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.

tgjensen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
That's not referring to a model as a unit - that's explaining that some units are single model characters.

And the rules define a Battle Brother as a friendly unit. If you're not a unit, you can't be a friendly unit, and therefore you can't be a Battle Brother.

The example is specifically a single character that is stated to be a unit. Ergo, single characters can be units. Ergo, it is shown, as cryhavok stated, that the rulebook does not preclude single models from being units.

He was saying that the terms unit and model are interchangeable. They're not.

As for the Battle Brother thing, they are specifically defining all Battle Brothers as friendly units. That means everything that is a Battle Brother, be it independent characters, vehicles or units, counts as a friendly unit.

Absolutely.
Now, if you are not a unit, can you be a friendly unit?

rigeld2 wrote:
He was saying that the terms unit and model are interchangeable. They're not.

They clearly are. Or would you care to explain how to perform a tank shock against a non-unit enemy model? Page 85.

Absolutely.
Now, if you are not a unit, can you be a friendly unit?

You can if you are a Battle Brother. The rulebook clearly states as much.

tgjensen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
He was saying that the terms unit and model are interchangeable. They're not.

They clearly are. Or would you care to explain how to perform a tank shock against a non-unit enemy model? Page 85.

Can you cite where in the Tank Shock rules you believe they're interchangeable?

Absolutely.
Now, if you are not a unit, can you be a friendly unit?

You can if you are a Battle Brother. The rulebook clearly states as much.

So an IC that joins another unit is still a unit in and of himself.
Cool - ill be sure to target that unit with shooting then. Thanks.

rigeld2 wrote:
Can you cite where in the Tank Shock rules you believe they're interchangeable?

The point being that that section exclusively talks about enemy units. So unless you think it's impossible to Tank Shock non-unit enemy models, then single models and units are in fact interchangeable. That is the clear and unavoidable conclusion.

So an IC that joins another unit is still a unit in and of himself.
Cool - ill be sure to target that unit with shooting then. Thanks.

Yes, except there are actually rules in place for Independent Characters joining units. Those are on page 39 of the rulebook. That section also, by the way, refers to single model units.

tgjensen wrote:

So an IC that joins another unit is still a unit in and of himself.
Cool - ill be sure to target that unit with shooting then. Thanks.

Yes, except there are actually rules in place for Independent Characters joining units. Those are on page 39 of the rulebook. That section also, by the way, refers to single model units.

You mean the rules that state the Independent Character "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes"?

 Happyjew wrote:
You mean the rules that state the Independent Character "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes"?

Sounds right to me. Another interesting tidbit from the Independent Characters section is

"If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit
are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the
following phase."

Right, he becomes a unit. Every unit consists of models (whether it be 1 or 30). This does not mean model=unit.

Point conceded. When I asserted model and unit were interchangeable, I went too far. I meant to say that the term model is equivalent to the term unit when dealing with single model units. Which, to my knowledge, is equivalent to saying that all models either comprise a unit or are part of one.

tgjensen wrote:
Point conceded. When I asserted model and unit were interchangeable, I went too far. I meant to say that the term model is equivalent to the term unit when dealing with single model units. Which, to my knowledge, is equivalent to saying that all models either comprise a unit or are part of one.

Exactly correct.
And when an IC joins a unit, he's no longer a single model unit but becomes part of a unit.

So... your argument is that when a Battle Brother IC joins an allied unit, he ceases to be a Battle Brother and becomes part of that unit, and thus can board an allied transport? Am I understanding you right?

tgjensen wrote:
So... your argument is that when a Battle Brother IC joins an allied unit, he ceases to be a Battle Brother and becomes part of that unit, and thus can board an allied transport? Am I understanding you right?

Yes.

The very fact that Battle Brothers aren't allowed to board allied transports shows us that there is a subtle difference between a friendly unit and a Battle Brother (according to the rulebook FAQ you cannot repair allied vehicles either, regardless of alliance standing - another difference). The two are not synonymous. Therefore, while the independent character loses his 'unit' status, you do not have grounds to assert that he also loses the accompanying restrictions from being a Battle Brother. Those are not a function of being a friendly unit.

Please define Battle Brother using actual rules. Page and paragraph.

tgjensen; The Rulebook FAQ refers to all Allied detachments, of any type, not just Battle brothers.

So the argument that because no allied "repairing models" can repair Allied models really doesn't matter, it is talking about 2 different things, and in fact helps the counter argument in that it specifically deals with Models, not units as is the definition of "Battle brothers"

I'm not sure I follow you. I am simply pointing out that a Battle Brother is not just defined as a friendly unit, but that there are further qualifiers - one of those being that a Battle Brother capable of repairing vehicles never-the-less cannot repair an allied vehicle. Losing status as a unit is not equivalent to losing status as Battle Brother.

tgjensen wrote:
I'm not sure I follow you. I am simply pointing out that a Battle Brother is not just defined as a friendly unit, but that there are further qualifiers - one of those being that a Battle Brother capable of repairing vehicles never-the-less cannot repair an allied vehicle. Losing status as a unit is not equivalent to losing status as Battle Brother.

I've cited where Battle Brother is defined as a friendly unit.
You've failed to cite another definition for it. Can you?

Are you kidding me? I have explicitly pointed out two places where the rules for a Battle Brother deviate from the rules for a friendly unit. Therefore, a Battle Brother is NOT exactly equal to a friendly unit. Therefore, losing status as a unit does not reinstitute their ability to board allied vehicles or repair them. Those derive from being a Battle Brother, NOT from being a friendly unit.

I know the rulebook states that Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units from all points of view. But that is clearly not correct, because the same rulebook contradicts that statement on the very same page, just four lines down. And again in the FAQ. So pointing to that same sentence over and over won't get you anywhere. It simply isn't an exhaustive definition of what a Battle Brother is.

Neither of the things you've said disprove the "friendly units" definition.
And exceptions to a rule do not mean that the rule is invalid.

my point is that there are no further qualifiers, and the denial for any allied models repairing vehicles allied to them does not support your position.

The specific denial of allied models with some form of repair ability actually supports the allied IC joined to an Allied unit embarking on an getting transported by the vehicle belonging to the allied unit thus joined. battle brothers are defined as friendly units(from an allied detachment) an the Unit + IC is a Unit

Page 113 tells us which armies are BB's to which other armies.

"not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." (112)

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

E.G. Imperial Guard and Space Wolves are listed as battle brothers.
Models from Codex: Imperial Guard can not ride in Space Wolves transport vehicles as the space wolves are allied with the IG, and Vice Versa.

The allies matrix shows a relation, it clarifies who are what to eachother.

Page 112 Defines what a "battle brothers" is (a Friendly unit).

So with your "Allies matrix definition" the Whole armies on both sides are "Defined" as battle brothers, and battle brothers is further defined as friendly units, so all of both armies are friendly units(and thus individually targetable).


Or you can just understand that Battle brothers is a state of being; defined as friendly units, so when "Not even Battle brothers can embark in allied transports" you have: "not even (a designation defined as a friendly unit) can embark in allied transports." And an IC joined to a unit is not a friendly unit himself, therefore is not a battle brother while part of the unit.

Where does it asy that a IC that joins an allied unit is no longer an allied Battle Brother.

Page and graph please. (Hint you will not find it because it is not there).

 DeathReaper wrote:
Where does it asy that a IC that joins an allied unit is no longer an allied Battle Brother.

Page and graph please. (Hint you will not find it because it is not there).

It's been proven that an IC that joins a unit is no longer a unit by himself. Agreed?

Battle Brothers are defined as friendly units. Agreed?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Where does it asy that a IC that joins an allied unit is no longer an allied Battle Brother.

Page and graph please. (Hint you will not find it because it is not there).

It's been proven that an IC that joins a unit is no longer a unit by himself. Agreed?

Yes, he is no longer a unit in and of himself, he is a part of the joined unit.

Battle Brothers are defined as friendly units. Agreed?

Sort of.

"To represent this, we have several categories of alliances, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army." (112)

"Battle brothers are treated as friendly units." (112)

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

Note the distinct lack of the wording unit in that restriction. The restriction about Battle Brothers embarking in allied transport vehicles encompases any models that are the Battle Brothers level of alliance chosen from a different codex that are labeled as Battle Brothers.

Nothing states that the the Battle Brothers level of alliance is lost upon joining an allied unit so it is not lost.

 DeathReaper wrote:

"Battle brothers are treated as friendly units." (112)

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

Note the distinct lack of the wording unit in that restriction. The restriction about Battle Brothers embarking in allied transport vehicles encompases any models that are the Battle Brothers level of alliance chosen from a different codex that are labeled as Battle Brothers.

Nothing states that the the Battle Brothers level of alliance is lost upon joining an allied unit so it is not lost.

When you remove the context of the paragraph from those rules I agree - it seems that way.

That actual rules however disagree - it's absolutely clear that the bullet point (However...) is linked to the paragraph header (Battle Brothers are treated...). In unlinking them you're breaking rules.

The bullet point unlinks them as it does not mention units at all.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The bullet point unlinks them as it does not mention units at all.

That is not how bullet points are used commonly. In fact, that's the opposite of how they're used. The introductory paragraph ties them in by saying "This means, for example that Battle Brothers:"
Meaning that all of the bullet points apply to Battle Brothers - and as we learned in the preceding sentence this means units.

They're linked.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The bullet point unlinks them as it does not mention units at all.

That is not how bullet points are used commonly. In fact, that's the opposite of how they're used. The introductory paragraph ties them in by saying "This means, for example that Battle Brothers:"
Meaning that all of the bullet points apply to Battle Brothers - and as we learned in the preceding sentence this means units.

They're linked.

Except the other bullet point specifically mentions units.

"Are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers abilities and so on."(112)

Had that last bullet point said 'not even Battle Brothers units can embark in allied transport vehicles.' you would have a point, but it just does not say that.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The bullet point unlinks them as it does not mention units at all.

That is not how bullet points are used commonly. In fact, that's the opposite of how they're used. The introductory paragraph ties them in by saying "This means, for example that Battle Brothers:"
Meaning that all of the bullet points apply to Battle Brothers - and as we learned in the preceding sentence this means units.

They're linked.

Except the other bullet point specifically mentions units.

"Are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers abilities and so on."(112)

Had that last bullet point said 'not even Battle Brothers units can embark in allied transport vehicles.' you would have a point, but it just does not say that.

So because they used redundant words in 2 places you're allowing the 3rd bullet to violate all sense of structure and be considered on its own merits?

You know that's not a tenable argument, right?

That is not why.

The point is that the 3rd bullet point does not mention units at all, so they must be referring to the level of alliance and not just units because Battle Brothers is a level of alliance and the section on Battle Brothers details that not even BB's can embark etc...

It does seem to be ambiguous so taking the least advantageous interpretation is the sporting thing to do in this situation.

If an FaQ say they can embark then follow that, but until it is FaQed not embarking is the sporting way to play it, and how I play it.