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.

 DeathReaper wrote:
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.

So that's a HYWPI argument and not a RAW argument.
That's fair, but not relevant to the point I was making.

 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.

Yes it all refers to the other units in relation to the Battle brother:
Point 1 about Battle brother ICS (which are Battle brothers, and thus friendly units), who can then join the units in the point. (that point is that Battle Brothers ICs[and thus friendly units] may join allied units). Which is an example, and a redundance of the fact that units may be joined by friendly ICs(and visa Verse)
Or Point 2 about how those Battle brothers as friendly units are still treated as friendly units for the resolution of psychic powers and special abilities.

point 2 is the closest of the three points to supporting your case, but then again: Permissive ruleset, they must specifically allow the friendly units from the allied detachment to benefit as friendly units from psychic powers and Special abilities or we lack that specific permission, and again these are examples/redundancies of what it means to be a friendly unit.



The point is that the third bullet point does not refference units at all so they must be referring to entities known as Battle Brothers which is defined in the begining of the paragraph as "Friendly units, and clarified by the allies matrix as those selection(again units when selected) from certain pairs of armies in the allies matrix.

No matter what you say a Battle brother is a Unit, and an IC ceases being a unit ofg his own while joined to another unit(he is a member of the joined unit for all rules purposes.)

Is the unit attempting to embark on the transport a "Battle Brother"? No, it is of the same unit even though it contains a model that was once a Battle Brother(until it joined and became a part of the unit joined for all rules purposes).

Rigeld: I am not sure if DR still has me on Ignore feel free to quote me.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
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.

So that's a HYWPI argument and not a RAW argument.
That's fair, but not relevant to the point I was making.

Not at all, as I have cited rules in my quotes.

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:" 112

The first sentence means the second sentence. they literally tell us what "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view." means.

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view." Means 'however not even BB's can not embark on allied transports' this.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
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.

So that's a HYWPI argument and not a RAW argument.
That's fair, but not relevant to the point I was making.

Not at all, as I have cited rules in my quotes.

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:" 112

The first sentence means the second sentence. they literally tell us what "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view." means.

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view." Means 'however noteven BB's can not embark on allied transports' this.

I bolded why I thought you were making a HYWPI argument - just so I'm not accused of putting words into peoples mouths.

I underlined exactly what I've been saying. Thank you for agreeing with me - Battle Brothers are friendly units that cannot embark on allied transports.
If you are no longer a unit you cannot be a friendly unit and therefore cannot be held to restrictions that apply to Battle Brothers.

Re-read what I wrote.

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

Means this:'however not even BB's can not embark on allied transports'

So BB's in general can not embark, unit or not nothing takes away the fact that they are a Battle Brother as per the level of alliance.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Re-read what I wrote.

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

Means this:'however not even BB's can not embark on allied transports'

So BB's in general can not embark, unit or not nothing takes away the fact that they are a Battle Brother as per the level of alliance.

BBs are defined as friendly units - which means that BBs (read: friendly units) cannot embark.

But BB's are not just friendly units, they are a level of alliance as well.

The bullet point references the latter by virtue of the wording [this], means [this]

 DeathReaper wrote:
But BB's are not just friendly units, they are a level of alliance as well.

Which means nothing without rules explaining what that means. And the rules explaining what that means only restrict units.

Rigeld; copy paste what I wrote

Except that the rules explaining what that means tells us that 'however not even BB's can not embark on allied transports'

No mention of unit at all.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except that the rules explaining what that means tells us that 'however not even BB's can not embark on allied transports'

No mention of unit at all.

... because that bullet point is preceded by the definition of BB being a friendly unit. You know - the way normal english works?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Rigeld; copy paste what I wrote

I'd rather not be accused of trying to get around the ignore feature and get pinged by a mod :-/ sorry.

If a IC bought wargear for himself and then joins a unit that cannot purchase said wargear hes not allowed to use it correct ? i mean for all purposes that unit doesn't have access to the wargear "for all rules purposes"

Depends on the rules for the warhead. Since most warhead enables the model to d things it'd work just fine.

You know, I'd SWEAR there was a whole other thread on this topic already....