defined as models in rules.

Ad infinitum.

NickAtkins wrote:
Now fix the following paradox.

"the rider of the Chariot is treated as being in base contact with all enemy models that are themselves in contact with the Chariot"

Not a paradox. The rider is in B2B with all the models that are in contact with the Chariot.

I will put this as succinctly as i can manage - and if you still refuse to accept it then it makes no odds to me:

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

Consult the Allies matrix and you will see that Imperial Guard (no more specificity, i.e unit or otherwise, provided) are Space Marines (no more specificity, i.e unit or otherwise, provided) Battle Brothers.

Great, now we have established what a Battle brother is, in the given example "Space Marines" are battle brothers - But what does that actually mean from a rules perspective? Lets see.

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

Thats great - so we get to treat our Battle Brothers, which in the given example are "Space marines" (See: Not specifically Space Marine UNITS) as Friendly units.

This all culminates in anything called a "Space Marine" being a Battle Brother.

Given the above you could make an argument for every individual model in the army being treated as a "Unit" in its own right - but that's just how the rules are written.

NickAtkins wrote:
I will put this as succinctly as i can manage - and if you still refuse to accept it then it makes no odds to me:

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

Consult the Allies matrix and you will see that Imperial Guard (no more specificity, i.e unit or otherwise, provided) are Space Marines (no more specificity, i.e unit or otherwise, provided) Battle Brothers.

Great, now we have established what a Battle brother is, in the given example "Space Marines" are battle brothers - But what does that actually mean from a rules perspective? Lets see.

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

Thats great - so we get to treat our Battle Brothers, which in the given example are "Space marines" (See: Not specifically Space Marine UNITS) as Friendly units.

This all culminates in anything called a "Space Marine" being a Battle Brother.

Given the above you could make an argument for every individual model in the army being treated as a "Unit" in its own right - but that's just how the rules are written.

Cool, that means I can shoot at specific models and as such any character cannot LOS! the wounds as there is no friendly model in the unit. Furthermore, as soon as I kill one model, I now meet the requirements for First Blood (assuming I did not lose a unit yet).

NickAtkins wrote:
This all culminates in anything called a "Space Marine" being a Battle Brother.

As long as it's a unit, that's correct.
If it's not a unit it cannot be called a Battle Brother.

rigeld2 wrote:

NickAtkins wrote:
This all culminates in anything called a "Space Marine" being a Battle Brother.

As long as it's a unit, that's correct.
If it's not a unit it cannot be called a Battle Brother.

This is supported nowhere in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:


Cool, that means I can shoot at specific models and as such any character cannot LOS! the wounds as there is no friendly model in the unit. Furthermore, as soon as I kill one model, I now meet the requirements for First Blood (assuming I did not lose a unit yet).

I have simply quoted RAW. So if you wish to read it that way, yes you can. It seems no sillier to me than embarking a BB in a transport.

NickAtkins wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

NickAtkins wrote:
This all culminates in anything called a "Space Marine" being a Battle Brother.

As long as it's a unit, that's correct.
If it's not a unit it cannot be called a Battle Brother.

This is supported nowhere in the rules.

I've proven how it is.
Battle Brothers are defined as friendly units. If you are not a unit you cannot be a Battle Brother.

rigeld2 wrote:

NickAtkins wrote:
This all culminates in anything called a "Space Marine" being a Battle Brother.

As long as it's a unit, that's correct.
If it's not a unit it cannot be called a Battle Brother.

Hmm...interesting question out of sheer curiosity...

Assume they're all BB's.

Two ICs from the Primary detachment are already joined as a unit. Then move into coherency with an allied IC that brought along a transport with his attachment (assuming there are no rider restrictions aside from BB status). They join the allied IC's unit. Can they then go into the transport?

Now a second scenario, except the two Primary detachment ICs are separate at first but them move into coherency with the allied IC. All other things stay the same.

Just want to see if there are differences here.

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

NickAtkins wrote:
This all culminates in anything called a "Space Marine" being a Battle Brother.

As long as it's a unit, that's correct.
If it's not a unit it cannot be called a Battle Brother.

Hmm...interesting question out of sheer curiosity...

Assume they're all BB's.

Two ICs from the Primary detachment are already joined as a unit. Then move into coherency with an allied IC that brought along a transport with his attachment (assuming there are no rider restrictions aside from BB status). They join the allied IC's unit. Can they then go into the transport?

Sure.

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

NickAtkins wrote:
This all culminates in anything called a "Space Marine" being a Battle Brother.

As long as it's a unit, that's correct.
If it's not a unit it cannot be called a Battle Brother.

Hmm...interesting question out of sheer curiosity...

Assume they're all BB's.

Two ICs from the Primary detachment are already joined as a unit. Then move into coherency with an allied IC that brought along a transport with his attachment (assuming there are no rider restrictions aside from BB status). They join the allied IC's unit. Can they then go into the transport?

Now a second scenario, except the two Primary detachment ICs are separate at first but them move into coherency with the allied IC. All other things stay the same.

Just want to see if there are differences here.

No because they are still Battle Brothers.

Again, claiming it is legal to put a BB IC in an allied transport is an extreme minority position. Which means don't try to pull this in games.

Other than Kommisar Kel, who is saying they play this way? I know rigeld doesn't as he plays Tyranids. I don't as I play Tyranids and Eldar (though I have borrowed my brothers Tau/DEldar, but I still did not play that way). 13% of people who voted say the RAW allow it. Approximately 0.5% of people claim they play that way.

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

NickAtkins wrote:
This all culminates in anything called a "Space Marine" being a Battle Brother.

As long as it's a unit, that's correct.
If it's not a unit it cannot be called a Battle Brother.

Hmm...interesting question out of sheer curiosity...

Assume they're all BB's.

Two ICs from the Primary detachment are already joined as a unit. Then move into coherency with an allied IC that brought along a transport with his attachment (assuming there are no rider restrictions aside from BB status). They join the allied IC's unit. Can they then go into the transport?

Now a second scenario, except the two Primary detachment ICs are separate at first but them move into coherency with the allied IC. All other things stay the same.

Just want to see if there are differences here.

In both scenarios, the 2 ICs are joining the Allied IC become a part of his unit. They may enter the Allied ICs transport as they are now a part of that detachment's unit.

 Happyjew wrote:
Other than Kommisar Kel, who is saying they play this way? I know rigeld doesn't as he plays Tyranids. I don't as I play Tyranids and Eldar (though I have borrowed my brothers Tau/DEldar, but I still did not play that way). 13% of people who voted say the RAW allow it. Approximately 0.5% of people claim they play that way.

Er... my advice was general. And sound. But thanks for the extra albeit mostly useless info. Fits right in with most of the posts in this thread! Lol.

Super Newb wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Other than Kommisar Kel, who is saying they play this way? I know rigeld doesn't as he plays Tyranids. I don't as I play Tyranids and Eldar (though I have borrowed my brothers Tau/DEldar, but I still did not play that way). 13% of people who voted say the RAW allow it. Approximately 0.5% of people claim they play that way.

Er... my advice was general. And sound. But thanks for the extra albeit mostly useless info. Fits right in with most of the posts in this thread! Lol.

He wasn't talking directly to you, He was again asking a general question and providing data relevant to his observations.

Talk about Self-centered :lol: /good-natured ribbing

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Other than Kommisar Kel, who is saying they play this way? I know rigeld doesn't as he plays Tyranids. I don't as I play Tyranids and Eldar (though I have borrowed my brothers Tau/DEldar, but I still did not play that way). 13% of people who voted say the RAW allow it. Approximately 0.5% of people claim they play that way.

Er... my advice was general. And sound. But thanks for the extra albeit mostly useless info. Fits right in with most of the posts in this thread! Lol.

He wasn't talking directly to you, He was again asking a general question and providing data relevant to his observations.

Oh dear, reading comprehension fail. Or do you just like to argue for no good reason?

rigeld2 wrote:

I've proven how it is.
Battle Brothers are defined as friendly units. If you are not a unit you cannot be a Battle Brother.

Once again - no, they aren't defined as friendly units - they are TREATED as friendly units. A battle brother is defined by the matrix only - how it is treated is explained in terms of units. If we start treating "Treated as" as "Is" then we are discussing RAI, not RAW.

I will post this again, as you seem to have missed it first time around:

Quotation marks indicate verbatim from the BRB

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

Consult the Allies matrix and you will see that Imperial Guard (no more specificity, i.e unit or otherwise, provided) are Space Marines (no more specificity, i.e unit or otherwise, provided) Battle Brothers.

Great, now we have established what a Battle brother is, in the given example "Space Marines" are battle brothers - But what does that actually mean from a rules perspective? Lets see.

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

Thats great - so we get to treat our Battle Brothers, which in the given example are "Space marines" (See: Not specifically Space Marine UNITS) as Friendly units.

This all culminates in anything called a "Space Marine" being a Battle Brother.

Given the above you could make an argument for every individual model in the army being treated as a "Unit" in its own right - but that's just how the rules are written.

NickAtkins wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I've proven how it is.
Battle Brothers are defined as friendly units. If you are not a unit you cannot be a Battle Brother.

Once again - no, they aren't defined as friendly units - they are TREATED as friendly units. A battle brother is defined by the matrix only - how it is treated is explained in terms of units. If we start treating "Treated as" as "Is" then we are discussing RAI, not RAW.

Treated as must mean is, as previously established. This isn't RAI, this is RAW. Disagreeing with that means the rules are literally useless.
Therefore BB is defines as being a friendly unit.

Rules. As. Written. - Meaning Verbatim

It does not say "is" it says "Treated as"

You have no leg to stand on sir.

NickAtkins wrote:
Rules. As. Written. - Meaning Verbatim

It does not say "is" it says "Treated as"

You have no leg to stand on sir.

And now you've gotten to the other accepted fact in YMDC - the rules must actually work.
Under your interpretation the rules literally don't work. Have fun with that.

rigeld2 wrote:

NickAtkins wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I've proven how it is.
Battle Brothers are defined as friendly units. If you are not a unit you cannot be a Battle Brother.

Once again - no, they aren't defined as friendly units - they are TREATED as friendly units. A battle brother is defined by the matrix only - how it is treated is explained in terms of units. If we start treating "Treated as" as "Is" then we are discussing RAI, not RAW.

Treated as must mean is, as previously established. This isn't RAI, this is RAW. Disagreeing with that means the rules are literally useless.
Therefore BB is defines as being a friendly unit.

absolutely not, you say its RAW, but it is not.

RAW is "not even BB can enter allied transports"

yet you keep insisting that some obscure "treated as" clause means that is the ONLY part that applies, and we can ignore the above rule in its entirety for all BB ic;s.


we must take BOTH the "treated as" and the "not even BB" rules into account, which is why the unit,. with a BB in it, cannot enter the allied transport, the "treated as" clause is not permission to ignore the cannot embark clause, both must be adhered to.

, you cannot just claim RAW because its not on your side, as RAW specifically states "not even BB can enter allied transports" and the "treated as friendly units" clause doesnt over ride that at all as its an additional clause on top of being treated as part of the unit.

if we follow both rules, as we are supposed to since nothing tells us to IGNORE the BB RAW regarding tranports, then a BB IC in a 1st codex unit cannot embark.

and it breaks 0 rules,

if we IGNORE one of the two rules that apply, that is the only way you can put a BB of any kind into an allied transport.