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.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Nothing in the existing rules support the case for the topic of the debate. It cannot be denied no matter how hard you try to bend the rules with your futile search for this missing Easter egg, It is there nor is their any substantial evidence,

Saying you don't play such an army is a cop out, no one in their right nine would ever support it. You knows this iCard.

Hi Dozer Blades,

I've read through all of your posts in this thread just now. Did you know your longest post here (the one quoted) was 72 words? Most are one liners disparaging people who disagree with your interpretation of the rules. Did you know that none of your posts brought any rules to bare to prove your assertion is correct? The closest thing I can find is " The IC is always a Battle Brother. The wording is explicit and there's no getting around it. " which has been explicitly disproved in multiple posts. I'm tempted to link everything you've "contributed" in one small post so that a MOD might see how you're the one trolling this topic. Please compose an actual argument next time you reply here. Harping about how wrong people are without disproving anything they've said really hurts your, already limited, credibility


sincerely,

-From


Back on topic!

I've been reading this thread since last Friday and haven't posted yet as I've been looking for something to disprove Kel's assertion. So far there is nothing disproving that the "treated as a part of that unit for all rules purposes." doesn't change the IC BB to a part of that unit which is then, apparently, no longer a battle brother due to being a part of the unit. Though nothing in the rules tells us what to do with the BB status after the IC has joined other than "treat it as a part of the unit for all rules purposes." it doesn't explicitly say to drop battle brother status word for word nor does it say we should keep it.

That said, I've never once had this come up in a single game of 6th. The large majority of people are under the assumption that a battle brother is a battle brother whether he is by himself or hanging out wit his bros. Would I let some one play it this way if they brought it up? I'd ask for a dice off because I don't believe it's RAI. Do I think GW would write an FAQ proving Kel wrong? Not really because this is the only instance of this argument on the internet in the English language I'm aware of and the majority of people already play it opposite to Kel's belief.

Regi and Kel have quoted actual rules that make the dissolution of BB possible. The IC stops being a unit of its own and there's no further ruling telling us to keep BB status. He's a model in a unit of your primary detachment, thus no longer a Battle Brother. It's similar to the Eldar FAQ that specifically tells you Eldar Psychic powers do not work on Dark Eldar units, but when a Dark Eldar IC joins a unit of normal Eldar, what happens? He apparently benefits because at the time he's actually not a Dark Eldar unit at all, he's a member of an Eldar unit.

There's really no more reason to argue. If your jimmies have been rustled by the rules being read in this way -- Don't worry. I can say with the utmost confidence that most TOs will rule against this reading and will have everyone play the way most people have been already -- with a Battle Brother counting as one regardless of what squad he is attached to.

I know plenty of TO's lurk here regularly, maybe getting a poll up to see who plays which way or having Yak step in and give his opinion on the subject can quietly resolve this thread without further bickering.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
A Battle Brother is a friendly unit in as far as how he interacts with your allied force. That is what is expressed by the rule that you are then extending on your own, with zero rules support, to create the scenario needed that with removal of the friendly unit status, so goes the Battle Brother status. This is false as being a friendly unit or being treated as a friendly unit does not establish the Battle Brother status. You would have better luck proving that by joining the allied unit, the IC somehow no longer falls under the Allies Matrix and thus loses being a Battle Brother.

So according to you, there's another rules source where Battle Brother is applied to a model.
Please cite it.

The first bullet point is what allows an IC to join and allied unit otherwise you have zero permission to join an IC from one army to a unit of another. Without the Allies Matrix granting Battle Brother status, you cannot join the wolf priest in the previous scenario to the Death Company. Without Battle Brother status as granted by the Allies Matrix being continuous, the wolf priest cannot remain attached to the Death Company beyond deployment.

Read the IC rules.
Now find denial of permission to join units.

Read the rules for allies.

Show me where the rules are for an IC joins an allied unit.

Hello Tyr,

I would like to try an exercise with you when you have your rulebook handy and are able to post. I don't have mine handy (I'm posting from work) but I can tell you that the rules for IC's are under the universal special rules and the rules for battle brothers can be found close to the allies matrix just before missions.

What I would like to ask you to do is to read allowed the rules to yourself, start with battle brothers for this example, and then go on to the rules for independent characters as listed in the USR section. You will see that the rules clearly define a battle brother as a unit you will then see that when that unit attaches himself to a separate unit from your primary detachment he ceases to be a unit unto himself and is instead a part of the joined unit for all rules purposes.

This can be further expounded upon if you look up what defines a unit in the beginning of the book.

If you read the words and follow them exactly as you've spoken them allowed you will find that, as silly as it is, your battle brother unit of one IC is no longer a unit, he is a model in a unit of your primary detachment for all rules purposes and as such is no longer a battle brother.

You're injecting things you believe that are written nowhere in the rulebook because you believe so strongly that this is not the case. I implore you to try this exercise and maybe you will understand that, as silly as this is, if you follow the strictest reading of the rules what Kel has been saying is absolutely true.

-From

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Read the rules for allies.

Show me where the rules are for an IC joins an allied unit.

So you don't understand how a permissive rule set works?
That's fine.

When you're granted permission to do something, you have to have something else remove that permission.
The IC rules grant permission for an IC to join a unit.
Find a rule that denies that permission. I can tell you that unless you're an Ally of Convenience unit or Desperate Ally unit, you can join (and be joined) freely.

When the thing that is defining you as a battle brother ceases to exist you're no longer a battle brother.

Example.

Allied IC by himself. Is a unit and as such is permitted to be a battle brother as defined by the Battle Brothers rule.

Permission to join other units is given to him by the IC USR. He joins a primary detachment unit. He is no longer a unit from an allied detachment, he is a unit from your primary detachment for all rules purposes the definition of battle brother can no longer be applied to him.

40k-noob wrote:
LOL

BB(IC)= FU
[BB(IC)FU] Joins Allied FU
[BB(IC)FU] Loses BB
(IC) Loses FU Because No Longer BB
(IC) Must dis-join(aka Leave) Allied Unit because (IC) No Longer FU Because No Longer BB.


Edit: Key:
BB = Battle Brother
IC = Independent Character
FU = Friendly Unit

Not quite. He's counted as a part of that friendly unit for all rules purposes and as such is a friendly unit. Nice attempt.