Can a SW Rune Priest join a squad of 5tacs in a droppod?

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.

**liturgies of blood**

It doesn't say BB units...

Not even BB can embark... specific restriction vs general permission.

**Kommissar Kel**

liturgies of blood wrote:
It doesn't say BB units...

Not even BB can embark... specific restriction vs general permission.

The definition, in that very paragraph, of Battle Brothers is a friendly unit. Therefore BB are units.

**rigeld2**

liturgies of blood wrote:
It doesn't say BB units...

So it doesn't say the Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units?
Are you sure?
Like - really sure?

**liturgies of blood**

Kommissar Kel wrote:
liturgies of blood wrote:
It doesn't say BB units...

Not even BB can embark... specific restriction vs general permission.

The definition, in that very paragraph, of Battle Brothers is a friendly unit. Therefore BB are units.

Good job Kel. Unfortunately you're missing the pedantic tone, written word does limit the ability for that to come across. And IN THAT VERY PARAGRAPH it doesn't say "battlebrother units" only in the bullet points.

Rigeld see above.

**rigeld2**

liturgies of blood wrote:
Kommissar Kel wrote:
liturgies of blood wrote:
It doesn't say BB units...

Not even BB can embark... specific restriction vs general permission.

The definition, in that very paragraph, of Battle Brothers is a friendly unit. Therefore BB are units.

Good job Kel. Unfortunately you're missing the pedantic tone, written word does limit the ability for that to come across. And IN THAT VERY PARAGRAPH it doesn't say "battlebrother units" only in the bullet points.

Rigeld see above.

If BB are treated as friendly units and you cease to be a unit, can you possibly fit that definition any more?

**lord_blackfang**

Yet another case of people trying to make their own rules by misapplying definitions and using tangentially related rules from other parts of the rulebook to circumvent a very clearly spelled prohibition.

If GW wanted to make an exception for how allied ICs are treated, they would have put it under the allies rules and not hidden it 70 pages away for only particularly crafty players to (ab)use.

**rigeld2**

lord_blackfang wrote:
Yet another case of people trying to make their own rules by misapplying definitions and using tangentially related rules from other parts of the rulebook to circumvent a very clearly spelled prohibition.

Please cite where I've misapplied definitions. Or apologize - one way or the other.

If GW wanted to make an exception for how allied ICs are treated, they would have put it under the allies rules and not hidden it 70 pages away for only particularly crafty players to (ab)use.

Have I said this is likely intended? No - in fact I've said it likely isn't. Instead of throwing around hate in your ignorance fueled need to insult, perhaps pause and read the thread and learn what people are actually arguing.

I use the word "ignorance" here because you clearly have not read the entire thread or you would not come to the conclusions you did.

**fuusa**

One of the problems I see here, is that if you read "Battle brothers are treated as friendly units from all points of view" entirely literally, the bb's remain friendly units at all times, regardless of their actual in-game status.

Therefore, an ic in a unit, is still 2 units, which really is a clash with the normal ic rules (part of the unit for all rules purposes).

At that point, we can cite specific vs general.
Doesn't resolve anything though.

Imo, rigelds view is partially correct by RAW, but he is ignoring half of the sentence he's using as his primary argument and implementing rules from elsewhere that contradict and not resorting to specific vs. general.

The oppositions arguments seem to me to be RAI considerations that are not quite backed up in the rules, nearly but no.

As far as a solution is concerned (that is, house-rule), I think the best way to look at it is to accept that allies are bought as friendly "units" but in game that can change, however, a battle brother is a battle brother, unit or not.

In other words, they are "treated" as friendly units, except when they are not. Battle brothers they remain.

**rigeld2**

fuusa wrote:
One of the problems I see here, is that if you read "Battle brothers are treated as friendly units from all points of view" entirely literally, the bb's remain friendly units at all times, regardless of their actual in-game status.

Therefore, an ic in a unit, is still 2 units, which really is a clash with the normal ic rules (part of the unit for all rules purposes).

At that point, we can cite specific vs general.
Doesn't resolve anything though.

How does it not resolve anything? It "fixes" the exact issue you bring up, you're just hand-waving it away.

Imo, rigelds view is partially correct by RAW, but he is ignoring half of the sentence he's using as his primary argument and implementing rules from elsewhere that contradict and not resorting to specific vs. general.

Please, cite what I'm ignoring. You'd be the first in either thread. Also, cite the rules I'm implementing from elsewhere and not resorting to specific vs general. You've made some interesting statements without backing them up - please do so.

**fuusa**

rigeld2 wrote:
How does it not resolve anything? It "fixes" the exact issue you bring up, you're just hand-waving it away.

I'm not hand waving it away, more like avoiding it for the consequences that may arise.
Shooting, assaulting, difficult terrain, etc goes bendy if there are 2 units "in one".
]

Imo, rigelds view is partially correct by RAW, but he is ignoring half of the sentence he's using as his primary argument and implementing rules from elsewhere that contradict and not resorting to specific vs. general.

Please, cite what I'm ignoring. You'd be the first in either thread. Also, cite the rules I'm implementing from elsewhere and not resorting to specific vs general. You've made some interesting statements without backing them up - please do so.

**rigeld2**

fuusa wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
How does it not resolve anything? It "fixes" the exact issue you bring up, you're just hand-waving it away.

I'm not hand waving it away, more like avoiding it for the consequences that may arise.
Shooting, assaulting, difficult terrain, etc goes bendy if there are 2 units "in one".

Right - and I've asserted that *doesn't* happen. You've managed to confuse me here.

Imo, rigelds view is partially correct by RAW, but he is ignoring half of the sentence he's using as his primary argument and implementing rules from elsewhere that contradict and not resorting to specific vs. general.

Please, cite what I'm ignoring. You'd be the first in either thread. Also, cite the rules I'm implementing from elsewhere and not resorting to specific vs general. You've made some interesting statements without backing them up - please do so.

I have spelt it out, but very well ...

The crux of your argument is battle brothers are units, but when an ic joins a unit, it entirely "merges" with that unit, therefore it is no-longer a unit in of itself, therefore the ic no-longer fits the definition of "battle brother." That fair?

Close enough.

The sentence the idea emerges from is "Battle brothers are treated as "friendly units" from all points of view."
In other words, battle brothers are friendly units, no-matter how they are looked at = battle brothers are always friendly units.

Yes.

= an ic, in a unit = 2 units.
This contradicts with p39, where an ic is entirely a part of a unit, ic + unit = 1 unit.

What you are ignoring, is this contradiction sourced from the battle brothers rule and simply using the ic rules with only half the battle brothers rule being used.

No, once the IC joins the unit I'm using none of the Battle Brother rules because they don't apply.

I think its an unfortunate technicality, for example ...
An ic in a bb unit can embark upon its transport (according to you) because there is 1 unit.
But, if the ic is outside, it could not embark upon the transport if it is already occupied by its battle brothers, as it is still a unit and only units can embark.

And?

**Lord Magnus**

fuusa wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

I think its an unfortunate technicality, for example ...
An ic in a bb unit can embark upon its transport (according to you) because there is 1 unit.
But, if the ic is outside, it could not embark upon the transport if it is already occupied by its battle brothers, as it is still a unit and only units can embark.

Like I say, its a daft technicality.

BUT his point still stands, no one has ever stated within this thread that Games Workshop MEANT for ICs to ride in transports with units from an allied detachment. I do not believe it is on purpose or RAI, it is an inadvertent slip in rule writing by a company, similar to other rules, IT IS A LOOPHOLE. No one is saying that it is a good idea, no one is saying they intend to use it, no one is saying it is intentional or that it was designed to be a possibility, but I completely think that rigeld2 is right from a RAW standpoint. The allied unit status is lost, and therefore, BATTLE BROTHER, THOUGH PRESENT, CANNOT BE APPLIED. It is an unintentional temporary exemption that GW needs to FAQ, that is all. The example you have presented is a perfect image of how we know it was unintentional, because we see that the rule is so conditional and such a loophole to conventional rules. I STILL believe rigeld2 to be correct in his interpretation, people keep protesting, but until I see someone DISPROVE this, (which you specific versus general has come BY FAR the closest to doing, by the way, at least you sited real rules that contest.) I will continue to regard rigeld2 as correct.

EDIT: No idea why this is quotes, this is mine ^^^ sorry, not sure what I did wrong.

**JinxDragon**

Try throwing an extra /quote in square brackets after the quote to make sure it 'sticks?'

**fuusa**

rigeld2 wrote:
Right - and I've asserted that *doesn't* happen. You've managed to confuse me here.

I object to that, as you have to ignore part of the pertinent sentence to use other rules to try and justify ignoring half the sentence.
Its a circular argument.

Lord Magnus wrote:
I STILL believe rigeld2 to be correct in his interpretation, people keep protesting, but until I see someone DISPROVE this, (which you specific versus general has come BY FAR the closest to doing, by the way, at least you sited real rules that contest.) I will continue to regard rigeld2 as correct..

Don't get me wrong, he may well be correct, but the route he takes to his answer is most unsatisfactory, as is the result of what I put forward as RAW.
There is a contradiction here that gw should resolve, neither answer is "correct."
Imo, the best way to deal with this, is to understand exactly what the rules say, then house rule.

Lord Magnus wrote:
EDIT: No idea why this is quotes, this is mine ^^^ sorry, not sure what I did wrong.

Removing the rigeld quote [] should sort it.

**rigeld2**

fuusa wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Right - and I've asserted that *doesn't* happen. You've managed to confuse me here.

I object to that, as you have to ignore part of the pertinent sentence to use other rules to try and justify ignoring half the sentence.
Its a circular argument.

I'm not ignoring anything. You literally can't point to a rule I'm ignoring.

**fuusa**

I have done a number of times, but it seems you can't see the point.

**rigeld2**

fuusa wrote:
I have done a number of times, but it seems you can't see the point.

No. You haven't. You're saying that I'm ignoring "from all points of view". Please point out how it affects my argument. I was polite enough to respond to the entirety of your last post that summed up my argument, and you're simply repeating things that I've said are incorrect and not saying why.

Once the IC has joined the allied unit the BB rules cease to apply - all of them. Not a single one applies. Therefore, once he's joined the unit "from all points of view" means literally nothing.

**FlyerMM**

rigeld2 wrote:
fuusa wrote:
I have done a number of times, but it seems you can't see the point.

No. You haven't. You're saying that I'm ignoring "from all points of view". Please point out how it affects my argument. I was polite enough to respond to the entirety of your last post that summed up my argument, and you're simply repeating things that I've said are incorrect and not saying why.

Once the IC has joined the allied unit the BB rules cease to apply - all of them. Not a single one applies. Therefore, once he's joined the unit "from all points of view" means literally nothing.

if the IC ceases being a BB then he also ceases to be a Space Wolf and would not benefit from any SW specific rules. Since we know this is not the case, he is still an ally and therefor still a battle brother.

**rigeld2**

FlyerMM wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
fuusa wrote:
I have done a number of times, but it seems you can't see the point.

No. You haven't. You're saying that I'm ignoring "from all points of view". Please point out how it affects my argument. I was polite enough to respond to the entirety of your last post that summed up my argument, and you're simply repeating things that I've said are incorrect and not saying why.

Once the IC has joined the allied unit the BB rules cease to apply - all of them. Not a single one applies. Therefore, once he's joined the unit "from all points of view" means literally nothing.

if the IC ceases being a BB then he also ceases to be a Space Wolf and would not benefit from any SW specific rules. Since we know this is not the case, he is still an ally and therefor still a battle brother.

You're going to have to show some actual rules to back up that statement - I can't see any that would say that.

**TheKbob**

If it's not what you believe intended, why argue? Waste of time yet again on YMDC with another asinine argument. No, you cant. Simple, done.

And GW usually doesn't FAQ the facepalming simple stuff but when they do, it's with a hilariously complex question and a simple "No."

**rigeld2**

TheKbob wrote:
If it's not what you believe intended, why argue? Waste of time yet again on YMDC with another asinine argument. No, you cant. Simple, done.

Perhaps you're not familiar with the tenets of the forum?

And GW usually doesn't FAQ the facepalming simple stuff but when they do, it's with a hilariously complex question and a simple "No."

Except this is a simple question and answer.

**Neorealist**

Question: is there some problem with considering the runepriest it's own unit, 'and' a part of the ultramarine combat squad unit for all intents and purposes? Are they mutually exclusive for some reason?

**TheKbob**

I am very familiar. I have been pretty much dead on for everything that went for 14 pages (when it didn't have to because of asinine contrariness) for every FAQ in 6E.

By going on for so long, you dilute the argument that it turns into a himming and hawwing circle jerk that gets nothing done.

Take consensus, use a modicum of logic, and viola! Answer, close thread and wait for a FAQ. Arguing over half baked logic does no one else any favors. Period.

**rigeld2**

Neorealist wrote:
Question: is there some problem with considering the runepriest it's own unit, 'and' a part of the ultramarine combat squad unit for all intents and purposes? Are they mutually exclusive for some reason?

Yes. If he's still considered a unit he's able to be targeted by himself, without Look Out Sir!. It also causes issues with movement, shooting, etc.

Even if he's also considered part of the allied unit, these issues come up. Do regular members of a unit normally have 2 units they "call home"?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheKbob wrote:
I am very familiar. I have been pretty much dead on for everything that went for 14 pages (when it didn't have to because of asinine contrariness) for every FAQ in 6E.

By going on for so long, you dilute the argument that it turns into a himming and hawwing circle jerk that gets nothing done.

Take consensus, use a modicum of logic, and viola! Answer, close thread and wait for a FAQ. Arguing over half baked logic does no one else any favors. Period.

And you're failing to understand what YMDC is. Thanks for playing.

**Jefffar**

If, the RP becomes a member of the unit for all rules purposes, how come he is still worth a seperate kill point?

**Happyjew**

Because the rules specifically state that while the IC is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, he counts as a separate unit for reserve purposes, KPs, and VPs.

Notice how their is no mention of Battle Brothers.

**hyv3mynd**

We're literally on the same track as the original BB/transport thread that went 14 pages. With the same voices echoing the same stances as before.

There's no new rules, new FAQ's, or new precedents worth digging up all the same arguments.

Let the poll speak for itself. If you really want to pursue embarking battle brothers in allied transports, clear it with your TO or opponents. 92-8 is pretty decisive and the GT's I play in have ruled similarly.

**Happyjew**

My only armies are Eldar and Nids, so this is not something I would even be able to try doing. rigeld only plays Nids so he is in the same boat as I am. As it is I really could not care how any tournament rules it or how somebody wants to play it. Because it won't affect my armies.

**rigeld2**

Jefffar wrote:
If, the RP becomes a member of the unit for all rules purposes, how come he is still worth a seperate kill point?

VP are counted at the end of the battle, not during.
In addition the fact that the rules spell out they're worth separate VP.

**Neorealist**

rigeld2 wrote:In addition the fact that the rules spell out they're worth separate VP.

At the risk of sounding quite redundant at this point, the rules also say quite clearly that "...However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles..."
Your argument seemingly hinges on ignoring that fairly clear bit of rules-text above in favour of presuming that counting as part of the unit somehow overwrites it?