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.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Utterly irrelevant - RAW is RAW - your argument is based on RAI - and if we start going into RAI then it is abundantly clear that GW intended for transports to be for the exclusive use of the primary detachment

 easysauce wrote:

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.

Obscure? Are you serious?

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're misstating my argument. I'm not using "treated as" to ignore the "not even BB" rule.

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.

If an IC is attached to a unit he cannot be a BB according to the actual rules and therefore is not limited by the rules that limit BB.

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.

I've ignored nothing. Asserting that I have is disingenuous at best, and impolite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NickAtkins wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Utterly irrelevant - RAW is RAW - your argument is based on RAI - and if we start going into RAI then it is abundantly clear that GW intended for transports to be for the exclusive use of the primary detachment

It's not utterly irrelevant. For your argument to be correct the rules fail to function. You can win that argument - I don't care. It's pointless. I'll be over here discussing rules that work.

Didn't you say you would leave this thread?

"You are wrong, I am right!"
See, I summarized every post in the last 4 pages.

NickAtkins wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Utterly irrelevant - RAW is RAW - your argument is based on RAI - and if we start going into RAI then it is abundantly clear that GW intended for transports to be for the exclusive use of the primary detachment

The argument is RAW; That bullet point is an example of how the definition in Battle brothers works. The definition is that of battle brothers as friendly units. Is the joined IC still a friendly unit?

Yeah, I got brought back in by trolling and insults. I'm sorry.

You cannot start picking and choosing with RAW - regardless of whether you think it breaks the game or not. We work with what is written, and what is written is what i have quoted. Is it how i would play the game? Of course not - but neither would i put an allied IC into a transport.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yeah, I got brought back in by trolling and insults. I'm sorry.

No, people didn't insult or troll you.
They read the same rules, they read the same lines and they draw a different conclusion.
You've provided your view on it, they told how they saw it.

If two people STILL disagree after they presented their arguments then a discussion has to stop.

NickAtkins wrote:
You cannot start picking and choosing with RAW - regardless of whether you think it breaks the game or not. We work with what is written, and what is written is what i have quoted. Is it how i would play the game? Of course not - but neither would i put an allied IC into a transport.

I am not.

The rules for battle brothers tell you they a friendly units, the next sentence says: "This means, for Example, that battle brothers:" then goes into the 3 bullet points.

See those 2 little dots one on top of the other, that is called a Colon; it means that the bullet points that come after it are in reference to that sentence fragment.

All three bullet points are examples of what "This Means" and the "This Means" refers to the first sentence that battle brothers are treated as friendly units.

The three bullet points are not stand alone rules; they are examples of what battle brothers means as Friendly units.

The bullet points also do not break when reading "Battle Brothers" or "Battle Brother units" as Friendly units that are battle brother allies. In fact they all make incredibly clear sense when read as such.

Honestly, all GW needs to fix it so the RAW supports attached ICs not embarking is change one word. If they were to change it to "Battle Brothers are treated as friendly models..." then there would be no issues. At least none that come to mind.

 Happyjew wrote:
Honestly, all GW needs to fix it so the RAW supports attached ICs not embarking is change one word. If they were to change it to "Battle Brothers are treated as friendly models..." then there would be no issues. At least none that come to mind.

They also need to change the wording so they are treated as friendly models to the controlling player

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

NickAtkins wrote:
You cannot start picking and choosing with RAW - regardless of whether you think it breaks the game or not. We work with what is written, and what is written is what i have quoted. Is it how i would play the game? Of course not - but neither would i put an allied IC into a transport.

I am not.

The rules for battle brothers tell you they a friendly units, the next sentence says: "This means, for Example, that battle brothers:" then goes into the 3 bullet points.

See those 2 little dots one on top of the other, that is called a Colon; it means that the bullet points that come after it are in reference to that sentence fragment.

All three bullet points are examples of what "This Means" and the "This Means" refers to the first sentence that battle brothers are treated as friendly units.

The three bullet points are not stand alone rules; they are examples of what battle brothers means as Friendly units.

The bullet points also do not break when reading "Battle Brothers" or "Battle Brother units" as Friendly units that are battle brother allies. In fact they all make incredibly clear sense when read as such.

And just like First blood, or Kill points in Purge, the BB's are a unit when trying to embark on an allied transport and therefore denied permission to do so.

 DeathReaper wrote:
And just like First blood, or Kill points in Purge, the BB's are a unit when trying to embark on an allied transport and therefore denied permission to do so.

Citation needed.

 DeathReaper wrote:

And just like First blood, or Kill points in Purge, the BB's are a unit when trying to embark on an allied transport and therefore denied permission to do so.

Citing rules where are specifically told the IC counts as a unit(either in the rules themselves or via FAQ) does not extend to other rules where such Specificity is not made.

Rune Priest - 1 Unit composed of an Independant Character from the Space Wolves Codex that is Battle Brothers with units from the Space Marines Codex.

Tactical Squad - 1 Unit that is 4 models, 1 character from the Space Marines Codex that is Battle Brothers with units from the Space Wolves Codex.

Rune Priest and Tactical Squad - 1 Unit that is 4 models, 1 character and 1 Independant Character chosen from the Space Marines and Space Wolves Codexes. This unit is Battle Brothers and thus may not enter Allied Transports.

Read the thread.

Or even my second to last post.

Battle Brothers is applied army wide to armies that include a qualifying Allied Detatchment. It doesn't go away when the two units become one. So the combined unit of Space Marines and Space Wolves models cannot board an Allied Transport.

Jefffar wrote:
Battle Brothers is applied army wide to armies that include a qualifying Allied Detatchment. It doesn't go away when the two units become one. So the combined unit of Space Marines and Space Wolves models cannot board an Allied Transport.

Please define what a battle brother is.

 Happyjew wrote:
Please define what a battle brother is.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Please define what a battle brother is.

Spoiler:

[img]https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/2602257408/hBCCCEDF3/[/img

]

That is a monotony breaker indeed.

But all the arguing revolves around is how one word (units) gets used to describe Battle Brothers and the semantics of what it means.

This won't go anywhere until some external force obliges us with a recon of the rule.

 WarOne wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Please define what a battle brother is.

Spoiler:

[img]https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/2602257408/hBCCCEDF3/[/img

]

That is a monotony breaker indeed.

But all the arguing revolves around is how one word (units) gets used to describe Battle Brothers and the semantics of what it means.

This won't go anywhere until some external force obliges us with a recon of the rule.

You're right!

Thread locked.